Great review and very informative. I just got the 24-200 and was still thinking of getting the other one you talked about the 28-300 besides. But after your review don't need it. The only thing I noticed on the 24-200 is it doesn't have the button for the switch for A/M on the lens. Thanks again.
My Take on Canon and Nikon ML system lenses is that consumers are taken for a ride. with DSLR we had a 28-300 f4.5-5.6 that is a lens used by many including professionals. No we get a Z 24-200 f4-6.3? Canon comes with a 100-500 f4.5-7.1 even Sigma and Tamron make 150-600 with f6.3 at the long end. And the price is ridiculous compared to 3rd party lenses. The FF /FX ML systems from the 3 main brands is not only stupid expensive but the lens offering is priced beyond the value one pays. With DSLR lenses we paid big money for big apertures and fast focus. Most lenses today are sharp and the difference in sharpness has become so small that it is far less of a money factor. Fact is FF/FX lenses will never be small given sensor size, what we now see is that aperture is compromised for size, and internal zoom replaced with telescopic zooms all for the sake of size. So as a travel lens 24-200 f6.3 at the long end? Now ISO and IS needs to make up for the "slow" lens.. sorry IS and high ISO can never replace aperture, one of the most important creative factors in any lens. The reason why people pick f1.4 over 1.8 or f2.8 over f4. Nikon lens line up is going to kill its efforts to establish a mirrorless system. The FTZ adaptor is a compromise.
I've thought about purchasing this lens, however I found that at its closest focus, it wasn't very sharp, flat field, away from the center. For instance, my Olympus 12-100, and my Nikon DX 16-85 are sharp flat field, right into the corners,, where this lens doesn't seem to be. Is this something you have found as well. There is very little information on this. I would love to have this lens for my Z5.
Hi James! Unfortunately we can’t compare them at the moment as the lens went back to Nikon, but can definitely do it in the future once we get a demo sample.
Hi David, the build quality is pretty much the same as 24-70 f/4 S and 14-30 f/4 S lenses. It doesn’t feel cheap but also doesn’t feel as premium as 24-70mm f/2.8 S lens.
I used the 28-300 FX lens on both my D850 and my Z7 (with the FTZ adapter) and I was very disappointed with the VR on this lens, especially at the longer focal lengths. I sold this lens and purchased the 24-200s lens and it has substantially improved VR using IBIS with my Z7 inspite of being a slower lens. I would still prefer a future 28-300 s lens but this won't be available for some time. Overall, I am pleased with the 24-200.
If the 24-200 Z is almost as good as the 70-200/4 in the common fl range, well either the 24-200 is a miracle (but optics/physics doesn't make miracles), or the 70-200/4 is a scam (it isn't) ;-) I own the 70-200/4 VR and have seen full-res pictures taken with the 24-200 Z. I've realized that the 70-200/4 is visibly better in terms of sharpness, contrast and CA. I guess you won't see significant differences in A4 prints. Things may be different when printing larger than A3+.
Dobri den' Goski from Slovakia, love the country, has been there many times! I did take some photos of the moving subjects and the performance was slightly slower than 24-70 f/4S lens especially on the longer end. However, it is on par with F mount 28-300 and may be marginally better. So, no professional choice (70-200 would be the right answer here) but usable as a travel enthusiast option.
@@graysofwestminster well, thanks. Too bad I can't try the lens. Not in store :-(. I work as a ski resort photographer. Most pics of moving people are in the range 24-70 mm. Longer than 70 is only for still pictures for me as mountains, landscape - not necessary fast focus. All pics are displayed only on social networks and some printed flyers.I have Olympus OMD 5 II with Zuiko 12-40 Pro but autofocus here is not good :-(. I hope Z6 will be great upgrade.
Hi Chris, I totally agree. It is the versatility over the image quality and bokeh. But in my opinion it is a such convenient option when you want to travel light! And yes, I would recommend to have a prime lens (suitable for your style of photography) to go with it for wide aperture deliciousness. In my case it is either the 50mm f/1.8 S or 85mm f/1.4G.
