For the price alone, this super zoom is pretty good actually. In broad daylight, it's just as sharp of any f2.8. Yes, it is not suitable for evening shots. For hiking and camping, this lense is just the tool you need and probably add the 14-30 f4 in your bag as well
Fast usually means f2.8 -f1.8 or lower because they open wider to let in more light. An f4 does not open as wide so less light gets in and onto the sensor. I am considering getting this lens simply for the focal range 24-200.
Your pictures show, that this lens is great! When I bough it I was afraid because of "this is not "S" lense", or "it is not fast"....but, fast for what? I travel a lot, hike a lot, ski a lot...and Nikon Z6 II + 24-200 mm is great combo friend. I am very happy with it . It is fast for taking pics of skiers, bikers...it is much faster than I expected. I have 2 "S" lenses of Z-series but I can not see significant difference.
Lovely images. That view of the mountains is gorgeous and definitely something I'd love to see with my own eyes one day! One question: Have you used the Nikon Z 50-250 DX lens? And if so, how does it compare to the 24-200 in terms of image quality? I'm looking to replace my kit zoom for my Z50. Cheers :)
Thank you! No I haven't used the 50-250, sorry. I thought about using that instead of the 24-200, but I feel the 24-200 gave me a bit more flexibility, focal length wise. Plus I use it on my full frame cameras. I have heard the 50-250 is a beauty though.
@@Blinsaff I think you made the right decision when choosing the 24-200, as the flexibility you mention is exactly what I miss from the 50-250. It's a great lens for the price though! Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.
Great video. Very well put together and pleasant to watch. Thanks! l mostly use a z24mm in my hikes, but l'm considering a zoom lens to film wild life. The f4 maximum aperture puts me off as l often shoot at f1.8... Trade offs!
I've noticed that reviewers of this lens appear quite impressed, but always add a qualifier such as "for what it is" or something of that nature. It's as if they like the lens, but think they shouldn't praise it too much, because it's not a 2.8, and doesn't cost a pile of money. Sometimes they examine the image corners at 200% and compare it to one of the S lenses, as if they feel they have to find something inferior, given its price point and slow aperture. They often start their reviews by claiming they don't usually like "superzooms," and almost apologize for reviewing it. Oddly enough, despite their protestations, they appear to like the lens a lot.
I think its ingrained to think that these type of lenses “are bad”. But after spending A LOT of time using this lens on professional and personal projects, it never leaves my Z6. An absolute beauty.
I'm thinking of getting a Nikon Z5 or 6 used and am trying to choose between the 24-70 F4 or the 24-200. I'm moving from an Olympus 0M-D E-M1 MKII and I mostly use the 12-100 F4 pro on it which is the same range as the 24-200. I mainly shoot landscapes. Which would you pick given you have both? I don't shoot video.
For the price alone, this super zoom is pretty good actually. In broad daylight, it's just as sharp of any f2.8. Yes, it is not suitable for evening shots. For hiking and camping, this lense is just the tool you need and probably add the 14-30 f4 in your bag as well
Fast usually means f2.8 -f1.8 or lower because they open wider to let in more light. An f4 does not open as wide so less light gets in and onto the sensor. I am considering getting this lens simply for the focal range 24-200.
Your pictures show, that this lens is great! When I bough it I was afraid because of "this is not "S" lense", or "it is not fast"....but, fast for what? I travel a lot, hike a lot, ski a lot...and Nikon Z6 II + 24-200 mm is great combo friend. I am very happy with it . It is fast for taking pics of skiers, bikers...it is much faster than I expected. I have 2 "S" lenses of Z-series but I can not see significant difference.
Yep, it’s perfect for what it is. Using it to the best of its ability can give you some great images!!
Lovely images. That view of the mountains is gorgeous and definitely something I'd love to see with my own eyes one day! One question: Have you used the Nikon Z 50-250 DX lens? And if so, how does it compare to the 24-200 in terms of image quality? I'm looking to replace my kit zoom for my Z50. Cheers :)
Thank you! No I haven't used the 50-250, sorry. I thought about using that instead of the 24-200, but I feel the 24-200 gave me a bit more flexibility, focal length wise. Plus I use it on my full frame cameras. I have heard the 50-250 is a beauty though.
@@Blinsaff I think you made the right decision when choosing the 24-200, as the flexibility you mention is exactly what I miss from the 50-250. It's a great lens for the price though! Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.
Great video. Very well put together and pleasant to watch. Thanks! l mostly use a z24mm in my hikes, but l'm considering a zoom lens to film wild life. The f4 maximum aperture puts me off as l often shoot at f1.8... Trade offs!
Thank you, thanks for watching. That’s true but you’ll still be able to great great images at f4!
Sure, l have no doubt! And to take shots l now simply can't... ATB! 😊
I've noticed that reviewers of this lens appear quite impressed, but always add a qualifier such as "for what it is" or something of that nature. It's as if they like the lens, but think they shouldn't praise it too much, because it's not a 2.8, and doesn't cost a pile of money. Sometimes they examine the image corners at 200% and compare it to one of the S lenses, as if they feel they have to find something inferior, given its price point and slow aperture. They often start their reviews by claiming they don't usually like "superzooms," and almost apologize for reviewing it. Oddly enough, despite their protestations, they appear to like the lens a lot.
I think its ingrained to think that these type of lenses “are bad”. But after spending A LOT of time using this lens on professional and personal projects, it never leaves my Z6. An absolute beauty.
I'm thinking of getting a Nikon Z5 or 6 used and am trying to choose between the 24-70 F4 or the 24-200. I'm moving from an Olympus 0M-D E-M1 MKII and I mostly use the 12-100 F4 pro on it which is the same range as the 24-200. I mainly shoot landscapes. Which would you pick given you have both? I don't shoot video.
I’d say go with the 24-200, it’s very much like the 12-100 that you’re used to. The extra reach puts its over the 24-70 for me.
Awesome pictures 🔥
Thanks!