Real Life review of Z 24-200 from Slovenia

[Pat]

Interesting review :

https://nikonrumors.com/2020/08/17/...vr-lens-review-in-real-life.aspx/#more-149489

The big question is : How did he manage to get one ?

 

[pdk42]

Hmmm - the reviewer says it’s not ideal for landscape because there are sharper options. I hope I don’t come to the same conclusion since that’s my main reason for buying it! If it’s really true, it might invalidate my whole move to Nikon. I have no desire for the size, weight, and cost of the 70-200 f2.8. Even a 70-200 f4 is too much (and it is not even on the roadmap anyhow).

 

[NCV]

This review very much ties in with what I bought the lens for and what I have found. It is absolutely brilliant for travel and I think it will be a great hiking solution.

I have found the lens plenty sharp enough so far. The only problem is with CA at widest aperture. That is an easily fixes problem.

On my recent trip to see some Prehistoric rock carvings, I ended up using this lens for almost everything. The 24-70 remained in my camera bag.

 

[NCV]

Hmmm - the reviewer says it’s not ideal for landscape because there are sharper options. I hope I don’t come to the same conclusion since that’s my main reason for buying it! If it’s really true, it might invalidate my whole move to Nikon. I have no desire for the size, weight, and cost of the 70-200 f2.8. Even a 70-200 f4 is too much (and it is not even on the roadmap anyhow).

Steve Monks over on the DPR forum in the weekly thread in M43 used the 24-200 and 12-100 together and came to the conclusion that both systems have advantages.

Here is a link. You might like to explore some of his posts on the Z forum and the M43 forum.

I agree that the big advantage of the Z system over M43 is the amount of post you can do before the file falls apart.

 

[pdk42]

Steve Monks over on the DPR forum in the weekly thread in M43 used the 24-200 and 12-100 together and came to the conclusion that both systems have advantages.

Here is a link. You might like to explore some of his posts on the Z forum and the M43 forum.

I agree that the big advantage of the Z system over M43 is the amount of post you can do before the file falls apart.

Thanks for the link Nigel. It's a very relevant post. I guess I need to just get the 24-200 and decide for myself if it's good enough. The trouble is that the Olympus system is absolutely superb in so many ways - camera features, lens range and quality, image stabilisation, ... that it can make up for the sensor limitations in many circumstances. I just wish that Oly (and Panasonic in partnership) had done more with sensor evolution than they have. A 24 or 36Mp BSI m43 sensor would I'm sure have kept a lot more people in their ecosystem than spending R&D money on cameras like the E-M1x. And whatever happened to the organic sensor that was supposed to be the next step in sensor evolution?

 

[NCV]

Thanks for the link Nigel. It's a very relevant post. I guess I need to just get the 24-200 and decide for myself if it's good enough. The trouble is that the Olympus system is absolutely superb in so many ways - camera features, lens range and quality, image stabilisation, ... that it can make up for the sensor limitations in many circumstances. I just wish that Oly (and Panasonic in partnership) had done more with sensor evolution than they have. A 24 or 36Mp BSI m43 sensor would I'm sure have kept a lot more people in their ecosystem than spending R&D money on cameras like the E-M1x. And whatever happened to the organic sensor that was supposed to be the next step in sensor evolution?

I will keep the 24-70 perhaps for really critical stuff, but the 24-200 is more than good enough for most situations. The portability makes up for any optical shortcomings. The reviewer said it is better than the F24-120 which I have found to be an excellent lens. When I hike in our Apennines, the weight factor and user tiredness probably have a bigger influence on image quality. Also having a one lens solution when I am with my family will mean less missed shots.

I loved the M43 system when I first got it. but in recent times I felt it was dropping behind. I follow the DPR M43 forum and I have noticed of late a steady defection towards other systems that has accelerated in the last few months, even before the "announcement". I think many felt the system was going in the wrong direction with the EM1X

I was waiting for a 20MP EM5, but it turned out to be a bit of a disaster with the tripod mount issue probably in hindsight due to savage cost cutting.

I have posted below some crops from a frame I shot with the 24-200. We are at pixel peeping levels I think. I am sure when DXO makes a lens profile, the results will be even better.

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

Almost out of camera shot in Nikon NX

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

.

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

The results look fine to me.

 

[maf27]

Thanks for the link Nigel. It's a very relevant post. I guess I need to just get the 24-200 and decide for myself if it's good enough. The trouble is that the Olympus system is absolutely superb in so many ways - camera features, lens range and quality, image stabilisation, ... that it can make up for the sensor limitations in many circumstances. I just wish that Oly (and Panasonic in partnership) had done more with sensor evolution than they have. A 24 or 36Mp BSI m43 sensor would I'm sure have kept a lot more people in their ecosystem than spending R&D money on cameras like the E-M1x. And whatever happened to the organic sensor that was supposed to be the next step in sensor evolution?

I recently purchased the Z6 with the 50mm 1.8 S lens. The 24-200mm was next on my list which I had considered (based on initial reviews) to replace the Oly 12-100mm lens. Based on recent samples, I don't think it is the same quality as 12-100m. It doesn't surprise me though - the 12-100 is a total beast.

Compared to Olympus, I love the malleability of the Z6 files and how accurately Adobe profiles reflect what I see during capture. It significantly reduces the time and effort in post processing.

At this point, I think I will run both systems in parallel and get myself a 24-70 f4 till the 24-105 S is released.

 

[Palouse]

Here are a couple of more reviews, some are objective!

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24-200mm-f4-6-3-vr-review/
https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_z_24_200mm_f4_6_3_vr_review
https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...ery-nikons-first-travel-zoom-for-the-z-series

 

[MNglass]

Here are a couple of more reviews, some are objective!

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24-200mm-f4-6-3-vr-review/
https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_z_24_200mm_f4_6_3_vr_review
https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...ery-nikons-first-travel-zoom-for-the-z-series

I'm honestly finding it hard to get a handle on this lens. I've seen online samples that were just fine and some that were at best middling. "Soft corners" gets mentioned a lot but if we are comparing it with the 24-70 f4, that's a pretty high bar. There is all the usual superzoom convenience remarks as well.

I'm just trying to figure out if our expectations (because of the the high performance of the 24-70's, 14-30 and those primes) are tempering people's view.

 

[Palouse]

My take away:

It's a travel lens, not a high-end, do-all masterpiece.
24-200 means that it is best say between 50 and 175, so quality is good, and possible better than comparably priced 24-100 glass.
Variable aperture, OK, but better than f/11
The faults are mostly easily corrected in post, and most of them can be corrected automatically.
Yes, it's not a 24-70.
Is it for me? Probably not.

 

[MNglass]

My take away:

It's a travel lens, not a high-end, do-all masterpiece.
24-200 means that it is best say between 50 and 175, so quality is good, and possible better than comparably priced 24-100 glass.
Variable aperture, OK, but better than f/11
The faults are mostly easily corrected in post, and most of them can be corrected automatically.
Yes, it's not a 24-70.
Is it for me? Probably not.

I tend to shoot more wide than long. As others have noted, that Oly 12-100 was remarkable and I enjoyed using it, but 95% of my keepers were below 60mm. I'm waiting for the 24-105.

 

[NCV]

I'm honestly finding it hard to get a handle on this lens. I've seen online samples that were just fine and some that were at best middling. "Soft corners" gets mentioned a lot but if we are comparing it with the 24-70 f4, that's a pretty high bar. There is all the usual superzoom convenience remarks as well.

I'm just trying to figure out if our expectations (because of the the high performance of the 24-70's, 14-30 and those primes) are tempering people's view.

I think expectations are very high or perhaps too high these days. Full size on my large screen the lens leaves nothing to be desired. I am sure I could print quite big too with this lens and not be disappointed.

My experience and the reviews I have read seem to point towards a valuable lens for certain situations like travel and hiking, where lens changing is to be avoided if possible. I bought the Z7 and waited for this lens to have a one lens hiking solution. With my old two lens solution the second lens always seemed to stay in the rucksack. I see the 24-200 as a praticale solution for when carrying multiple lenses is out of the question, plus I often find I make better pictures when I carry less gear.

