Asking for opinions on the Nikon Z 24-200 mm lens (4 - 6.3)

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).

Member's gallery
I think you need to temper expectations. It's probably just fine for a general hiking lens or a travel lens.

I don't have this lens, but as a rule, I don't generally even consider a zoom over a 5x zoom for anything serious or important and this is an 8.3x zoom. Granted i have not used a Z zoom over 5x but I'd have to try one before I'd actually purchase one myself
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I like mine.

It’s bad in the corners wide open, and it suffers CA against bright backlight. If you are looking to live with those constraints, it’s great.

More importantly, it’s the best option. The 24-120/4 also suffers wide open, and it’s not enough sharper to crop for telephoto. And nobody else has a super zoom for Z. So the 24-200 is a stop slower in practice, but is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and reaches further.

I like mine on my Zf as a one-lens landscape kit, and I even managed to shoot some indoor sports (martial arts) with it on my Z9, where it performed admirably (aside from the excess DOF, which isn’t a lens fault).
 
Member's gallery
I had the 24-200 and found it perfectly adequate, though I found the slow f-stop a bit annoying at times. That said, I replaced it with the 24-120 which is a notable improvement. It's not so much that the 24-200 isn't sharp (it is sharp) as that the 24-120 color contrast and general rendition is better. But there are times when the convenience of the 24-200 range without changing lenses would be nice. Always tradeoffs.
 
Member's gallery
The greater the focal length range the greater the reduction in speed, autofocus, and image quality. An exception is the Canon 50-1000mm but that lens sells for more than $70,000. I owned and enjoyed using the Nikon 28-300mm f/5.6 lens for general travel. When I first received the 28-300mm lens I photographed rails and a brick wall so as to easily see any distortion. The results were more than good enough for me to hold on to the lens.

Often the sharpness falls off in the corners or there is some amount of vignetting. For general outdoor use these are trivial concerns and easily corrected in post if desired. I would expect the same with the 24-200mm lens and the only concern would be having to use a higher ISO setting to compensate for the f/6.3 lens. The 28-300mm lens for example was f/3.5 at 28mm, but by 110mm zoom it was a f/5.6 lens. A 70-200mm f/2.8 provides 4 times as much light but is also more conspicuous and much heavier and with half the zoom range - always tradeoff with any lens.
 
Member's gallery
All of these are great points, and in light of them, consider how you view your travel images. For us it’s on a 75” Samsung TV through an Apple TV. For that these points don’t matter. If you want to print something, then yes. The only wildlife I shoot with this lens is cause I happen to be there. Birds in a park, or while walking a beach. Those aren’t for print and on the TV they are fine.
 
Member's gallery
It’s an excellent single lens for travel…but does suffer a little at the long end. The 24-120 is bihpgger p, heavier, and faster…and gives you 180 in DX if you need it. I got the 24-200 as my travel lens but it hasn’t been used since I got the 24-120. If I was most interested in light…I would take the 24-200 and Z7II as long as wildlife at 200 wasn’t going to be a prime need. I am…probably…keeping mine but it’s for the travel light is important single lens kit. I can’t argue with John or others…it’s fine for anything that will be screen output and good enough for decent size prints…and it’s light and small which makes it an excellent walking around kit.
 
Wink Jones said:
I just received one, but have not been out to shoot yet, recovering from cataract surgery, and crummy weather...

I still have most of my thirty days left, but I would welcome any comments from the members who have this lens.

I could have purchased a larger aperture lens for a thousand dollars more, but it was also heavier. I think this could be a great travel lens.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Wink, consider the pic below… On the left is the current so-called trinity Z lenses; 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. All 2.8. On the right are the 14-30 & 24-200. Two smaller, lighter lenses for walk around vacation/street photography that have the same focal length coverage as the big glass heavyweights. The 70-200 is not going to be fun lugging around on vacation or taking candids of the 5 grandchildren….
IMG_2495.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Larry S. said:
If you haven’t already done so, check Ken Rockwell’s site for his review. He gets pretty deep in the “technical weeds” occasionally but is a good source of info.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I have not seen his site before and found it interesting. I just spent a while there looking at a bunch of photos taken with the 24-200. One had some obvious noise and at the bottom, this was part of the description: If I wasn't so lazy I easily could pull the noise out of the sky. Tough; my website, my rules.

He likes the lens, and if I am getting the quality of image that he is, I am going to like it too. I figure by mid to late next week, my eyes will be back close enough to normal for me to do some shots with this lens and also some with my 70-200 to see how they compare to one another.
 
Member's gallery
EricKlees said:
I think you need to temper expectations. It's probably just fine for a general hiking lens or a travel lens.

I don't have this lens, but as a rule, I don't generally even consider a zoom over a 5x zoom for anything serious or important and this is an 8.3x zoom. Granted i have not used a Z zoom over 5x but I'd have to try one before I'd actually purchase one myself
Click to expand...

