Nikon Z 35mm 1.8S vs 24-120mm f/4S

Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S vs 24-120mm f/4S

Some of the links in this article are affiliate links. This means that if you click on them and make a purchase, I may earn a small commission at no additional cost to you. I only recommend equipment that I have personally used and tested.

Today was my Mum’s birthday ( I wont say her age or she will kill me) so I took her out for lunch at a lovely pub not so far from where I live. For those visiting Perthshire I can highly recommend the Smiddy Haugh (great food and service). I brought along the Z6III (full Nikon Z6III review here) and 85mm 1.8S (for more details see my Nikon 85mm 1.8S review) to get some memories. I chose the Z6III over the Z8 for its smaller size and weight as photography wasn’t the point of the outing but still, when you’re a photographer the camera always comes along.

I’ve shot the 85mm 1.8S in the Philippines and here in Scotland. I’ve always been impressed with its optical quality. Today was no different. But given that I own the 24-120mm f/4 (see my Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S review for more details) and most of my portraits these days are for family projects, is it really worth having an $800 lens in addition to the zoom or is the zoom good enough?

To test the lenses fairly, I set up my Z8 (which I reviewed in full here) on a tripod, found the minimum focusing distance of the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S and shot a test subject from wide-open to f/8. I then swapped lenses and mounted the 24-120mm f/4S and zoomed to 85mm and replicated the same process. I then shot the 24-120mm at its minimum focus distance to show the difference and I also shot both lenses wide-open from approximately 6 feet away to give an idea of the look you can get from typical portrait distances.

Size and Weight

The Nikon Z 85mm 1.8s is noticeably larger than both the Nikon Z 35mm 1.8S and 50mm 1.8S that have featured in the previous comparisons. The weight of 470 grams feels fine when shot on any of the Nikon Z bodies with a decent grip (see my roundup of the best Nikon Z cameras). It’s more the size that is noticeable in terms of its length. Nikon have opted for a lens that is longer and thinner than something like the Fuji 56mm 1.2WR for example. I have two thoughts on this, one is that I prefer a chunkier but shorter lens in terms of looks but the extra length of the 85mm 1.8S does give plenty of room for your left hand to support the lens from and space to manually focus comfortably if you wish (I never do). While the 24-120mm f/4S is hevaier at 630 grams and takes a larger 77mm filter compared to the 85mm’s 67mm filter ring, it doesn’t feel like it’s in an altogether different size and weight category. In my opinion, size and weight savings aren’t substantial enough to choose the prime over the zoom in this case. Both lenses feel well made, are weather sealed and focus quickly and accurately.

Image Quality

When both lenses are shot wide-open two things are apparent, one is that the depth of field of the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S at f/1.8 is very narrow and secondly, at f/4, the Nikon Z 24-120mm is sharper. Both lenses are more than sharp enough for any normal use.

When the 85mm 1.8S was stopped down to f/2.8 it sharpened up a little and the depth of field became more manageable, allowing for more of the subject to be in the critical plane of focus. Both lenses are now very comparable in terms of sharpness and when viewing the photos at full screen, both look pin sharp. When zooming in to 100% crops, the zoom still has a very slight edge in terms of sharpness.

At f/4 both lenses are essentially identical in terms of sharpness. Even zoomed in to 100% I cannot meaningfully tell the difference in terms of sharpness.

When stopped down from f/4 to f/5.6, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 at 85mm doesn’t really show any improvement in terms of sharpness. It’s already bitingly sharp at f/4.

After shooting these test shots at the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S’ minimum focusing distance of 80cm, I moved the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S in until I reached its minimum focus distance of a claimed 35cm. I then took a shot to show the difference between the two, which is not insignificant.

At this point I should note that there is a differrence between the marked 85mm position and what the camera states is 85mm on the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S. I found that I had to zoom in past the position marked as 85mm on the zoom lens in order to obtain what the camera and Lightroom reports as being 85mm focal length. Even with the additional zoom, at an indicated 85mm as shown in the Lightroom screenshots, the zoom shows a slightly wider field of view than the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S prime lens at this focus distance.

After these tests, I then paced out approximatley 6 feet from the subject and shot both lenses wide-open in order to give a more realistic real-world shooting distance and show the difference between f/1.8 and f/4.

At this distance, it is now the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S lens that is giving a slightly wider field of view. The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S is exhibiting some variable focus breathing which is depending upon the distance to subject.

