Roy
Well-known member
The 24-200 is my least favourite Z lens.
I wish i'd bought the 24-120 - although it has a little less range its a far superior lens ...
Nikon Z 24-200mm lens to add to my Z8's kit?
- Thread starter James C.
- Start date
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).
I wish i'd bought the 24-120 - although it has a little less range its a far superior lens ...
James C.
Active member
Thanks everyone for your input. I got the 24-200mm lens. 
Wow, never had this kind of lens on the radar, but it looks great.
Of course putting a Z8 on the back end for this purpose would be overkill but with a good used 24MP body this would be ideal to get my girl friend closer to photography, because she has such a good eye for details in nature.
Hope it turns out well for you. I’m quite pleased with it overall for what I intended it to be. Let us know.Thanks everyone for your input. I got the 24-200mm lens.
for what it’s worth, those images I posted were from the 24-200 on my Z8. Not sure why you’d think it was overkill?
I'd like to know this too. I use mine on my 46MP Z7 and it works well.
Well, it probably was a kind of linguistic mishap
(see flag below) and I apologize. I didn't want to put in question that shooting the lens with hires bodies is possible and renders good results.Against the background of what my idea was with this lens, the word overkill referred more to "the intended user" than to the camera body itself. Looking at the weight and compactness of this lens as well as at the level of the intended user I was thinking of getting something lighter and smaller, like a Z5, Z6 (II) or a Zf.
The "intended user" is almost 65 and a fairy with about 45kg and really tiny hands. When she holds the Z8 with the 100-400 or the 180-600 it looks a bit like the camera carries the photographer and she has to decide whether to hold the camera tight OR reaching the Fn buttons
.The other thing is to deal with a very "analogue" person. Although not being the lightest of the three bodies mentioned, the latter seems appealing to me especially remembering the fact that when I started with photography things liek a Ricoh TLS 401 or Rollei SL35 I think it helped a lot to develop the conciousness about the settings and their impact, because I had to physically turn knobs and rings.
But currently it is more an idea than a project, that was born reading the posts here ...
I guess I'm one of those "intended users" then. I'm 62 (almost 65), although I'm 100kg not 45 and I have big hands. I have rheumatoid arthritis, so I prefer lighter cameras these days, although I used a D850 for a long time so I'm no stranger to big cameras. The thing is, none of this has anything to do with the 24-200, which is a good all purpose lens with any Z camera. As I said earlier, I took it in May to Yellowstone/Grand Teton for a landscape lens and it performed well. I got some great pictures with it. It is not as sharp in the corners as some of the other Nikon lenses, but it is very close. Close enough. Nigel Danson has a good video where he compares it to a 24-70 in large prints, this video was a big reason I bought it.Well, it probably was a kind of linguistic mishap
Against the background of what my idea was with this lens, the word overkill referred more to "the intended user" than to the camera body itself. Looking at the weight and compactness of this lens as well as at the level of the intended user I was thinking of getting something lighter and smaller, like a Z5, Z6 (II) or a Zf.
The "intended user" is almost 65 and a fairy with about 45kg and really tiny hands. When she holds the Z8 with the 100-400 or the 180-600 it looks a bit like the camera carries the photographer and she has to decide whether to hold the camera tight OR reaching the Fn buttons
The other thing is to deal with a very "analogue" person. Although not being the lightest of the three bodies mentioned, the latter seems appealing to me especially remembering the fact that when I started with photography things liek a Ricoh TLS 401 or Rollei SL35 I think it helped a lot to develop the conciousness about the settings and their impact, because I had to physically turn knobs and rings.
But currently it is more an idea than a project, that was born reading the posts here ...
Thanks for this one ! Really interesting. Maybe I am using "the other person" as an excuse to buy one and give it a try
. I have the 24-120 and it'S a great lens, but if I'm out just with the camera on the strap walking around in the town or at an event I often miss a bit at the long end. Let's see ...
That's what it is good for. If I don't need the extended reach I'll use my 24-70 which is a bit sharper, but the 24-200 is great for a travel/walking around/hiking lens and sharp enough for my purposes.Thanks for this one ! Really interesting. Maybe I am using "the other person" as an excuse to buy one and give it a try
James C.
Active member
The day the 24-200 lens arrived, I took the lens (on my Z8) out to a field by my house. It was a sunny day and I tried it out at a variety of focal lengths. I thought the lens did well regarding light gathering at a variety of shutter speeds.
However, we've had rain moving through our area in the past few days, so I tried taking a few shots indoors in rooms that were fairly dim because of the overcast outside, to see how it would do. I also took some shots outside on my front walk in the overcast light.
I have to admit that the lens does not bring in enough light when indoors. I would think that I'd want to use a flash indoors, for sure, if there wasn't a lot of light coming into the room.
Outdoors, on a dim, overcast day, I found that raising the ev to +1.0 gave me an acceptable exposure.
Overall, since I don't plan on using this lens often, I think it's going to be fine for me. It's compact and light. I will be mindful to use it where/when there's good light.
Hope it works out for you.
I have the 24-200 and use it with the 14-30 as my primary travel kit. I spend a lot of time on business travel each year so this combo works great for my needs. I’ll often use the 70-300 Tamron substituted for the 24-200 if I need a bit more reach. I use a peak design 6L sling as my travel bag and 2 of these fit each side well with the body in the center (I keep the 26mm 2.8 on the body so that comes with me, its no further out than the grip). With the origami dividers it’s east to add the 40mm 2 or 28mm 2.8 on either side, or a 20mm 2.8 Viltrox for a bit lower light landscapes. Those primes are all feather light and bring very little weight penalty.
