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

[glsmith9823]

2 "negatives" if you want to call them that
1.) no AF/MF or VR switches on lens barrel, you have to do it on the menu of your camera
2.) No Teleconverters will work with this lens

 

[Wink Jones]

Thank you. I have some bigger lenses if I need them, which I do for Birds in Flight. If I didn't have the bigger lens, the information about the lens not working with teleconverters would have been an important piece of the puzzle.

 

[jbk2forum]

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?

Everything you hear about the 24-200 is true. I 'have' it still. A great walk around/travel lens and value.
I just purchased the 24-120. Sold my 24-70 f/4 and looking to sell he 24-200.
Not because the 24-200 isn't good. But for me, it is not good enough in the 24-70 range; particularly when I am using it for family and indoor shooting.
So I did an analysis of my pics over the time owning the 24-200. It turns out that less than 5% were from 120-200. And while these were keepers, I probably could have gotten closer for 1/2 of them. So it wasn't worth keeping the 24-70 f/4 (great lens) and the 24-200 when the 24-120 is superlative throughout it's range.
I have to say thought that with this extra 'S' lens quality, you also add weight. But not a deal breaker given that I travel with only this lens and my 14-30.
Enjoy your 24-200!

 

[Wink Jones]

Everything you hear about the 24-200 is true. I 'have' it still. A great walk around/travel lens and value.
I just purchased the 24-120. Sold my 24-70 f/4 and looking to sell he 24-200.
Not because the 24-200 isn't good. But for me, it is not good enough in the 24-70 range; particularly when I am using it for family and indoor shooting.
So I did an analysis of my pics over the time owning the 24-200. It turns out that less than 5% were from 120-200. And while these were keepers, I probably could have gotten closer for 1/2 of them. So it wasn't worth keeping the 24-70 f/4 (great lens) and the 24-200 when the 24-120 is superlative throughout it's range.
I have to say thought that with this extra 'S' lens quality, you also add weight. But not a deal breaker given that I travel with only this lens and my 14-30.
Enjoy your 24-200!

Thank you.

 

[Wildlife_follower]

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?

Hello Wink, I hope your recovery goes well and that you'll be able to return to active photography soon. I moved to mirrorless with a Z6 when it was introduced and debated a lot on buying Z glass to replace an extensive collection of quality F mount lenses. Since the Z6 was upon it's introduction a lower end camera (this proved to be a false perception soon), i could not justify investment in Z glass as the offering was quite expensive for F2,8 lenses. I eventually caved in with the 24-200, which was really cheap, but... I never had regrets buying it. Of course, it does not have all the bells and whistles other Z lenses offer, but for its price, it yields great results. I eventually upgraded to a Z8, and was quite suprised at the results. Again, It is a basic lense, and when traveling through Iceland las Fall, I really enjoyed the lightweight and versatility. Remember, a n entry level lens in the hands of an experienced photographer will always beat an expensive one in the hands of a pretending pro ;-)

 

[dwm55]

I used the 24-200 on a trip through Northern France a bit more than a year ago. I paired the 24-200mm lens with a full spectrum converted Z5, and this combination was the only gear I used on the trip. The Z5 is a dust magnet and using a single lens solved that problem for me. I found when I shot images in visible light, the lens quality was very good. At times I found myself wanting something a little wider, and sometimes something with a little more reach, but I expected that. With the Z camera and the state of post processing tools, noise doesn't appear to be as big an issue that it once was, so using a high(er) ISO because the lens was quickly at f/6.3 didn't bother me. If I were to stop there, I would have to say that for travel, the 24-200mm is a great lens to have with you. Unfortunately, it really underperforms as an IR lens. The 24-200mm has a terrible IR hotspot starting at f/5.6 and is unusable over f/8. Because the 24-200mm wasn't going to work as an all-around IR lens for travel, I ended up selling it. If I didn't have better lenses that covered this range, I most likely would have kept the 24-200mm.

 

[Takatanaka]

Thank you. I went to Portugal last summer, and wish I had a lens like this then. I really blew it with my lens selection. I left my 500 non Z lens home, with the converter for the Z camera still attached. I could not use my 20/ 1.8 prime and my Z 70 - 200 was just too tight for the beautiful up and downhill streets in Lisbon. I got some great shots with my phone though...

Hi,

I also have the Z 24-200. Despite it is not the best lens money can buy, it is a very versatile optic that is nice when I go out (not for wildlife or macro) without knowing what I will find and want to keep light weight. Not always but, I sometimes use it in Lisbon for street photography (mainly b&w).

