Review 24-200 Z review

[gnagel]

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.

f/6.3 is a deal breaker for me.

Glenn

 

[Palouse]

f/6.3 is a deal breaker for me.

Glenn

I agree. But I'm not, as far as I know, in the market for a big/fast gun

 

[Randy]

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.

I think f/4 is very reasonable and yes a constant aperture is mandatory

 

[NCV]

Reading some of the above comments, here are a couple of thoughts.

I was deciding on whether to keep a M43 system with a 12-100 for day hikes, Or get a Z7 and the 24-200 and eliminate M43 for reasons of rationalisation of the gear cupboard.

My day hikes are not too demanding on fast lens aperture and the Nikon combo weighed just a few more grams than the Olympus combo. I went Nikon Z7.

I think this lens is targeted at the sort of use, where the convenience of having a compact, lightweight and large range zoom is just perfect for casual travel and hiking.

The slow 6.3 aperture does not make this lens unusable for this type of photography.

I can see it being perfect for when I am with the family and we do those tourist sort of things, you know when my wife gets impatient with me for dithering about with lens changes . I think this lens is aimed at this sort of use and user.

 

[pdk42]

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.

The problem is that a 24-200 zoom that was an f4 would be enormous (and expensive)! Personally, so long as it's strong optically, I think f6.3 is OK given the ISO performance of the cameras. My use case would be landscapes, cityscapes, and general travel - and it's well suited to that.

 

[Pa]

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.

That would be fine with me. I still have and love my old 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 AF-D. I especially like its macro mode and would love to see that on this new 24-105, but certainly don't expect it.

 

[MNglass]

I've been reviewing the photos from a trip I took with the EM1-II and the Olympus 12-100 f4. They were mostly outdoor shots, often cloudy, both scenic landscapes and city images. I was only occasionally shooting at f4 and only rarely went above f8 (where M43 lenses start to degrade because of diffraction). Those of you who know the 12-100 know that it was given pretty middling reviews by a number of sites and wannabe experts, but those of us who used it found it to be at least on a par with most zooms of lesser FL range and very consistent. It was a pleasure to shoot with although it registered 'large' in M43 standards.

My point is that while I was initially surprised at the f4-f6.3 variable range on the 24-200, I don't think it would be a problem for me as a general travel lens - especially given the fine DR and high ISO performance of the Z6. The dimensions are, for all practical purposes, identical to the Oly lens as well.

Like many of you, I'm interested to see what folks say about sharpness, edge to edge performance, contrast and flare. But the aperture zone where I tend to shoot (even given equivalence), the f4-f6.3 does not seem like it would be an issue.

 

[pdk42]

I've been reviewing the photos from a trip I took with the EM1-II and the Olympus 12-100 f4. They were mostly outdoor shots, often cloudy, both scenic landscapes and city images. I was only occasionally shooting at f4 and only rarely went above f8 (where M43 lenses start to degrade because of diffraction). Those of you who know the 12-100 know that it was given pretty middling reviews by a number of sites and wannabe experts, but those of us who used it found it to be at least on a par with most zooms of lesser FL range and very consistent. It was a pleasure to shoot with although it registered 'large' in M43 standards.

My point is that while I was initially surprised at the f4-f6.3 variable range on the 24-200, I don't think it would be a problem for me as a general travel lens - especially given the fine DR and high ISO performance of the Z6. The dimensions are, for all practical purposes, identical to the Oly lens as well.

Like many of you, I'm interested to see what folks say about sharpness, edge to edge performance, contrast and flare. But the aperture zone where I tend to shoot (even given equivalence), the f4-f6.3 does not seem like it would be an issue.

I agree. When I got the 12-100 I wasn't totally convinced I'd get on with it (it was a straight swap for someone who bought it and found it too big so wanted to pickup a Panasonic 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 combo - which I happened to have). However, it quickly became a very used lens. It's not just travel - it makes an excellent landscape lens.

 

[MNglass]

I agree. When I got the 12-100 I wasn't totally convinced I'd get on with it (it was a straight swap for someone who bought it and found it too big so wanted to pickup a Panasonic 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 combo - which I happened to have). However, it quickly became a very used lens. It's not just travel - it makes an excellent landscape lens.

