Review 24-200 Z review

[Jonathan F/2]

I think I'd still go for the 24-200 even if the Tamron 28-200 were available - simply because 24 != 28 !

I would of said the same thing a few years ago, but Samyang makes an excellent 18mm 2.8 AF lens that's no bigger than a Nikon 50mm 1.8 G lens. It makes a perfect companion to the 28-200mm. Those two lenses can cover a huge range for me with my Sony A9. I also have the excellent and compact Samyang 45mm 1.8 which gives me a very powerful 3 lens travel kit. Saying that, I still adore my Nikon brand F-mount lenses. I have an FT-Z adapter and I'm waiting to see how Z camera body prices look at the end of the year.

 

[Clix Pix]

i'd rather use the adaptor and a 'g' lens then a 3rd party lens

I'm a big fan of native lenses. I don't like adapters and I don't like third-party lenses. My theory is that the camera manufacturers specifically design and offer lenses that will work particularly well with the camera bodies of that same company, and I just trust this more than I do sticking on something that has been reverse-engineered.

Davidzvi wrote:

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

I'm joining in on the discussion because the various options in focal lengths and such interest me, although I'm not shooting Nikon now. I have the Sony 100-400mm and its range is f/4.5-5.6; it's an excellent lens, great and versatile range for walking around if one is hoping to snag a few shots of local wildlife.

I'm still mulling over how I want to approach the wider end of the spectrum, since as of right now my widest lens is 24mm, and that is on the RX10, which is a "bridge" / "superzoom" camera. My actual interchangeable widest lens (for the A7R IV) is the 35mm f/1.8. I'm torn between going a bit wider with that second combo mentioned, the 14-30 and 24-105 along with the 100-400mm, or going with the excellent 16mm-35mm f/2.8, which would take me to 35mm without any gaps. I have 50mm, 85mm, 90mm and 135mm primes. I tend to shoot mostly at the longer end of everything, but there ARE times when a wide lens really is needed.

 

[Butlerkid]

I've been shooting for over 30 years, but have never even considered a zoom with a very large focal range. Right or wrong, I always thought such a lens would likely be weak at the wide and long ends...... Hope the Z 24-200 is stellar throughout the focal range.

 

[pdk42]

I've been shooting for over 30 years, but have never even considered a zoom with a very large focal range. Right or wrong, I always thought such a lens would likely be weak at the wide and long ends...... Hope the Z 24-200 is stellar throughout the focal range.

Lots of example shots here. I'll be very happy if my copy (if/when it arrives!!) performs as well as the example that produced them:

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_z_24_200mm_f4_6_3_vr_review/sample_images

 

[MNglass]

I'm a big fan of native lenses. I don't like adapters and I don't like third-party lenses. My theory is that the camera manufacturers specifically design and offer lenses that will work particularly well with the camera bodies of that same company, and I just trust this more than I do sticking on something that has been reverse-engineered.

Davidzvi wrote:

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

I'm joining in on the discussion because the various options in focal lengths and such interest me, although I'm not shooting Nikon now. I have the Sony 100-400mm and its range is f/4.5-5.6; it's an excellent lens, great and versatile range for walking around if one is hoping to snag a few shots of local wildlife.

I'm still mulling over how I want to approach the wider end of the spectrum, since as of right now my widest lens is 24mm, and that is on the RX10, which is a "bridge" / "superzoom" camera. My actual interchangeable widest lens (for the A7R IV) is the 35mm f/1.8. I'm torn between going a bit wider with that second combo mentioned, the 14-30 and 24-105 along with the 100-400mm, or going with the excellent 16mm-35mm f/2.8, which would take me to 35mm without any gaps. I have 50mm, 85mm, 90mm and 135mm primes. I tend to shoot mostly at the longer end of everything, but there ARE times when a wide lens really is needed.

I'm just the opposite. I used the Oly 12-100 which is basically the M43 analog of the 24-200 and found that 95% of my keepers were below 60mm (ffeqv). Loved the range but almost never used it. The 24-200 looks to be on a par with the Oly 12-100 in that it may redefine IQ for superzoom in the FF realm. As much as I am tempted, I still think the 24-105 is a better fit for what I like to do with a 70-300 in the bag for those (5%) times I want something longer.

So I'm a 14-30, 24-105, and "maybe something longer" kind of shooter . . .

