Lee, since you had the 24-200 prior, how do you feel the 28-400 compares in overall IQ in the overlap range? In use, what do you think of the weight, size difference. I have been looking at a few different options for non photography based travel that has photo opportunities. Not specifically an all in one type solution but have a few options based on the trip. I have the 28/40 primes, 14-30, 24-70/4, 24-120/4 and 100-400, and been thinking of the 24-200 as a flexible all in one or 70-180 or Tamron 70-300 as options to pair with the 24-70 and Zf. My other thought was to get the Z50ii with two lens kit.
Very similar. I'll shoot some side by side and see if we can see the difference. But from just using it all yesterday on birds of all things it was better than I expected. I think like everyone I have memory's of older all-in-ones from DSLR days where it was just soft. This is not that it's just a F8 and be there for 200-400mm or 600mm in DX on the Z8.
I'm very happy with it as I was with the 24-200 paired with the 14-30 and the "light" primes, the Nikon 26 2.8, 28 2.8 and 40 F2. Those primes are awesome for travel and I use them way more than my S primes. IQ is still great with those and all of these still have weather sealing. I think people get hung up a lot on having the absolute most IQ out of lenses and forget how awesome lighter lenses with 90% of that IQ are. For nearly all actual image output that you will share with others that last 10% would be wiped out by the medium it's viewed on anyway, which is an iPhone or lower quality monitor on a laptop or smaller /medium prints.
The IQ out of these super all in ones or the light Nikon primes would have been considered first rate back in DSLR times around 2010, something to consider for perspective. Either the 24-200 or 28-400 are sharper/very close to as sharp as than my old F 24-120 F4.
I don't think IQ should be a decision point for these two. Focal length is what you're after and honestly it's pick what you like more 24mm or 400mm. Size and weight are not that far apart, the 400 is only about an inch longer, weight is about the same ish hand holding them. Since I have the 14-30 in my pocket (I hate camera bags) I can just pop that on when I enter buildings or tight streets and then use the 28-400 90% of the time. At night I switch to 26/28 2.8 and 40 F2 for street/restaurants buildings or whatever. I also have the Vitrox 20mm 2.8 because it's super compact and light for even wider night use. IQ is similar to the Nikon light primes on that one, great and amazing for its price. It's very compact and a feather light lens, I'll carry it and the 40 F2 if I need that wider angle.
The 70-300 I forgot to mention is a little sharper than the 24-200, it's extremely light as well. I like the 24-200 and 28-400 more though. That lens makes sense if you wanted to go 24-70 F4 or 70-180 though. Personally I way prefer the 28-400 or 24-200 though because no lens switching means no need for camera bag and that's liberating. It's also really great in weather especially dust.
Using this 28-400 on my Z8 that's with me on this trip is wild, it's basically a 28-600 with the Z8's DX crop ability and you can't deny how useful that is in one lens traveling.
One last note, I think people focus on IQ of these lenses way to much, Photographylife put up images side by side of the 24-120 and 28-400 and it's honestly negligible difference in sharpness viewing the images. The real difference is aperture limitations. These superzoom make you feel a bit aperture claustrophobic as you have to be comfortable at being f6.3 and F8 almost all the time, that's the real difference in using them, not so much are they sharp enough, because they are.
The difference between the 24-120 F4 and these won't be some razor sharpness difference at all, but rather that F4 at 120 is a real DOF difference you won't get on either the 24-200 or 28-400. That's what should be the determining factor if these lenses are for you. These lenses are aperture limited, not sharpness or IQ limited.
The end compromise is a whopper of focal length options without having to drag around multiple lenses and swap them constantly. That "should I swap this" will cost you images that this lens will get. Weigh that with the images you'll lose not having F4/5.6 etc and be very honest with yourself as to how much you will be willing to bring all the other lenses AND switch them when you need to to gain that F4 set of image options. That's the real compromise to consider for your personal needs.
. So, in one sense I applaud the officials in Peru to regulate behavior at this sensitive historic site.
seems like the distance between finger and brain has become waaay longer!
…that’s pretty subjective….