I’ve found the 24-200 to be sharp enough for my needs. There are better options for sure but it’s a great all around lens for days you just want to bring one.
I use the Z8 and Zf, usually the Zf for traveling. Most images I share with family on the 24-200 so it’s going to be viewed at 4k resolution or less where a sharper lens wouldn’t really add anything to the shots. The small primes cover indoors and street photography in night conditions or very low light.
The 28-400 looks interesting but also larger as an option. I have not tried it yet.
I’ve used the 24-120 G lens in the past and found I prefer the 24-200 for the additional range and never picked up that lens in Z mount although I know it’s excellent. For portraits I have the 35/50/85 1.8S lenses which I prefer to use instead of zooms.
The 24-200 is much sharper than lenses of this type I’ve used in the past. Photographylife‘s Spencer takes pretty nice landscapes with it and the 14-30 coupled with that lens is his preferred travel kit as well with a Z7. He produces great results.
I’ve found the 24-200 to be sharp enough for my needs. There are better options for sure but it’s a great all around lens for days you just want to bring one.
I use the Z8 and Zf, usually the Zf for traveling. Most images I share with family on the 24-200 so it’s going to be viewed at 4k resolution or less where a sharper lens wouldn’t really add anything to the shots. The small primes cover indoors and street photography in night conditions or very low light.
The 28-400 looks interesting but also larger as an option. I have not tried it yet.
I’ve used the 24-120 G lens in the past and found I prefer the 24-200 for the additional range and never picked up that lens in Z mount although I know it’s excellent. For portraits I have the 35/50/85 1.8S lenses which I prefer to use instead of zooms.
The 24-200 is much sharper than lenses of this type I’ve used in the past. Photographylife‘s Spencer takes pretty nice landscapes with it and the 14-30 coupled with that lens is his preferred travel kit as well with a Z7. He produces great results.
PeterM
New member
A few months ago I added a refurbished Z24-200 to my Z8 kit, which also includes the Z24-120 S, to use as a hiking, travel, and walk-around lens. It was on sale from Nikon for $599. The 24-200 is slightly lighter and smaller and is quite sharp with good overall image quality. I prefer the Z24-120, however, for times when image quality is more important than flexibility or extra reach. It is an excellent lens for landscape, portraiture, and lower-light situations. The constant f4 aperture makes a difference, too. If I had to pick just one, it would be the Z 24-120 as it might be my overall favorite Z lens.
tomcat
Member
I don’t see any sharpness issues with any of these images. They look great. I just bought the 24-200 mm for a trip to the Dakotas and that’s the only lens I’m taking. Thanks for sharing !I am a huge fan of this lens. Some facts that influence my decision -
Originally planned to carry the Z24-120 on the Z8 to accomodate my physical restrictions, but a buddy of mine said that he played with the Z24-200 and was amazed at the image quality and the price point. I also wanted the extra 80mm of focal length over the bigger and heavier 24-120. Caught a terrific sale and bought one. Played around with it in a butterfly cage (yes, great macro capability wven without a tripod).
- I am 76 yrs old, NPS member with 55 yrs of experience and currently walk with a cane.
- Recent convert to Z8 with Z versions of the 2.8 trinity lenses
- For pleasure shooting on holiday, I can no longer lug around my "pro" 2.8 trinity lenses. Bought a Z24-200 to use on a river cruise holiday last month. Only equipment I carried was the Z8 with the Z24-200/4.5-6.3 on a sling strap and a new Godox V350N TTL Flash which is smaller, lighter and runs on rechargeable dedicated battery rather than my bigger and heavier SB910 and the necessary AA batts/chargers.
- When I was shooting with F mount gear, I found the various "super zooms" (both DX and FX) that I tried produced unacceptable images, especially at the long ends. None every made it into my kit.
- No - of course my Z24-200 cannot compare to my Z24-70/2.8 or Z70-200/2.8., nor with the Z24-120/4. Who would expect it to?
I am attaching a link containing some of the butterfly shots and some selected images from the France river trip. I did some rudimentary PS editing just to tweak them up, but since they were for our personal use, didn't have the motivation to spend the time I would for a commercial editing. I did need some frequent noise reduction due to the slow, long end 6.3 and of course some color, exposure and sharpening work, but didn't spend any consideralbe time. My wife and I are the end users.
Nikon Z24-200 Samples - Rick Waller
This gallery hosted by SmugMug; your photos look better here.photosbyrick.smugmug.com
Reading some of the reviews on this forum and others, I couldn't help wondering if some of the replies were offered by people who actually used the lens or just repeated the old saws about superzooms. For $700 on sale, it was a no brainer for me. $700 compared to $1,100 Z24-120? I'll take the acceptable hit on IQ and slow aperture thank you for the ability to pare the weight and size on my shoulder.
Oh - and the Z28-400 might indeed be an excellent lens, but my goal was to minimize size, weight and $. and I prefer the available wider focal length and faster apperture to the extra 200mm at the long end. I wanted a travel lens, not a wildlife lens.
I urge you to give the 24-200 a try and decide for yourself if you find the results acceptable.
Worked for me. Hope you have a similar result.
Personally…it's bigger and heavier than a 24-120 and DX gets that to 180 so for me the extra 20 doesn't overcome the weight/size difference.
Uh - the 24-200 is actually a wee bit lighter in weight and smaller in size. For all practical purposes, they are too close to matter,
You’re right…I confused it with the 28-400. I’ve got the 24-200 and it’s a decent enough travel lens but is slower than the shorter one at most focal lengths and not an S lens. SorTy ‘bout that…
Hardly a hanging offense.
. I actually looked into the 28-400, but as you said, way too big/heavy, too slow and for travel, I prefer 24mm.