I agree completely.
Review 24-200 Z review
- Thread starter Randy
- Start date
For some of us there is "good enough."
I have both pro and non-pro lenses.
When I want optimal quality, I will pull out the pro lens.
But other times, like for travel, I want light and small, and I am willing to compromise on IQ to get that.
And as I get older and my back hurts more, I am more willing to compromise to get the kit weight down.
I have both pro and non-pro lenses.
When I want optimal quality, I will pull out the pro lens.
But other times, like for travel, I want light and small, and I am willing to compromise on IQ to get that.
And as I get older and my back hurts more, I am more willing to compromise to get the kit weight down.
Amen to that!! Have to protect these aching backs!!
I'm trying to push off the day when I have to only use a small P&S or phone camera.
Me too!
Yes, but 'goog enough' is not the same for everybody. Depending on shooting preference, one might like a 18-200 DX range or even a 24-105 FX.
But for me, that later would mean:
- always at 105 and still cropping for tele work - so just pass on the shot, unless you have a tele prime with you that really is not light.
- 24mm to 35mm good - but not as good as a lens that doesn't cover the extra range from 35-105
- unhappy at lower light or open lens because of f4
- not the best tele at 70-100 mm, and f4, for portraiture
I could live with a 24-105. But I would give the smartphone a try, accompanied by just a 50/1.8 on a Z 50.
But for me, that later would mean:
- always at 105 and still cropping for tele work - so just pass on the shot, unless you have a tele prime with you that really is not light.
- 24mm to 35mm good - but not as good as a lens that doesn't cover the extra range from 35-105
- unhappy at lower light or open lens because of f4
- not the best tele at 70-100 mm, and f4, for portraiture
I could live with a 24-105. But I would give the smartphone a try, accompanied by just a 50/1.8 on a Z 50.
I can't leave great gear at home for convivence if it's a photography trip. If it's a family trip my new cell phone gets most of the action but I hope to add the z6 + 24-105. The only exception to that is the 500pf which is so close to the 500e and weighs so much less it has been my favorite lens.
When high school football starts again it will be the 400e since there is no alternative at 2.8
When high school football starts again it will be the 400e since there is no alternative at 2.8
So I am lucky to be able to bring the great gear to the family trip 
All I wanted to say: for me, a D7xxx + 18-105, yet alone 18-200, later D850 + 24-120, just never felt apealing.
The documentary wider angles in good light: phone
The long glass wildlife shot: wrong gear anyway
The portrait: 50/1.4 on crop, 85mm on FF.
But I fully understand people photographing differently and bringing home tons of beautiful shots with their one lens setup. I just don't see that way myself.
Randy: 400e is 400e
All I wanted to say: for me, a D7xxx + 18-105, yet alone 18-200, later D850 + 24-120, just never felt apealing.
The documentary wider angles in good light: phone
The long glass wildlife shot: wrong gear anyway
The portrait: 50/1.4 on crop, 85mm on FF.
But I fully understand people photographing differently and bringing home tons of beautiful shots with their one lens setup. I just don't see that way myself.
Randy: 400e is 400e
I think the latest generation of "super zooms" are different to older designs in that they are optically excellent. The Olympus 12-100 for example is an absolutely excellent lens in every way - sharp, contrasty, good distortion control, in-lens IS - and as good at 12mm as at 100mm (and every focal length in between). For landscape use, its modest aperture is not an impediment at all. From what I've seen, the 24-200 is in a similar league.
Carrying a single lens like this when seeking out landscape opportunities is so much better than carting around a 24-70 + a 24-200 (esp since there's no f4 70-200 on the cards).
If I were shooting people, architecture, street etc, then it would not be suitable at all - horses for courses.
Last edited:
IQ may have improved on these new zooms but a variable aperture doesn't work for me......
If the 24-104 is an f/4 lens I'm in
If the 24-104 is an f/4 lens I'm in
My local shop can't get any 24-200s. I would not expect to see any 24-105s in the wild until late 2021 given the current circumstances.
Given the "S" designation and size depicted on the map I would expect it to be. Looking at the map there is really only one lens I see missing (other than the f/1.2-1.4 primes and 300mm plus telephotos).
A small (collapsible) 70-200 f/4. Adding that lens would give Nikon 3 compelling trios.
14-24 f/2.8 + 24-70 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8
14-30 f/4 + 24-105 f/4 + 100-400 (probably viable 4.5-5.6 or 6.3?)
14-30 f/4 + 24-70 f/4 + 70-200 f/4
Sony actually has these 3 options. Olympus had lenses on their roadmap that would have created the 3 trios as well.
I'm surprised Tamron or Sigma haven't opted to backwards engineer the Z and RF mount? Tamron might have some exclusive deal going on since their partially owned by Sony and Sigma's alliance to the L-mount maybe has them on some sort of deal as well. Samyang has already released two RF lenses, though they haven't done anything for the Z mount.Given the "S" designation and size depicted on the map I would expect it to be. Looking at the map there is really only one lens I see missing (other than the f/1.2-1.4 primes and 300mm plus telephotos).
A small (collapsible) 70-200 f/4. Adding that lens would give Nikon 3 compelling trios.
14-24 f/2.8 + 24-70 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8
14-30 f/4 + 24-105 f/4 + 100-400 (probably viable 4.5-5.6 or 6.3?)
14-30 f/4 + 24-70 f/4 + 70-200 f/4
Sony actually has these 3 options. Olympus had lenses on their roadmap that would have created the 3 trios as well.
Reverse engineering is always problematic (hence the infamous docks). I used to lust after the Sigma 135 which looked to me to have the most amazing bokeh. My suspicion is that they are hesitant to invest in the reverse engineering work/ testing/ and manufacturing until they see sufficient numbers of Z bodies out there to support some reasonable sales. That plus the market conditions . . .
They are impossible to get in the UK.
The only reason I mention 3rd party is that Tamron and Sigma have been knocking out some really good mirrorless lenses right now. Tamron has their zoom line-up and Sigma has been resizing their mirrorless line while maintaining very good quality.
i'd rather use the adaptor and a 'g' lens then a 3rd party lens
Each to his own. But I'm in your boat here ...
I’m currently adapting a few Tamron lenses 17-35/2.8-4 and the 70-200/2.8 G2) and have been more than satisfied.
now that I know that they are intending to do native Z mount to a bunch of their lenses, I’m hoping their superb 28-200/2.8-5.6 is on the short list. By all accounts I’ve seen on it and the Sony mount, it very well may outperform the Nikon 24-200 in corner sharpness.
It appears to be the 24-200 equal in all other areas, plus it is faster aperture and about $150 less expensive at new prices.
I’ve had such good experience with Tamron over the years, I cannot discount them.
now that I know that they are intending to do native Z mount to a bunch of their lenses, I’m hoping their superb 28-200/2.8-5.6 is on the short list. By all accounts I’ve seen on it and the Sony mount, it very well may outperform the Nikon 24-200 in corner sharpness.
It appears to be the 24-200 equal in all other areas, plus it is faster aperture and about $150 less expensive at new prices.
I’ve had such good experience with Tamron over the years, I cannot discount them.
I think I'd still go for the 24-200 even if the Tamron 28-200 were available - simply because 24 != 28 !
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/twemojiCopyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