When shooting close in to the subject, the f/4 aperture of the zoom lens gives decent subject separation, that for a lot of people will be more than enough to give their subjects enough pop to separate them from the background, once the distance to subject increases, as in the shot above, the background at f/4 becomes quite distracting. The larger aperture of the prime lens starts to show its advantage in scenarios like this. If you can’t control your background, distance to subject or you simply want the ability to use shallow depth of field creatively, the prime lens starts to show its value.

Verdict

If you shoot portraits, family photos creatively or value depth of field control highly, then yes, the prime lens is worth adding to your kit as it truly can create photos that stand out. It’s very sharp, has excellent bokeh and is in my opinion, the best portrait lens for most people, for the Nikon Z mount. Not to mention the low light benefits of f/1.8 vs f/4, which for portrait subjects where you usually need a minimum shutter speed of 1/160 or more can be critical.

But what if you own the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S, are a general photographer who shoots a bit of everything, including your children and family. Is it worth buying the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S too?

It really depends on how much value you put on those photos. For me personally, shots like the one above make it worth keeping the 85mm in my bag because in confined spaces, where I don’t have total freedom to move subjects, my position and the environment, it gives me the ability to capture moments and keep them looking special. Would I buy the prime again, now that I have the 24-120mm f/4S, probably not as it’s not a focal length I use that often so I would either work within the zooms constraints in terms of aperture or opt for a more flexible prime in the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S which can capture a wider variety of subjects and therefore represents a better value proposition. Let’s not forget that you can also zoom the 24-120mm f/4S in to 120mm which will naturally give you more subject separation if you have the distance to move back and still frame your shot as you want to. If i was shooting portraits for a living or as my main subject, then yes, the prime is absolutely worth it.

You can check out the latest price for the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S here.

You can see the latest price for the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S here.

In the first article, I ended up concluding that for general shooters, the Nikon Z 35mm 1.8S probably isn’t worth the expense as that focal length doesn’t really take advantage of a primes benefits in terms of depth of field. If you are interested in how the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S performs against the 24-120mm f/4S see my latest article in the series.

However in this second article, we are starting to get in to the type of focal length where depth of field naturally becomes more important. Often 50mm is recommended as the best first prime to start with as it gives a natural field of view that closely replicates the human eye, is much more flattering for portraits and allows you to focus on subjects with less context. All these types of shots are areas where depth of field control can be important.

I grew up in a time when primes were considerably better than zooms optically. I remember seeing the difference between Canon professional zooms such as the 17-40mm f/4L and primes like the Zeiss Otus line. However with Nikon in particular producing some incredibly sharp zooms in their Z lens lineup, does this still hold true or not?

This article contains affiliate links. If you use these links to buy something, I may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. I only recommend gear that I have personally owned and used extensively.

Methodology

Because I own both of these lenses, this comparison is based on thousands of frames shot in the real world. However, to provide a fair, head-to-head comparison, I headed to my local testing ground to conduct controlled tests.

For these, I mounted my Nikon Z8 to a tripod to ensure total consistency.

• Mid-Distance Sharpness: I shot my standard test scene with the Z 24-120mm f/4 set to an indicated 50mm, stepping through its aperture range from f/4 to f/8. I then swapped to the Z 50mm 1.8S, shooting from its wide-open aperture of f/1.8 through to f/8.
• Minimum Focus Distance: To evaluate close-range performance, I repeated the process at the minimum focusing distance for each lens, again ranging from wide-open to f/8.
• Portrait Distance & Depth of Field: Finally, to illustrate the practical difference in subject isolation, I shot both lenses at a common portrait distance of approximately 6 feet, with each lens set to its respective maximum aperture (f/1.8 for the prime and f/4 for the zoom).

Size and weight and Handling

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 is not a small lens. At 630 grams, it feels substantial and is well-matched to my Nikon Z8; it also handles well on my Z6III. On my Zf, however, it’s horrible. That said, it remains below the point where I feel the size and weight become a major factor. When mounted on the Z8, it balances well, doesn’t feel front-heavy, and I happily clip it onto my Peak Design Capture Clip when hiking. It features a telescopic zoom design that extends the barrel as you zoom, but even fully extended, it never feels unwieldy. It also uses a 77mm filter thread, a standard size that lets me use my existing filter kit.

The Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S is a different story. At 415 grams, it is lighter than the zoom, though it’s worth noting it is roughly 45 grams heavier than the 35mm 1.8S I tested previously. It is quite a substantial lens for a 50mm f/1.8; it is definitely not a “plastic fantastic” like the old Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 I bought many years ago. However, the performance is in a completely different league compared to those older lenses. While it’s not as compact as some legacy primes, it still feels relatively compact on Nikon bodies like the Z6III and Z8.

I won’t dwell on this too long, as it’s clear that you are paying a size and weight penalty in return for the flexibility of the zoom. Whether that trade-off suits your shooting style is subjective; neither lens is “too heavy” or “too small,” they are simply designed for different priorities.

Image Quality

The first thing to note is that unlike in the 35mm comparison, the Zoom at 50mm and the prime give effecteviely the same field of view.

At 50mm, the shallower depth of field of the 50mm 1.8S is quite noticeable, giving a much smoother background which I find less distracting. There is some noticeable vignetting at 1.8 on the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S. It’s easily corrected in Lightroom with the use of lens profiles though.

When I look at the images side-by-side in Lightroom’s comparison tool, without zooming in, both look very sharp, with good contrast.

Once I zoom in to 100% , both lenses give sharp crisp details with a slight edge going to the zoom at f/4 over the prime at f/1.8.

Once the 50mm 1.8S is stopped down to f/4 to match the zoom, it becomes slightly sharper than the 24-120mm f/4. It’s not a night and day difference though. For normal use, I’d honestly say the difference is essentially irrelvant.

Once both lenses are stopped down to f/5.6, I struggle to see any meaningful difference, even when zooming in to 200% in Lightroom.

When I have to zoom in to a 200% crop to be sure of the differences, it shows just how close in performance the two lenses are in terms of sharpness in the centre of the frame.

At f/5.6 the extreme edge, performance from both the 24-120mm f/4 and 50mm 1.8s is essentially identical. So for landscapes and general use, I really see little difference between them in terms of pure sharpness.

It’s the same story when both lenses are stopped down to f/8 and beyond so I wont bore you with further examples at those apertures.

Next up I wanted to test how each lens at minimum focus distances. Nikon quotes the 24-120mm as having a 35cm minimum focus distance compared to the 40cm of the NIkon Z 50mm 1.8S. So to compare, I shot both lenses at the closest focusing distance I could obtain with the prime lens, from wide open to f/8.

At this point I want to note that Lightroom is telling me I hit exactly 50mm on the zoom lens this time and it does result in a marginally tighter field of view than the 50mm 1.8S prime, due to focus breathing in the 24-120mm f/4S as it focuses closer.

When shot wide open, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4s is slightly sharper than the 50mm 1.8S. The differences are tiny but can be seen once you crop in 100% on the images.

In my opinion the difference in subject separation and background blur is fairly significant. The background blur on the 50mm 1.8s lens is significantly smoother and less distracting. The definitiion of the highlights in the background on the 24-120mm f/4s image are distracting. However, subject placment, distance between the background and subject will all have a major effect on this and to be quite honest, the background on the 24-120mm image is already out of focus to a degree where it is already sperating the subject well. Just how out of focus do I need my backgrounds is the question I’m asking here.

I then took a test shot with the 24-120mm f/4 at its minimum focus distance to show how it affects things.

The comparison above shows that the zooms closer minimum focus distance makes quite a difference and a side-effect of this is that it pushes the background more out of focus compared to the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S.

Finally, I took shots with both lenses wide-open at their respective apertures from a distance of 6 feet to show the difference in subject separation and bokeh from a fairly standard shooting distance.

The larger aperture of the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S shows much more subject separation at f/1.8 than the f/4 of the zoom.

Verdict

Honestly, as I’m writing this I am really torn on the value of the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S lens if you already own the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4. For landscapes and general shooting, the zooms flexibility combined with excellent sharpness are basically a no brainer. I’m genuinely surprised that the 50mm 1.8S didn’t easily beat the 24-120mm f/4 in terms of sharpness. If you’re simply looking for better image quality than the Zoom, in the real world, where we aren’t pixel peeping, I just cannot recommend spending the money on the prime lens if you aleady own the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4.