 

[Patrick M]

As an amateur I generally don't get too fussy over sharpness - my eyes aren't that good, sad to say but...
Anyways I went on a cruise a couple of years ago where it simply wan't practical to take my "usual" assortment of lenses. Greek island hopping from zodiacs, so I bought the z24-200.

More recently I tool my z24-120/4 on a trip for the fall colours, on a boat from NY City , up the east coast, St John, then the St Lawrence river to Quebec and Montreal. THAT lens was a star and despite the shorter reach, was so much better in terms of IQ and userbility.

The z24+200 was perfect for that island trip. Any photos were simple holiday snaps as such, and shared at home or in the internet. I've not used it since. I probably won't bother to sell it, as I always think I'll use it some day!

 

[Tommie]

Hello! Just a shorty here… I own both the Z 24-200 and the 24-120. And though I also have the “Trinity” and two Z super telephotos, along with two shorter primes, I probably take 75+ percent of my shots with the two lenses mostly under discussion here. As has been mentioned, much depends on your photo interests and environment. My wife and I shoot with the 6ii, 8 and 9 and lots with our phones . We are also merely beginners with heavy post processing. So, you’ve got tons of good feedback here… from a range of photo enthusiasts Good luck!

 

[Photof2as]

I have this lens and tested it (not scientific, if course) against the 100-400 F4-5.6 S lens and there was not a noticeable difference in IQ at the 100 mm through 200 mm focal lengths IMO. As everyone mentions the con is the f 6.3 at the longer ranges. So low light gets you some higher ISO’s. But it’s on my camera most of the time as it’s such a versatile range and it just works. I found it lets me be more creative as the size and weight makes it a pleasure to use.
Set up some boxes with good contrast text (Baril’s pasta boxes do well) and a stuffed animal or two and do some shots in your home. That will give you a good indication of if you think the lens is up to your standards.

 

[Wink Jones]

Hi,

I also have the Z 24-200. Despite it is not the best lens money can buy, it is a very versatile optic that is nice when I go out (not for wildlife or macro) without knowing what I will find and want to keep light weight. Not always but, I sometimes use it in Lisbon for street photography (mainly b&w).

As an amateur I generally don't get too fussy over sharpness - my eyes aren't that good, sad to say but...
Anyways I went on a cruise a couple of years ago where it simply wan't practical to take my "usual" assortment of lenses. Greek island hopping from zodiacs, so I bought the z24-200.

More recently I tool my z24-120/4 on a trip for the fall colours, on a boat from NY City , up the east coast, St John, then the St Lawrence river to Quebec and Montreal. THAT lens was a star and despite the shorter reach, was so much better in terms of IQ and userbility.

The z24+200 was perfect for that island trip. Any photos were simple holiday snaps as such, and shared at home or in the internet. I've not used it since. I probably won't bother to sell it, as I always think I'll use it some day!

Hello! Just a shorty here… I own both the Z 24-200 and the 24-120. And though I also have the “Trinity” and two Z super telephotos, along with two shorter primes, I probably take 75+ percent of my shots with the two lenses mostly under discussion here. As has been mentioned, much depends on your photo interests and environment. My wife and I shoot with the 6ii, 8 and 9 and lots with our phones . We are also merely beginners with heavy post processing. So, you’ve got tons of good feedback here… from a range of photo enthusiasts Good luck!

Thank you for your replies. I have gotten some great information. I am always pleasantly amazed at how helpful the members are here.

 

[Wink Jones]

I have this lens and tested it (not scientific, if course) against the 100-400 F4-5.6 S lens and there was not a noticeable difference in IQ at the 100 mm through 200 mm focal lengths IMO. As everyone mentions the con is the f 6.3 at the longer ranges. So low light gets you some higher ISO’s. But it’s on my camera most of the time as it’s such a versatile range and it just works. I found it lets me be more creative as the size and weight makes it a pleasure to use.
Set up some boxes with good contrast text (Baril’s pasta boxes do well) and a stuffed animal or two and do some shots in your home. That will give you a good indication of if you think the lens is up to your standards.

I do not know this pasta company, but I can find boxes. Good idea.

Thank you

 

[ckwagg]

Several years ago,I purchased the lens along with a Z6-II. Since then, I have acquired a Z8 and several S lens. Interestingly, I tend to grab this "kit lens" as my go-to for everyday shooting with my Z8. Today's technology is narrowing the quality differences in the glass between kit and professional lens.