I'd still be with M43 except that long years of use have made me partial to 2:3 ratio; 4:3 never felt right when I was composing. The DR and shadow detail from Nikon files and the viewfinder on the Z6/7 are just a pleasure to work with.

But yes, the 12-100 was no slouch at landscapes:

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

 

[Pa]

B&H says these lenses will be shipping Friday. Anybody here have a preorder?

It's interesting that the price is the same as that of the DX 18-200 when it was first released. I was a very early adopter of that lens and still have two of them. I haven't used one in years, but the Mrs. won't use any other lens on her D5500.

 

[gryphon1911]

B&H says these lenses will be shipping Friday. Anybody here have a preorder?

It's interesting that the price is the same as that of the DX 18-200 when it was first released. I was a very early adopter of that lens and still have two of them. I haven't used one in years, but the Mrs. won't use any other lens on her D5500.

I'm interested in it, but no pre-order. Would be a nice father's day present though....might have to drop some hints by the wife....

 

[pdk42]

Really keen to hear feedback from early adopters. Definitely got this lens on my wish list.

 

[Southswede]

B&H says these lenses will be shipping Friday. Anybody here have a preorder?

It's interesting that the price is the same as that of the DX 18-200 when it was first released. I was a very early adopter of that lens and still have two of them. I haven't used one in years, but the Mrs. won't use any other lens on her D5500.

As of today, my order is back to being listed as "backordered".........

 

[Panther]

I'd say better than the DX 55-200's that we see out there...

 

[Stephan]

According to Ricci it's almost as good as the 24-70/4 in this range.

 

[Pat]

And according to the same Ricci it's a lot better than the 28-300

I have preordered it

 

[Randy]

I've always heard the 28-300 wasn't bad so maybe, I remember someone here posting alot of pics

 

[SRHEdD]

24-200 arrived today. First impression is that while it is built well and feels hefty enough, I miss the engraved markings on the barrel and front element ring. I DO realize this is NOT an S-Line. It in no way feels like the 50-250 DX (Thank God). I wish it had a 62mm or 72mm filter size instead of 67mm. Those quibbles are all minor though. I really like that there is no collapse-to-store feature like on the 24-70/4 and 14-30/4. I also was surprised by how close it focuses, that's a big plus for me. I'll shoot more later, just wanted to share. The Fuji was on my desk as I tried everything out. I could fill the EVF with the Fuji and still focus or even move a bit closer. Then I ran outside to grab a shot of SOMETHING not on my desk before the sun went down. Most of the hibiscus had closed up for the night, but at least it is something to share. Hibiscus is with Z7 w/24-200@200mm. ISO400, 1/25th@f/6.3.

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

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

 

[SRHEdD]

I've always heard the 28-300 wasn't bad so maybe, I remember someone here posting alot of pics

When my oldest son played lacrosse, I found the 28-300 on a D850 to be perfect. If he ran the close sideline (he was an LSM), I could pull back and get the action. Other side of the field? It had enough reach to do that too. All of this was in bright sunlight though. It was always fast enough for me. (EXIF reads "300mm" but it was a 28-300@300mm.)

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

 

[Pa]

24-200 arrived today. First impression is that while it is built well and feels hefty enough, I miss the engraved markings on the barrel and front element ring. I DO realize this is NOT an S-Line. It in no way feels like the 50-250 DX (Thank God). I wish it had a 62mm or 72mm filter size instead of 67mm. Those quibbles are all minor though. I really like that there is no collapse-to-store feature like on the 24-70/4 and 14-30/4. I also was surprised by how close it focuses, that's a big plus for me. I'll shoot more later, just wanted to share. The Fuji was on my desk as I tried everything out. I could fill the EVF with the Fuji and still focus or even move a bit closer. Then I ran outside to grab a shot of SOMETHING not on my desk before the sun went down. Most of the hibiscus had closed up for the night, but at least it is something to share. Hibiscus is with Z7 w/24-200@200mm. ISO400, 1/25th@f/6.3.

View attachment 1664356

View attachment 1664357

These look quite good. Was the hibiscus photo cropped at all? Was it close to minimum focus distance?