Is there still a case for owning the prime? Absolutely, but it has little to do with sharpness any more. Nikon with their Z line, seem to have really closed the gap that used to exist between primes and zooms. The conventional wisdom that primes are significantly better optically than zooms, no longer seems to hold up. So what’s the point in the prime? Well beyond the ability of teaching you to see in a certain way, which I’ve talked about many times before, and giving creative constraints which can help your photography improve, I was genuinely struggling to justify the prime lens.

The saving grace is the last test image showing shots at a fairly standard portrait distance. The prime is not a little better here, it is orders of magnitude better if you really need the ability to isolate subjects and throw backgrounds out of focus. Not just that, but it allows greater depth of field control which can be used as a way to guide viewers around a photo.

But these are either quite advanced or quite niche use cases and so, even though the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S is one of my favourite Nikon Z lenses, and the one where I thought the primes would start to justify themselves more, I have to conclude by saying that if you own the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4s lens, are a general photographer rather than a specialist, then unless you absolutely want that f/1.8 aperture, to isolate subjects, or you simply prefer working with primes, then it’s simply not worth spending the money on the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S.

You can see the latest price for the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S here.

You can see the latest price for the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S here.

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 isn’t quite in the same category in terms of how it is viewed. It’s not Nikon’s premium zoom option but it is a really good one that covers an incredibly useful focal range. So the question here isn’t whether the zoom is as good as the primes, it’s not, but whether it’s worth buying the primes for those of us who own the 24-120mm. How much better is sharpness, how much difference does f/1.8 make vs f/4 actually make, and are there other benefits that make it worth spending the money to add primes to your kit. You can see how the zoom compares against the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S here and against the Nikon Z 85mm 1.8S here.

I purchased all the lenses mentioned in this article with my own money. Some of the links in this post are affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you decide to buy through them.

I’ve been shooting the 24-120mm f4 for months, I’ve owned the 1.8S primes for well over a year. I bought the primes while I was still living in the Philippines and used them for candid travel photography , family photos and some street photography. I’ve reviewed them all individually. In my collection I own the 20mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses. I also own the 14-30mm f/4 and 24-120mm f/4. I previously owned the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 (the original one) and found it to be an exceptional lens but sold it a couple of years back as I felt it sat in the middle ground between the more practical 24-120mm with its really useful focal range and the primes with their ability to isolate subjects and shoot in low light.

Now that I’ve been living on the edge of the Scottish Highlands for nearly 6 months, I’ve found myself appreciating good zoom lenses more than in recent years. So the aim of this series of articles is to see whether I would buy the primes again, if I had to start over and more importantly, whether it’s worth it for most people.

Size and weight

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 is not a small lens at 630 grams, it feels substantial, and really well matched to my Nikon Z8, it also handles well on my Z6III, on my Zf, it’s horrible. However, it is below the point where I feel the size and weight become a major factor. When it’s mounted on the Z8, it balances well, doesn’t feel front heavy and I happily clip it on to my Peak Design Capture Clip when hiking. It has a telescopic zoom design which extends the barrel as you zoom through the focal ranges but even fully extended, it never feels unweildy.

It has a 77mm filter size which is pretty common and allows me to use my existing filters.

The 35mm 1.8S lens on the other hand feels compact, considerably smaller and lighter than the zoom at 370 grams and in general is in a different ballpark altogether in terms of handling. However, both feel equally well made, being S line lenses.

I’m not going to add much to this as it’s pretty obvious that you’re paying a size and weight penalty in return for the flexibility of the zoom. Whether it suits your shooting style and priorities is very subjective but neither is too heavy nor too small, theyre just obviously different.

Methodology

To test the lenses I’ve looked through my Lightroom catalogue at the various shots I’ve taken with each lens over the last year as well as shot some test images for more technical comparisons. The test shots were taken on my Nikon Z8, on a solid tripod (Leofoto Summit LM-364C). I started by focusing the 24-120mm as close as I could to the test subject, then shooting images through the aperture range. I then replicated this with the 35mm lens at the same distance before testing the prime at it’s minimum focus distance. Finally, I shot them both from approximately 6 feet away from the subject in order to see whether this affected sharpness and also to show an actual example of the difference that f/1.8 vs f/4 makes in terms of subject isolation and bokeh at a mid-range focusing distance.