 

[Reno]

24-200 and 14-30 are my "go to" for walk-around photography...light weight, good contrast, good color, and sharp enough that you probably won't be able to tell the difference from 24-120. Check Nigel Danson's Youtube page, he frequently uses 14-30/24-200 lens' for his photography.

 

[Oosty]

I have the lens , which came with my Z5. It is an excellent all round lens and I usually shoot manual and often auto ISO and the results are more than adequate for my needs
These images are typical

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Wink Jones]

Several years ago,I purchased the lens along with a Z6-II. Since then, I have acquired a Z8 and several S lens. Interestingly, I tend to grab this "kit lens" as my go-to for everyday shooting with my Z8. Today's technology is narrowing the quality differences in the glass between kit and professional lens.

I have to agree that I got some great shots with my kit lenses over the years. Thank you.

 

[Wink Jones]

24-200 and 14-30 are my "go to" for walk-around photography...light weight, good contrast, good color, and sharp enough that you probably won't be able to tell the difference from 24-120. Check Nigel Danson's Youtube page, he frequently uses 14-30/24-200 lens' for his photography.

Thank you.

 

[Wink Jones]

I have the lens , which came with my Z5. It is an excellent all round lens and I usually shoot manual and often auto ISO and the results are more than adequate for my needs
These images are typical View attachment 82553View attachment 82554View attachment 82555

And, as are so many of your "typical" photos, they are very nice.

Thank you

 

[Rixpx]

I've been using it with my Z7 for almost 2 years. It's a great walk about lens. I have used it in a variety of conditions, and am very satisfied with it.

 

[CJC2]

Newsflash: those reviews are mostly fake and heavily manipulated by the retailer. Could be good, could be bad lens, the reviews are meaningless. You can easily test that yourself, as I have done: try posting a legit 2 star review. Mine (two, both for SmallRig junk) never saw the light of day.

You have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF oof what you say. I find B&H to be a great company and a great source. I actually learn more from the negative reviews than the positive ones upon occasion, but I NEVER make my purchase choice on someone else's opinion unless I know and trust that person. Best of luck!

 

[CJC2]

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?

I have owned this lens for about a year. I don't find it a great lens, but I find it a decent lens. It is VERY useful to me in some situations and for some work, especially when I want to go light. FWIW, I also have the 24-120 and the 100-400 (heavier)). Works for me. Best of luck.

 

[Wink Jones]

I've been using it with my Z7 for almost 2 years. It's a great walk about lens. I have used it in a variety of conditions, and am very satisfied with it.

Thank you.

 

[Wink Jones]

I have owned this lens for about a year. I don't find it a great lens, but I find it a decent lens. It is VERY useful to me in some situations and for some work, especially when I want to go light. FWIW, I also have the 24-120 and the 100-400 (heavier)). Works for me. Best of luck.

Thank you.

 

[Chris K]

I used the 24-200 on a trip through Northern France a bit more than a year ago. I paired the 24-200mm lens with a full spectrum converted Z5, and this combination was the only gear I used on the trip. The Z5 is a dust magnet and using a single lens solved that problem for me. I found when I shot images in visible light, the lens quality was very good. At times I found myself wanting something a little wider, and sometimes something with a little more reach, but I expected that. With the Z camera and the state of post processing tools, noise doesn't appear to be as big an issue that it once was, so using a high(er) ISO because the lens was quickly at f/6.3 didn't bother me. If I were to stop there, I would have to say that for travel, the 24-200mm is a great lens to have with you. Unfortunately, it really underperforms as an IR lens. The 24-200mm has a terrible IR hotspot starting at f/5.6 and is unusable over f/8. Because the 24-200mm wasn't going to work as an all-around IR lens for travel, I ended up selling it. If I didn't have better lenses that covered this range, I most likely would have kept the 24-200mm.

The 24-200 is terrible for IR, but the 24-70/4 is fantastic. I’ve heard the 28-75 is good, too. Unfortunately, the 24-70/2.8 and 24-120/4 aren’t great.

So now I have a 24-70/2.8, 24-70/4, and 24-200. Sigh.

 

[Wink Jones]

I finally got out yesterday afternoon and took some shots.

200 mm is way too small for birds, but the few I took were mostly in focus, except for those sitting in trees with all sorts of tiny branches interfering with focus.

It worked very well with my dog Joe when I threw a dummy for him. I took more than a few shots at 20 frames per second and they all had one thing in common, they did NOT show him as a black object with no detail. Instead, he was well exposed with all of the detail I could ever want.

I picked one I liked and developed it. Very little change from the RAW file, including no cropping.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

I will be keeping the lens