Interesting test, thanks! I realize such lenses are not the sexiest or most exciting, or exotic to test, but these are the everyday workhorses, so I really appreciate such test.
The results mirror my own findings, which I honestly didn’t expect. For me I’d been looking for the best available 24-105 f/4.0 lens between Nikon, Sony, Canon and Fuji (16-80mm, so 25,6-128mm), for a one size fits all, travel lens, as I want to slim down my gear, as I’m often on my bike or with a backpack for shooting. It’s haven’t found any online test or articles comparing mid-range zooms across platforms, a pity?
So far the Nikon 24-120mm lens is an absolute rock star! Plus the close focus range and 120mm at the far end is a nice bump! It’s scary sharp, and as you noted from f/4.0 on! There is seemingly little to be gained from stopping down for the most part, save for a stop at 24mm(?).
It’s at least equal or above in vignetting, sharpness, chromatic aberration, lens flare, sun stars, against all the competitors and brought me back to Nikon after 22 years. Yes it relies on correction, but based on the data, less so than others in its class? In my opinion for an f/4.0 lens in the medium zoom range, it simply has zero peers.
I only have two issues with the lens: 1) it seems not quite as rugged with its plastic barrel, so we’ll just have to trust it. That is more of a me issue however. 2) size and weight: it’s big! I’d like it to be smaller and lighter weight still, but I’m not sure how much more that could be reduced without compromising on performance? It’s still lighter than the Canan and Sony 24-105mm f4.0. (Although the recent 24-70 and 70-200mm f2.8 version 2.0 lens show there is room for improvement, but at what cost??)
I’m curious why this gets essentially the same score as say the Canon RF 24-105 f/4.0 when the Nikon is significantly superior, especially given what it’s doing?
