Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
Note that you may use our state-of-the-art calculator above to obtain the quotient of any two integers or whole numbers, including 120 and 4, of course.
If there’s one redeeming quality for the F-mount 24-120mm f/4G in this test, it’s that it sharpens up pretty well by f/8. At that aperture (as well as f/11 and f/16), the two lenses are at least in the same ballpark of performance from 24mm to 70mm. Even at f/8, though, the Z 24-120mm f/4 S still has a clear advantage at the longer focal lengths, especially in the corners. There are a number of other midrange lenses worth comparing against the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S – after all, Nikon has a lot of midrange lenses. Below, I’ve compared the 24-120mm f/4 S against one Nikon F-mount zoom, three Nikon Z zooms, and one Nikon Z prime. Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S vs Nikon F 24-120mm f/4GI’ve heard the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S described as “the same as the Z 24-70mm f/4 S, just with more reach.” They’re certainly two of the more similar Nikon Z zooms so far. But does that description hold true in terms of sharpness? I’ll start with the lens’s predecessor – the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR for DSLRs. Both lenses share the same focal length range and constant f/4 maximum aperture, but the mirrorless lens has a more complex design that takes advantage of the Z lens mount’s short flange distance and large diameter. Note that at 50mm and beyond, the 24-200mm’s maximum aperture becomes f/5.6 to f/6.3. Make sure that you compare the proper parts of the two graphs against each another. With that in mind, sharpness isn’t bad on either lens at 50mm, although the 24-120mm has the advantage in the corners and midframe.
If you’re considering the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S because of its longer reach than a basic 24-70mm zoom, you may also have your eye on the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR. Even though the latter is a superzoom, it’s surprisingly sharp – but does it hold a candle to the 24-120mm f/4 S?I didn’t expect the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S to beat the best-performing midrange zoom we’ve ever tested… and it doesn’t. The biggest difference is in corner performance, where the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S outperforms the 24-120mm f/4 S at every focal length except 70mm (and simply smokes it at 24mm and 35mm). Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(4) Sharp.--Better, sharpened, whetted, as if for a purpose. In the shared aperture range, it’s no contest. The 24-120mm f/4 S’s abnormally sharp midframe holds up surprisingly well, but in both the center and corners, the 50mm wins hands-down. Even at f/11, corner sharpness favors the 50mm f/1.8 S by a meaningful amount. Only by f/16 does their performance roughly equalize. The story here clearly favors the Z 24-120mm f/4 S, although it also depends upon the focal length that you’re considering. We can find the pair factors of a number 120, by multiplying two numbers in a pair to get the original number. The pair factors of 120 can be positive or negative. The following are the positive and negative pair factors of 120. Positive Factors of 120
Finally, at 70mm, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S looks a good bit better than the 24-70mm f/4 S. That’s because this is the weakest focal length for the 24-70mm f/4 S, whereas, like I mentioned earlier, the 24-120mm f/4 S is extremely consistent in sharpness at every focal length. At 50mm, the story changes a bit. Here, the two lenses are well-matched in center sharpness at 50mm. If anything, the 24-70mm has a slight advantage in that respect. But the 24-70mm f/4 S’s corner sharpness has dipped a bit at this focal length, giving the Z 24-120mm f/4 S a clear advantage at f/4 in the corners. By f/5.6, the differences even out.
Conclusion
How does the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S compare against the highest-end Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S? This time, it certainly faces a tougher challenge. At 24mm, the 24-120mm f/4 S clearly wins at f/4, especially in the midframe. Stopping down to f/5.6 makes things closer, and by f/8, the two lenses have essentially the same sharpness. Multiply the divisor by the result in the previous step (4 x 0 = 0) and write that answer below the dividend. Note that for each chart in the comparison below, I’ve shown the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S first and the Nikon F 24-120mm f/4G second. I’ve also summarized the performance at the end of the charts. At 35mm, things actually favor the 24-200mm f/4-6.3! Well, at least in the corners. Central and midframe sharpness are still higher on the 24-120mm f/4 S. However, 35mm is one of the strongest focal lengths on the 24-200mm f/4-6.3, and the two lenses start to diverge before long.
None of this is a surprise, although hopefully it’s useful for a point of context! The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is sharp, but it’s certainly not at the level of a top prime. NIKON Z 7_2 + NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S @ 52mm, ISO 64, 1/320, f/5.6 Conclusion On balance, I’d give a slight overall sharpness advantage to the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S. But it depends on what focal lengths and apertures you use the most. If you’re an f/8 to f/16 landscape photographer, for example, the results slightly favor the 24-70mm f/4 S. NIKON Z 7 + NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S @ 120mm, ISO 64, 1/60, f/7.1 Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S vs Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR Give it a try now with a similar division by 4. What is the Quotient and Remainder of 120 Divided by 4? Here we provide you with the result of the division with remainder, also known as Euclidean division, including the terms in a nutshell:Subtract the result in the previous step from the number written above it. (0 - 0 = 0) and write the answer at the bottom. Make sure that when you compare the charts below, you compare f/4 to f/4, f/5.6 to f/5.6, and so on – because the 24-70mm f/2.8 S has an extra set of columns at the left for f/2.8.
Great Deal 
New Comment