24-200 Z review

NCV

Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
263
Location
Italy
Real Name
Nigel
Looking good, I want this lens as an all in one hiking lens. Looks like I must start saving.

I decided that the Z7 with this lens was a better bet for a one lens hiking set up rather than sticking with M43 with a 12-100 lens. The weight is about the same.
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,051
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
I'm not too impressed with the aperture range on that lens. All the way up to f6.3 does not seem like a stellar design.
it's never going to make pics like the 105/1.4 but for what it's supposed to do and at 1.2lbs I'm interested....I would have rather it been a 24-120/4 but I need something native for my new z6
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,051
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
there needs to be more walkin around choices but I guess you all knew that. I'm used to 24-120 (and 16-80dx) and I suspect that's a very popular range so maybe eventually.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
22,458
Location
SW Virginia
Could be a very useful travel lens. I wonder how he got one so early.

Comparative weights:

24-70 f/4 S 500 gm

24-200 f/4-6.3 570 gm

50mm f/1.8 S 415 gm

So it's really not that much heavier.

I was an early adapter of the 18-200 DX superzoom. My wife still uses that on her D5500. But I became disenchanted with the image quality several years ago.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,350
Location
Los Angeles, USA
f/6.3 is the new f/5.6 for slow variable aperture lenses. I think the trade off is better long end/corner sharpness and the ability to make the lenses more compact. Plus all the people coming from APS-C, M43, smartphones won't see much of a difference! :D
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
157
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Real Name
Paul
The equiv m43 lens is the 12-100 f4. That's actually a stellar lens - stunningly sharp, great colours and contrast, amazing IS, weather sealed, ... However, in equiv terms (DOF and ISO), it's an f8 - so even at f6.3 the 24-200 is a decent offering.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
552
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I'm not too impressed with the aperture range on that lens. All the way up to f6.3 does not seem like a stellar design.
Like many/most slow consumer/non-pro grade lenses, it is a day-time lens.
In the sun, it should work fine.
Indoors and under lights, where you need a FAST lens, it will be BAD.

I think for lightweight travel, it will be just fine, when paired with a 35 or 50/1.8 for indoor low light.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
15,968
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
Indoors and under lights, where you need a FAST lens, it will be BAD.
I realize that adjectives such as bad and fast are relative, but I really don't think it would be all that bad. The reason is that you can pump up the ISO. It's fascinating for me to see all the raves about how effective the high-ISO performance is these days, yet it so often tends to be ignored for the people who feel they require a lens that is one to two stops faster. I rarely shoot in low-light situations without a tripod, so maybe my lack of experience with low-light handheld situations is showing.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
552
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I realize that adjectives such as bad and fast are relative, but I really don't think it would be all that bad. The reason is that you can pump up the ISO. It's fascinating for me to see all the raves about how effective the high-ISO performance is these days, yet it so often tends to be ignored for the people who feel they require a lens that is one to two stops faster. I rarely shoot in low-light situations without a tripod, so maybe my lack of experience with low-light handheld situations is showing.
Point taken.
I shoot gym and outdoor night high school sports.
So I need to get my shutter speed up to about 1/500 but better to be up at 1/1000 sec.
For volleyball, I need to be up at 1/1000 sec. And even that is not fast enough to catch a spike.

I shot with my 18-140/3.5-5.6 on a D7200, and I had to shoot at ISO 12800.
It was OK, if you did not look hard or kept the print size small. Yearbook photos are kinda small.
On the outdoor games, the high ISO noise was "usually" not visible.
But in the gym, the high ISO noise was more visible against the white walls. Some were really bad :(

The 2nd year, I switched to a 35 and 50/1.8 for the gym, so that I could shoot at ISO 3200.
That reduced the high ISO noise, and I could use a faster shutter speed.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
552
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I never think of lightweight travel. I've always taken the same lenses with me for travel as for all other times. I've been very fortunate that weight has not been an issue for me.
Lucky stiff.
You are still young and in good physical condition.

I on the other hand (sr. citizen with physical injuries), had to make two separate sets of gear, cuz I cannot carry the kit load that I used to carry with ease.
  • A light set, using non-pro lenses, for travel or when I want/need light weight.
  • A heavier/pro set, when at home or near my car.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom