Nikon Z6 - Image & Discussion Thread

gryphon1911 · Sep 16, 2020

I'm not 100% sure I'm happy with the out of the box performance of the Z 24-200mm. Even stopped down, I don't think it is close to the capabilities of the 24-70/4. May be I have a bad copy of the lens. I plan on keeping it for a bit. It sharpens up nice using post processing (Topaz Sharpen AI)...but I don't need to do that with any other lenses on the Z.

Here are a few from yesterdays walk around - SOOC JPG with a light tough on post processing in Lightroom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gryphon1911 · Sep 16, 2020

They just do not seem to have the same "bite" as the 24-70...here are 24-200 shots with Topaz Sharpen AI processed:

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, I guess I could live with running all the images through Sharpen AI, but that seems like it should be unnecessary. For the price and the accolades of the reviewers, you'd think it would be a better performer. Again, I may have a non-optimal copy of the lens. testing continues!

gryphon1911 · Sep 29, 2020

Really trying to learn all I can about this 24-200mm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gryphon1911 · Sep 29, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

ijm5012 · Sep 29, 2020

gryphon1911 said:
Really trying to learn all I can about this 24-200mm:

What are your thoughts on the 24-200 vs the 24-70 on the Z6?

gryphon1911 · Sep 30, 2020

ijm5012 said:
What are your thoughts on the 24-200 vs the 24-70 on the Z6?

I don’t think that the 24-200 has quite the same sharpness or acuity as the 24-70.
However it is a very useful range. I’m liking it for Street and general walk about but I think that most landscapers may pass.
I’ll probably keep it until I can see how the Tamron 28-200 does against it.

MNglass · Sep 30, 2020

Andrew,

Most of those look fine to me. It's just not an S lens. One image that bothers me is the Fall wooded scene with the fence. I don't know if it is the 1100 ISO or the 1/125, or the effects of diffraction (all maybe all those piling up together) but that one looks almost like the VR hadn't quite stabilized.

The other Andrew

gryphon1911 · Sep 30, 2020

MNglass said:
Andrew,

Most of those look fine to me. It's just not an S lens. One image that bothers me is the Fall wooded scene with the fence. I don't know if it is the 1100 ISO or the 1/125, or the effects of diffraction (all maybe all those piling up together) but that one looks almost like the VR hadn't quite stabilized.

The other Andrew

VR was off on all the above shots. In my quest to understand the lens, I walked about that day without the IBIS/VR on.
I would hope that f/11 wouldn't be an issue, but it might be. at 31mm and 1/125, I'd hope that I'm not that shaky at my hand holding technique (although one never knows).

Fall has hit here early, as you can see the leaves are turning yellow and are starting to fall - that usually does not occur until another 3 weeks from now...along with the leaf change this time of year brings wind and grey sky as well. So I can attribute some of the unsharpness of the leaves to them moving quite a bit.

Not making excuses, but just adding some perspective to the whole thing. And one other point, I'm not much of a landscape shooter either, so that should also be factored in.

I've also learned to embrace the "magic" that is Topaz Labs Sharpen AI. The lack of "bite" as I like to refer to it can be added after the fact. It's an extra step in the workflow, but something that I can do as a batch step with minimal impact if need be.

As you say, it definitely is not an "S" lens, but it is very capable for what it is....I was just hoping for a bit better. From all I can tell, teh Tamron 28-200/2.8-5.6 is better still. My concern there is that Tamron has closed some factories down temporarily and stopped some lens manufacturing. I'm almost certain that this would affect the potential of them making that FE 28-200 into a Nikon Z mount version anytime soon.

While the Z24-200mm is convenient, it is not something that I depend on. I really like the Z24-70 and the adapted F 70-300/4.5-5.6E AF-P combo. Just a bit annoying when needing to lens switch at times. However, I am looking at adapting my carry bag to make the switch out easier.

Pa · Sep 30, 2020

I think we must conclude what I thought originally: this lens is about convenience, not ultimate quality. I dare say it is probably better than the old DX 18-200.

I had hopes for the 24-200 being a very convenient travel lens for my Z6. But I'm getting hooked on the Z50 two-lens kit for that purpose. In the few weeks I have had it I've been very impressed.

Pa · Sep 30, 2020

Thom Hogan's comment:

24-200mm f/4-6.3. Not as good as some claim, but still clearly the best FX superzoom Nikon's made.

MNglass · Sep 30, 2020

Pa said:
Thom Hogan's comment:

24-200mm f/4-6.3. Not as good as some claim, but still clearly the best FX superzoom Nikon's made.

Honestly that "some claim" bothers me. It just sounds smug.

Pa · Sep 30, 2020

MNglass said:
Honestly that "some claim" bothers me. It just sounds smug.

Yes, he should quote chapter and verse. Perhaps we'll learn more when he publishes his review.

Mike Buckley · Sep 30, 2020

MNglass said:
It just sounds smug.

That's because it is. That's because that's his view of himself in comparison to others. It comes through even in his how-to book.

gryphon1911 · Oct 2, 2020

Decided to walk about a neighboring town tonight. At a cool 45F (7.2C), not too many people out...but this is my kind of weather!!

The kit for the night: The Z6 and the Z 50mm f/1.8S!