The corners seem plenty sharp enough if you stop down a bit and the problems with CA at both ends are easily fixed in post.

Maybe we worry too much about optical quality. I did a test hike with a D810 +24-120 and found just having a one lens solution liberating.

My other choice when I wanted to update my travel/hiking gear was the EM1 + 12-100. The weight is about the same, but any optical superiority of the 12-100 which is a great lens, is offset by the far superior dynamic range, noise and tonal transitions present in the Z7 FF sensor.

The other big downside with the Olympus solution is that I fear post sales support is going to disappear, despite what Olympus are saying. I was glad I offloaded my Olympus gear at a good price before the "announcement".

I guess if you want to wring the maximum quality ot of the Z7, you should be using primes or shorter range zooms. I will be keeping my shorter range zooms and F mount prime lenses for those occasions where they are the better solution

 

[Pat]

I second Nigel’s views. Personally, while waiting for the Z 24-200, I bought the 24-120 (cheap on the grey market) and the 70-300 (used but excellent condition) and I enjoy them thoroughly (despite the cumbersome FTZ). I plan to trade in the 24-120 for the 24-200 when it’s finally available (and perhaps make a profit) and I’ll probably keep the 70-300 until the 70-200 is available and then I’ll be a happy camper.

 

[johnvanatta]

The Tamron 28-200 on a TZE may be an option too, though better suited to a multiple lens kit. The telephoto shots looked a bit better to me in Camerlabs’ comparison. I’m waiting in the hopes that stock will have the Tamron firmware fix applied.

 

[NCV]

The Tamron 28-200 on a TZE may be an option too, though better suited to a multiple lens kit. The telephoto shots looked a bit better to me in Camerlabs’ comparison. I’m waiting in the hopes that stock will have the Tamron firmware fix applied.

I think using the TZE or FTZ to adapt Z lenses is fine stop gap measure for lenses you already own. So I think it is much more sensible to be patient of look around smaller dealers for a 24-200, which is a great lens BTW.

I have kept my D810 to use with F lenses. It is much more fluid out in the field.

 

[johnvanatta]

Certainly a reasonable approach. I would love to ditch the clunky FTZ, too. Reports on FredMiranda are that the Sony lenses are nearly the same as native though, so maybe cherry picking your favorites from both systems works. I haven't tried with an autofocus lens myself, but I'm deep into E mount lenses anyway with the CV 65 and 110 (which may never have native equivalents for me).

Anyone heard if the Nikon 24-200 has synch IS? I'm guessing not, since I'm not hearing of any miracles like there were with the Olympus 12-100, but maybe supply is just too constrained?

 

[pdk42]

Anyone heard if the Nikon 24-200 has synch IS? I'm guessing not, since I'm not hearing of any miracles like there were with the Olympus 12-100, but maybe supply is just too constrained?

Reviews I've read have said they stabilisation is s little better than with the 24-70, but nothing significant - so if there is sync IS, it's nowhere near as well implemented as with the Olympus.

 

[Pat]

Good news and bad news today : the good news is that my local shop informed me they have received my Z 24-200 and that I can collect it whenever I wish; the bad news is that presently I am staying at my summer house more than 600 miles away from my local shop. Of course, I could ask them to ship it to me, however this solution is not convenient as I want to trade in the 24-120, so I’ll have to wait until I go back home and do the deal. Life is a ***** !

 

[pdk42]

Good news and bad news today : the good news is that my local shop informed me they have received my Z 24-200 and that I can collect it whenever I wish; the bad news is that presently I am staying at my summer house more than 600 miles away from my local shop. Of course, I could ask them to ship it to me, however this solution is not convenient as I want to trade in the 24-120, so I’ll have to wait until I go back home and do the deal. Life is a ***** !

Get them to send it to me instead and order a new one for you !

 

[Hylander]

Even if it isn't quite as good for image quality as the 24-70 f/4, I'm going to get this lens for travel (on the assumption that at some point in the future I'll travel again), and it will be perfect for the dog park, where the 24-70 doesn't have enough reach.