Image Quality

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S lens is a sharp zoom, even wide-open at f/4, its decently sharp. Stopping down to f/5.6 it gets sharper still where I’d call it excellent, not quite on the level of the f/2.8 pro zoom but still more than good enough for everything from posting online to prints. At f/5.6 there is more detail and contrast. Viewed at 100% in Lightroom, the differences are quite obvious. At normal viewing distances on anything less than an A2 sized print and I doubt most people would be able to tell.

What surprised me somewhat is that the 35mm 1.8S is noticeably sharper at f/1.8 than the 24-120mm f/4 is at f/4. Unlike the Fuji comparisons I recently wrote, there is a noticeable difference in centre sharpness between the zoom and the prime lens. I also noticed that even though I didn’t get the Zoom bang on 35mm (it was 33.5mm), the prime is giving a wider field of view. I double checked this and confirmed it was the case.

Once the 35mm 1.8S lens is stopped down to f/4, it sharpens up even more and increases the gap between itself and the 24-120mm lens. The prime is substantially sharper at f/4 than the zoom, showing a lot more detail and contrast.

Once the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 is stopped down to f/5.6 it sharpens up and closes the gap to the prime. At f/5.6 sharpness is excellent for the zoom and pin sharp with the prime. In my personal opinion, once we are at these levels of sharpness, which one wins almost becomes irrelevant as they’re both sharp enough to look great on screen or in print.

Nikon quotes the 24-120mm as having a minimum focus distance of 35cm compared with 25cm on the 35mm 1.8S. 10cm doesn’t sound much on paper and it’s hard to visualise the difference by looking at the numbers alone, so here is a comaprison of them both shot wide-open at their respective minimum focus distances.

I think the difference, when you actually see it in a shot is much more dramatic than the numbers would suggest. The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S, at roughly 35mm focal length simply will not focus as closely as the 35mm 1.8S. This has a profound effect, combined with the larger aperture of the prime on it’s ability to thow backgrounds out of focus in a way that the zoom cannot get anywhere near. I would note that the zoom is considered to have an impressive minimum focus distance, and of course you can zoom in further to throw the background out of focus more, if of course, you are able to step back and shoot from further away.

This kind of test is useful but how often do you shoot at such close distances? I can’t think of many times in the last 20 years that I’ve done this. So to see what f/1.8 vs f/4 looks like in a more likely scenario, I moved the tripod back to 6 feet away from the subject and shot both lenses wide open to give a more realistic idea of the difference.

Judge for yourself, but the 35mm 1.8S is able to isolate the subject and throw the background more out of focus than the 24-120mm. That was always going to be the case but at this kind of mid-range shooting distance, I’m actually a little underwhelmed with the difference between the two. Yes the prime looks better but I still wouldn’t exactly call it a blown out or creamy background. My thoughts on this are that it shows that the distance to subject and between the subject and background, would have more effect on the ability to blur backgrounds than simply going from f/4 to f/1.8.

Verdict

These two lenses are designed for completely different roles, but where they overlap, the prime is clearly better in terms of shrapness, ability to islolate subjects and of course, will perform better in low light. That was always going to be the case, but how much sharper it is was the real take-away from my testing. However, if you shoot landscapes, general photography, travel, then in this focal range, if you already own the zoom, I don’t see the case for saying the prime lens is worth it. Stopped down to f/5.6, the zoom is already showing excellent sharpness. 35mm is a storytelling focal length where often, we want all of the scene to be in focus so the brighter aperture isn’t as much of a benefit as it may be at longer focal lengths. And, of course, you can always shoot the zoom at a longer focal length in order to give more background separation if you want to. For landscapes, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 is already good enough if like me, you usually stop down to f/8 and beyond. In this particular comparison, the prime simply doesn’t offer enough of an advantage in every day shooting scenarios to justify the additional cost.

See the latest pricing for the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S

However, if you are a prime shooter, value all the things that primes offer, then the 35mm 1.8S is incredibly sharp, nice and compact, well built and can create photos that are not possible with a zoom. I really enjoy mine, particularly when I was shooting travel photography abroad but for most people, who own the zoom, I’d say save your money and consider a different focal length, if you are looking to compliment your zoom with a prime.

So would I buy the prime again now that I own the zoom? Well yes I would, but that’s because of my particular style of shooting, where I often prefer to slow down, simplify and shooting with prime lenses allows me to do that. 35mm also happens to be one of my favourite focal lengths.

See the latest pricing for the Nikon Z 35mm 1.8S.