Which is why I ordered it, with the intention to return if I do not like. I was very impressed with the quality of the images I saw a little while ago. NOw I need to take it for my own test drive...
 
Member's gallery
Chris K said:
I like mine.

It’s bad in the corners wide open, and it suffers CA against bright backlight. If you are looking to live with those constraints, it’s great.

More importantly, it’s the best option. The 24-120/4 also suffers wide open, and it’s not enough sharper to crop for telephoto. And nobody else has a super zoom for Z. So the 24-200 is a stop slower in practice, but is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and reaches further.

I like mine on my Zf as a one-lens landscape kit, and I even managed to shoot some indoor sports (martial arts) with it on my Z9, where it performed admirably (aside from the excess DOF, which isn’t a lens fault).
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Member's gallery
eaj101 said:
I had the 24-200 and found it perfectly adequate, though I found the slow f-stop a bit annoying at times. That said, I replaced it with the 24-120 which is a notable improvement. It's not so much that the 24-200 isn't sharp (it is sharp) as that the 24-120 color contrast and general rendition is better. But there are times when the convenience of the 24-200 range without changing lenses would be nice. Always tradeoffs.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Member's gallery
Calson said:
The greater the focal length range the greater the reduction in speed, autofocus, and image quality. An exception is the Canon 50-1000mm but that lens sells for more than $70,000. I owned and enjoyed using the Nikon 28-300mm f/5.6 lens for general travel. When I first received the 28-300mm lens I photographed rails and a brick wall so as to easily see any distortion. The results were more than good enough for me to hold on to the lens.

Often the sharpness falls off in the corners or there is some amount of vignetting. For general outdoor use these are trivial concerns and easily corrected in post if desired. I would expect the same with the 24-200mm lens and the only concern would be having to use a higher ISO setting to compensate for the f/6.3 lens. The 28-300mm lens for example was f/3.5 at 28mm, but by 110mm zoom it was a f/5.6 lens. A 70-200mm f/2.8 provides 4 times as much light but is also more conspicuous and much heavier and with half the zoom range - always tradeoff with any lens.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeans Coffee said:
All of these are great points, and in light of them, consider how you view your travel images. For us it’s on a 75” Samsung TV through an Apple TV. For that these points don’t matter. If you want to print something, then yes. The only wildlife I shoot with this lens is cause I happen to be there. Birds in a park, or while walking a beach. Those aren’t for print and on the TV they are fine.
Click to expand...

It is not my intention to use this for wildlife or Birds in flight. I have longer and heavier lenses for that. I appreciate your feedback.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
It’s an excellent single lens for travel…but does suffer a little at the long end. The 24-120 is bihpgger p, heavier, and faster…and gives you 180 in DX if you need it. I got the 24-200 as my travel lens but it hasn’t been used since I got the 24-120. If I was most interested in light…I would take the 24-200 and Z7II as long as wildlife at 200 wasn’t going to be a prime need. I am…probably…keeping mine but it’s for the travel light is important single lens kit. I can’t argue with John or others…it’s fine for anything that will be screen output and good enough for decent size prints…and it’s light and small which makes it an excellent walking around kit.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I am looking for. Thank you.
 
Member's gallery
Larry S. said:
Wink, consider the pic below… On the left is the current so-called trinity Z lenses; 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. All 2.8. On the right are the 14-30 & 24-200. Two smaller, lighter lenses for walk around vacation/street photography that have the same focal length coverage as the big glass heavyweights. The 70-200 is not going to be fun lugging around on vacation or taking candids of the 5 grandchildren….
View attachment 82432
Click to expand...

I just picked up the 70 - 200 and the 24 - 200. Amazing how heavy the 70 - 200 is compared to the 24 - 200. I loved taking the 70 - 200 to my duck club last fall. I was only twenty to forty yards away from the ducks as they landed, so the reach was perfect.
 
Member's gallery
Nerja Rob said:
I bought a copy as a general walk-around/travel lens - it is light enough, good zoom range - and I thoroughly enjoy using it. Don't need to carry a wide-angle as well, 200mm is generally sufficient for most things, IQ is good...OK, f4-6.3 is maybe not ideal in some circumstances but using higher ISO's are not so much of a problem these days with all the NR programs. Love it as an all-purpose/general/walk-around lens on my Z6II
Click to expand...
Ditto on using it with my Zf. Taking this combo with me this weekend to a family event.
 
Member's gallery
I have the 24-200mm and am very satisfied with it. It is a nice general carry lens. There is some slight vignetting at the 24mm, but nothing that can't be easily dealt with. i've used it to do some astrophotography with the Move Shoot Move because it is lighter.

So look at the reviews posted here and you will see an overwhelming positive impression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top