Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3

Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
1,007
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Sold mine already, redundant. Problem is value is low, $300-$350. Almost worth keeping on the shelf for that.
This happens with every kit lens though.

I suppose it comes down to personal preference of how much redundant equipment someone wants to keep around.

If I get the 24-200, then it’s likely that the 24-70/4 S and the 70-300 AF-P would be sold, which would just about cover the cost of the 24-200, and eliminate the need for changing lenses in the field.
 

NCV

Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
278
Location
Italy
Real Name
Nigel
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
Quite a color difference between those two - at least on my MBP. The top looks more cool/neutral and the bottom one is definitely pushing toward warm. Is it the same on your monitor?
I thought so, too, but these look pretty drastically different. That's something I would like to test.
The NXD was a quick conversion I made over coffee this morning, so yes the colour is horrible. I made it just to give a quick idea.
 

NCV

Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
278
Location
Italy
Real Name
Nigel
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
Quite a color difference between those two - at least on my MBP. The top looks more cool/neutral and the bottom one is definitely pushing toward warm. Is it the same on your monitor?
Yes, it is the same
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
22,660
Location
SW Virginia
I thought so, too, but these look pretty drastically different. That's something I would like to test.
I just converted a NEF file to jpeg using both DxO PL3 and Nikon Capture NXD. I see no difference in the color cast.

The NEF file was created using Kelvin WB, which is what I always use, rather than one of the Auto settings in the Z6. They may be a factor.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
1,490
Location
Central Ohio
Real Name
Andrew
This happens with every kit lens though.

I suppose it comes down to personal preference of how much redundant equipment someone wants to keep around.

If I get the 24-200, then it’s likely that the 24-70/4 S and the 70-300 AF-P would be sold, which would just about cover the cost of the 24-200, and eliminate the need for changing lenses in the field.
I agree, probably going to be in a similar situation. I can rely on the 300/4 AF-P if I need something longer... although I might keep the 70-300 just for the D500 when I want something light and convenient....but maybe not. LOL
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
21
Location
Oakland
Real Name
John Van Atta
The 24-70 is a fair bit faster then...if people own both f2.8 and f4 zooms, its equally reasonable to keep both f4 and f5.6 zooms :)
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
258
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Real Name
Paul
When I got the Oly 12-100 f4 I let go the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 I had been using. But over time I missed the smaller, lighter, faster short zoom so eventually I picked up an Olympus 12-40 f2.8. I think there is room for both, esp if the 24-70 fetches so little.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
1,490
Location
Central Ohio
Real Name
Andrew
My thought is that I’ve got the primes in 35, 50 and 85 in 1.8, so if I need faster then I’d reach for a prime at that point.

I used to shoot the Oly 75-300 4.5-6.7 in good light with no issues and I now shoot theFuji 50-230 4.5-6.7 and honestly don’t miss the smaller apertures for general shooting. Not now with the better sensor tech at higher ISO and having Topaz Labs Denoise AI.

I’m willing to make the concession of smaller aperture if lighter, smaller and convenience in an everyday walk about lens. Not everyone is, though so personal preference kicks in.
 

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