SteveR Loc: Michigan

Heavy? Try the 70-200 f2.8. The 24-70 is no problem at all.

Tronjo Loc: Canada, BC

I have D850 and both lenses. 24-120 VR is a good lens but as optics it can not compare to 24-70 VR. Also I recently made some statistics of my landscape and cityscape images which showed that less than 8% of all were taken with FL grater than 70mm. 24-70 VR has an exceptional sharpness uniformity across the field which makes it much better for night cityscapes and group shots. AF is also faster and I have a feeling that VR is better compare to 24-120.
There were some comparisons here with Tamron 24-70. With all due respect I cannot agree with the conclusions that Tamron is optically better, because it is not. Before buying I made an extensive tests of both lenses (granted these were on one sample each) at short distances and infinity. Here are my observations in short:
1. At all working distances the two lenses were either equally sharper or Nikon was sharper in the center;
2. At all working distances Nikon was significantly sharper at the edges;
3. Tamron had a strong focus breathing resulting in max FL of about 60mm at short (several meters) working distances;
4. On several occasions Tamron refused to engage the AF, I had to manually slightly turn the focus ring the make it work again;
5. Both lenses did not show any signs of decentered elements.

Please note, that I am not saying that Tamron is a bad lens, only that I don't agree that it is better than the new Nikon 24-70 VR. You may be happy with it.
You can find a direct comparison of Nikon, Tamron and Sigma 24-70 at https://www.cameralabs.com/best-nikon-general-purpose-lenses/
Hope I was was helpful.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

And the reason is --- ta ta, they don't exist. But boy did my eyes open when I saw the "topic" of this discussion!

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I have 3 versions of the 24-120. That's how much I like it. 24-70 may be a skosh better but the zoom range is too small and it's too expensive.

Tronjo Loc: Canada, BC

I also like the 24-120 (although not to the extend to have more than one copy ), but I would not agreed that 24-70 VR is a "skosh better". It is actually much better, particularly at the edges when wide open. To me 24-120 wide open edges seem significantly softer and with definitely more pronounced coma an any wavelengths. Of course the better performance comes at a price difference, which not everyone will justify
On the positive side though, 24-120 does not suffer from focus breathing like Tamron. If I have to choose between Tamron 24-70 and Nikon 24-120 I would go with Nikon. BTW, I am not "only Nikon" guy, I have some Sigma lenses and I am very happy with them.

Bullfrog Bill Loc: CT

Many reviews suggest that the 24-120 isn't a good match for the 850 due to its high resolution. The 24-70 is the professional standard. Look at the non VR version unless you do a lot of hand held, low light shooting. It is smaller and lighter.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

You will be hard pressed to see the difference between the IQ of these lenses up to and including a 20X30 print with the Nikon D850. If it was me, and it is not, and I was going to get one lens, I would go with the 24-120 f4 because this lens covers a greater number of focal lengths.
Both lenses are not lite weights. But I own both and either one will give you outstanding results. I shoot a lot of landscapes, I usually take two lenses with me, the Nikon 16-35 (use 85% of the time) and the 24-120 (about 15% of the time). Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

On a 46MP camera, you're going to want the very best, highest resolving lens you can get. Anything less would just keep the camera from producing it's best possible images and would be sort of a waste of it's capabilities.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

I don't doubt that the Nikon 24-70 VR has slightly better specs but it weighs 38.4 ounces and is priced at $2,400 while the Tamron 24-70 weighs in at 32.1 oz. and I paid $1,100 for it. Yes, the Tamron has stronger focus breathing but I would never use this lens at 60mm - I would use a prime 40mm or a 105 macro. I am closing in at 80 years old (wow, that is scary!!) and the Tamron is just fine for this old geezer.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

I also have the Nikon 16-35 and it is an excellent lens. It has that gold band out near the large end of the lens so it is one of Nikon's better lenses. I get really excellent images after processing my RAW (NEF) files with Lightroom. If I did not have this lens, I would be tempted to compare it with Tamron's 15-30 cousin before making a decision. I also have a Tamron 24-70 G2 series which I like very much. ~FiddleMaker

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Probably meant the Nikon 18-200mm.

jaf647

the 24-70 is a pro lens, the 24-120 is not, you can crop the d850 for the extra reach

get the 24-70, don't put walmart tires on a ferrari

Tronjo Loc: Canada, BC

I agree with all you say, but when comparing weights you should take into account the weight of the camera as well. Then you will see that you have 1.9 kg vs. 2.1 kg which is 10% roughly difference.
The price difference is definitely more important than the weight.
BTW, I am following you, but not far behind . As my wife use to say "We were young and beautiful, now we are only beautiful"

MrT Loc: Gilbert, AZ

I have a D800 and got a Tokina AT-X Pro 24-70 F2.8 FX Refurb from Tokina for $550.00. It is AMAZING. DXO has it tied with the Sigma 24-35 as the sharpest lens in the group. The reviews say it is soft at 24mm and F2.8 but I am not seeing it. The design looks Old, NO VR and the weight is 36 ounces. The photos are worth it.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

I notice that you joined UHH on October 7, 2017. I will turn 75 on this coming October 7, 2018. Scary !! And now I am OLD and UGLY.