Good find!! I thought I had seen something about his Nikon connections at some point.
Review 24-200 Z review
- Thread starter Randy
- Start date
Well done Terri and Palouse for your detective work.
I smelt a rat when I saw this video because he got the lens before all the other usual reviewers.
The phenomenon of the paid "influencer", "ambassador" or what ever you what to call them, putting out seemingly journalistic "reviews" of gear is just so underhand, to put it politely.
The much maligned Ken Rockwell once wrote a good article about these "reviews" and how they heap praise on a product, but just to make it seem like a proper review, a few little criticisms are made. This was a textbook example. The guy tells us that the only thing that does not make this an S range lens is the fact the lettering is printed rather than engraved and something about the metal used for the mount. Stuff that does not matter.
So, I just guess we will just have to wait for a proper review from a more or less neutral source.
But even here, so many reviews are based on gear loaned and used during some paid marketing department junket. You can tell by the pictures being all in the same place with the same subjects.
I skimmed through the Video BTW, I hate this type of review. I much prefer a written review. In this video the guy had the habit of repeating himself over and over again. I think he said that this lens was a game changer (or something similar) at least twenty times.
I've never had a problem with accepting the accuracy of his reviews. Compared to some other reviewers his opinions I've found to be less emotional and down to earth. But that's just me..
"The guy tells us that the only thing that does not make this an S range lens is the fact the lettering is printed rather than engraved and something about the metal used for the mount. Stuff that does not matter."
He never says those are the "only things"
Ricci often has demonstrations (I won't call them reviews) of lenses well before they are generally released. To think that he doesn't have either some relationship or favored status with Nikon is naive. But having said that, his demonstrations tend to square very well with my experience with the same equipment so he has currency with me.
They all tend to repeat a lot. That's what happens when you don't have a strict script. Others are much worse.
Not on the Z bodies. ISO 16,000 on my Z6 is as clean (probably cleaner) than ISO 1600 is on my D300. That's about 3.5 stops. And frankly, I would say ISO 25.600 is as clean, for a full 4 stops.
Since most of us got the 24-70 with our Z bodies, I would have rather seen a 70-300 or maybe 50-300.
Semantics perhaps. But I wish these guys who are connected in some way with the company who's products thy are talking about, called these videos and Blog posts what they really are: Product Presentations.
They should be clearly labelled as "Presentations", not "Reviews".
A "review" is an unbiased appraisal by an independent reviewer in my book.
I am fine with these presentations, they are very useful to learn about a product.
Demonstrators do a good worthwhile job. I visit a Construction industry fair every year where I often get reps to demonstrate new Engineering Software.
I'm sold - where do I buy one!
B&H is taking preorders.
God Bless Early Adopters . . .
The Z lens roadmap is really weak in the 70-200/300 range. It’s either the 70-200 f/2.8 for a lot of cash or the yet to be introduced 100-400 S, which will also probably be a lot of cash. The line really needs a Z mount 70-200/300 f/4 to go with the 14-30 and 24-70. Currently, the 70-300 AF-P in F mount does a good job, but I would like to move away from adapted lenses where ever I can.
I considered this 24-200 but the amount of aperture change causes me to pause on this one. I’ll wait for others to give it a go and report back. Given the current roadmap, the upcoming 24-105 and 100-400 seems to be a good two lens travel kit, albeit expensive, if the size and weight are manageable. We’ll see when they become reality and not just placeholders on a roadmap graphic. Nikon has publicly stated they intend to accelerate the Z lenses so maybe we’ll start seeing more in the near future.
I considered this 24-200 but the amount of aperture change causes me to pause on this one. I’ll wait for others to give it a go and report back. Given the current roadmap, the upcoming 24-105 and 100-400 seems to be a good two lens travel kit, albeit expensive, if the size and weight are manageable. We’ll see when they become reality and not just placeholders on a roadmap graphic. Nikon has publicly stated they intend to accelerate the Z lenses so maybe we’ll start seeing more in the near future.
now that I know the 24-105 is supposed to be an S lens and is therefore probably an f/4 lens I'll wait. I don't really need the 105-200 range especially at the cost of IQ to get the 24-200
Can't we have the 200-600 NOW ASAP YESTERDAY??
No one really knows but Nikon, but that’s how I would bet.
This is the Z lens I really want. I’m hoping it’s a f/5.6, like the 200-500. It doesn’t have the S designation so hopefully affordable.
Would it be all that bad if it were like the old screw drive lenses and was f/3.5-4.5? Could keep it way smaller. Just me thinking out loud.
Mike, that's my point. These variable aperture lenses seem to be getting worse on the long end of the focal length range. f6.3 is pretty disappointing. I like fast glass and like to shoot it close to wide open. I would prefer a zoom not go beyond f4 at the long end. I realize it's all about compromise in zoom lens design.
Similar threads
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/twemojiForum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/