Lens Advice for Z6ii

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

B

bwest

Member
Member's gallery
My three year old D500 with 24-120mm lens attached recently dropped out of my backpack from shoulder height on to a concrete floor.
Although nothing visible happened to my D500 and lens, I have decided to replace it with a Z6 ii.
I am seeking advice of which lens to attach.
The two lenses I have in mind as candidates are the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR and the 24-120mm f/4 S.
I like the idea of the 24-200mm's reach but I also like the review of the 24-120mm's sharpness and build.
As a hobby photographer I will take pictures of basically everything, as I am not a dedicated landscape, portrait or wildlife photographer but takes picture for the fun of it.
I guess I would like to know if there is a marked difference in the overall picture quality of the 24-120mm that tells me to forget about the 24-200mm.
Thoughts and advice greatly appreciated,
Thanks for your help
 
Member's gallery
If you want the kit to be a lightweight/travel bare bones kit you would get more out of the 24-200. If you don't mind carrying (and buying) 2 lenses get the 24-120 and a longer zoom like a 70-200 f4.
 
Member's gallery
I have a Z 24-120mm ordered. I like the idea of a 24-200mm and have heard the image quality is decent on a Z6, not as good on the Z7, but for me I’m often running out of light and want the larger Aperture for that reason. The 24-120mm is said to be as sharp as the 24-70mm F/4 which I currently have and really like. I had looked at the F mount 24-120mm a few years ago, but with lots of reports of it being soft so passed on it. If you are happy with that lens, you might be very happy with the 24-200mm. If you don’t mind the lens being a little larger and want better IQ, get the 24-120mm.
 
Member's gallery
We like to talk about sharpness a lot and at times I think it is really overrated. I was reminded of this recently when my wife was choosing a new set of grandchild photos to display in our home. Many of the photos were images that were taken with our iPhones, the photos were of decent quality but certainly not up to my photographer standards, but that really didn't matter one tiny bit. I was reminded that pixel peeping is often only really important to the reviewers. I don't think there is a really bad lens available today. If I am going out to take photos I am willing to pack the most appropriate equipment. If I am going out and may want to take a few photos along the way I like to have a lens that covers a wide focal length.

I recently purchased the 24-200 Z lens for my Z6ii and it is my travel/general use lens. I have the 24-70f4 and a 70-200f2.8 F mount lens as well for shooting when maximum aperture is important but I use the 24-200 a lot. We make monthly trips to visit our grandson and the 24-200 goes on my Z6ii and is packed in my carryon backpack for the trip. I wanted one lens that I could travel with and this lens has worked our well.

I am also considering purchasing the new 28-75f2.8 Z lens. I like to shoot sports and it would work well indoors for that purpose. I know the 24-70f2.8S lens would be rated sharper but at twice the cost. I don't think I would benefit from more sharpness when I would be mostly shooting at ISO 3200 and higher.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks to all for taken the time to reply.
Haven't decided which lens, but am leaning towards the 24-200mm
However, if anyone have a comparison of images of the 24-120 and 24-200, I would really appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks again
 
Member's gallery
bwest said:
My three year old D500 with 24-120mm lens attached recently dropped out of my backpack from shoulder height on to a concrete floor.
Although nothing visible happened to my D500 and lens, I have decided to replace it with a Z6 ii.
I am seeking advice of which lens to attach.
The two lenses I have in mind as candidates are the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR and the 24-120mm f/4 S.
I like the idea of the 24-200mm's reach but I also like the review of the 24-120mm's sharpness and build.
As a hobby photographer I will take pictures of basically everything, as I am not a dedicated landscape, portrait or wildlife photographer but takes picture for the fun of it.
I guess I would like to know if there is a marked difference in the overall picture quality of the 24-120mm that tells me to forget about the 24-200mm.
Thoughts and advice greatly appreciated,
Thanks for your help
Click to expand...
You'll love the Z6ii. It takes a little time to optimize the iMenu and function buttons, but once you do photography can become a lot more intuitive. I rarely chimp and setting changes are almost always made with the EVF.

The 24-200 is an all purpose lens but it's really best for travel where you want to minimize gear and weight. Image quality is pretty good - certainly better than any F-mount alternative. The downside is that it is relatively slow with a variable aperture and f/6.3 at the long end. If your goal is one lens, this is the choice, but it's with some compromises. Marty's comments are on target - it's the lens he takes for travel and family photos.

The 24-120 f/4 is a higher quality lens near the performance of the 24-70 f/4 kit lens but with an extra 50mm. It's an every day lens in an f/4 kit, and would typically be paired with a long lens for wildlife, or a fast prime for low light needs. It's a solid choice by itself and image quality is very good to excellent. With a constant f/4, it's a bit faster and easier to shoot in manual mode compared to the 24-200. It is a step up compared to the 24-200, but not quite as much of an all purpose lens.

If you need a travel lens, the 24-200 is a great choice. It might be a good lens when you simply want to bring your camera. For general use with better image quality, the 24-120 f/4 is probably the choice. I do agree with Marty's comments - in many cases it's subject matter and composition that makes a great photo. But if you have landscapes in mind, low light photos, or need a primary lens for your camera, the optical performance is more important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top