 

[gryphon1911]

I think I'd still go for the 24-200 even if the Tamron 28-200 were available - simply because 24 != 28 !

definitely personal preference there. I’ve lived with 28 for a while and find it plenty wide enough for me for general use. I do have the 17-35 if I need anything wider.

I’m generally more of a telephoto person myself.
Usually when I go out, the most used lens is the 70-300 or the 300/4 PF.

 

[Butlerkid]

Jason Odell just posted a review of the Z 24-200.....

And a commentor included a link to his review of the 24-200....

 

[NCV]

Jason Odell just posted a review of the Z 24-200.....

And a commentor included a link to his review of the 24-200....

Thanks for the link.

His conclusions tie in with mine. This is a great lens for travel, as I have found on my last couple of trips out.

For my Val camonica trip I was going to use it just for long shots over 70mm. But having that range was just fantastic as it saved a lot of lens changing and I could just concentrate on important things like composition. I used the 14-30 for some wide shots, but the rest I did with this lens.

I have always been a bit sniffy about "superzooms", but this lens sets a new standard.

 

[pdk42]

The 24-200 looks to be on a par with the Oly 12-100 in that it may redefine IQ for superzoom in the FF realm.

Having looked at example images from the 24-200 and being a 12-100 ex-owner, it's clear to me that the 12-100 is the superior lens - it's sharp edge-to-edge across the zoom range, performs wide open very nearly as well as at smaller apertures, has jaw-dropping Sync IS, is a constant f4, and probably has better weather sealing. Having said all that though, it's pretty much the same size and weight as the 24-200 and it only needs to cover a sensor of half the linear dimensions, so it ought to be better!

However, I suspect the results from the 24-200 on the Z7 will still be sharper at comparable sizes to shots from the 12-100 on the E-M1ii - and of course the Z7 sensor will deliver better DR and noise (which is the reason why I bought one! ). With the extra Mp on the Z7, you could also crop down to 20Mp and get an effective FL of about 300mm without really losing much IQ.

 

[nuclearjock]

Apparently they're readily available if you're Moose Peterson.

Moose pulls some strings.

 

[pdk42]

Apparently they're readily available if you're Moose Peterson.

Moose pulls some strings.

Absolutely zero availability in the uk still.

 

[gryphon1911]

OK, so peeps in the USA - check your local stores. 2 camera stores here in Columbus, OH have these:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[jrscls]

Found one at a local store yesterday. First impressions are great! Here are a few of the first shots taken this morning.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[jrscls]

And a few more. The lens also focuses fairly close-

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[gryphon1911]

I'm still formulating my thoughts and will need more trigger time to make a final determination - however, I will say that I think this will be a brilliant street and general purpose lens. Not really feeling it as a landscape lens. With the big caveat being that I am not, never have claimed to be and probably never will be a landscape photographer. Just the landscape type shots that I've attempted so far have been underwhelming to me.

That probably says more about me than the lens.

The first outing was in crappy overcast, rainy weather and I shot it wide open for 99% of the shots.

Next time out will be a bit more "aperture inclusive" and I'll be more conscious of picking an appropriate aperture for the subject and less about testing the different focal lengths wide open. That is generally the first thing I do with a new lens, test it's wide open characteristics.

Here are 5 from yesterday:

1 - focus was between the eyes right at t he bridge of the nose

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

2

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

3

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

4 - through glass

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

5

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[nuclearjock]

This might cut into my wine budget (or my wife's landscaping budget).

 

[gryphon1911]

Better weather today and got some more images. It reinforced my original thoughts about it being a great street lens.
I did put a little more aggressiveness into the sharpening than I would for the prime lenses. I usually do 50 sharpness and 35 detail, upped it to 70-80 sharpness and 45-50 detail(Lightroom).

So far have been only shooting JPG.

What I may do is shoot some more images in RAW and process in Lightroom or Nikon NX-D and see if I can do any better.
If I continue shooting JPG, I might leave the sharpening out of Lightroom and run a batch sharpening in Topaz Sharpen AI.

1

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

2

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

3 - exposed to keep the sky from blowing out so did a little shadow adjustment in lightroom.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

4

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

5

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

6

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

7 - sun is directly above the mural and partially in the frame, so you can see the flare characteristics.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[jrscls]

Look plenty sharp to me.

 

[jrscls]

Here is one taken today with the 24-200 at 200mm, cropped vertically-

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[pdk42]

Well, I got a mail from Amazon that it should ship next week . I'd prefer to go to a local dealer, but they can't give me any idea of delivery ... sigh.