Nikon Z 24-70 F2.8 S 2296.95 $ Nikon Z 70-200 F2.8 VR S $2,596.95 If you want 24-200 but F2.8 Pros F2.8 Match sharper Cons Very expensive big and heavy Nikon Z 24-200 F4-6.3 VR 896.95$ Pros you get 2 lens in on Very light lens 67mm filter Price…. Cons F4-6.3 Most of the time you’re probably need to use High ISO
THANK YOU! No one wants to put into perspective that for $900 you are getting a nice lens. People that have this lens are happy with it and don’t have any serious complaints. That’s why I’m buying one in two days. Not many people have $2000 plus for a lens. Thanks for posting that comment.
Obviously this lens is useless in anything other than daylight. So it’s exclusively a daytime lens. Also not great wide open. So, it’s really a 7.1 beyond 70 mm It is technically sharp but not at all as good a lens at the 24-70. Don’t be fooled by the reviews. There is more to image quality than just the chart sharpness checks. You’ll see :)
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
I bought one to go with my Z6 - fantastic lens, sharpness and overall image quality is great.
I got mine quite early. It's light and performs very well. Love it.
I bought a gently used copy of this lens at a great price (
Sounds ideal for travel photography and if low light photography (f2.8) is not encountered
Great review and very informative. I just got the 24-200 and was still thinking of getting the other one you talked about the 28-300 besides. But after your review don't need it. The only thing I noticed on the 24-200 is it doesn't have the button for the switch for A/M on the lens. Thanks again.
Seems interesting lens, especially for traveling!
28-300 was an amazing lens I miss it but the 24-200 does a really good job.
Seems a very versatile lens
My Take on Canon and Nikon ML system lenses is that consumers are taken for a ride. with DSLR we had a 28-300 f4.5-5.6 that is a lens used by many including professionals. No we get a Z 24-200 f4-6.3? Canon comes with a 100-500 f4.5-7.1 even Sigma and Tamron make 150-600 with f6.3 at the long end. And the price is ridiculous compared to 3rd party lenses. The FF /FX ML systems from the 3 main brands is not only stupid expensive but the lens offering is priced beyond the value one pays. With DSLR lenses we paid big money for big apertures and fast focus. Most lenses today are sharp and the difference in sharpness has become so small that it is far less of a money factor. Fact is FF/FX lenses will never be small given sensor size, what we now see is that aperture is compromised for size, and internal zoom replaced with telescopic zooms all for the sake of size. So as a travel lens 24-200 f6.3 at the long end? Now ISO and IS needs to make up for the "slow" lens.. sorry IS and high ISO can never replace aperture, one of the most important creative factors in any lens. The reason why people pick f1.4 over 1.8 or f2.8 over f4. Nikon lens line up is going to kill its efforts to establish a mirrorless system. The FTZ adaptor is a compromise.
5.6 to 6.3 is only a 1/3 of a stop. My thinks you’re being a bit over dramatic. 🙄
Good review. Love the intro!
I've thought about purchasing this lens, however I found that at its closest focus, it wasn't very sharp, flat field, away from the center. For instance, my Olympus 12-100, and my Nikon DX 16-85 are sharp flat field, right into the corners,, where this lens doesn't seem to be. Is this something you have found as well. There is very little information on this. I would love to have this lens for my Z5.
Hello Konstantin, Not a lens for me but looks good. Great little video, just one quick question does it take the Z tele converters. Keep well.
Hi John! Unfortunately, this lens doesn’t take teleconverters.
Hi sir, Have you shoot in the night with 24-200 lens? If you have some images please upload.Thanks
Try to buy one, back ordered for months !
Amen. I had to get mine off ebay...
Would be good if put in with the Z5
Hi Andrew! It performs the same on Z 5 as on our Z 6. It is a great travel lens for Z 5.
@@graysofwestminster I might buy the Z5 and this lens rather than the wee lens in the kit
@@andrewchisholm3665 we can help you with that! It is actually on offer currently: shop.graysofwestminster.co.uk/product/z-5-body/
Please compare this lens to the image quality of the 50-250mm DX on crop sensor?
Hi James! Unfortunately we can’t compare them at the moment as the lens went back to Nikon, but can definitely do it in the future once we get a demo sample.
Kon: I know this is not an S lens but how is the build quality relatively speaking? Thanks.
Hi David, the build quality is pretty much the same as 24-70 f/4 S and 14-30 f/4 S lenses. It doesn’t feel cheap but also doesn’t feel as premium as 24-70mm f/2.8 S lens.
I used the 28-300 FX lens on both my D850 and my Z7 (with the FTZ adapter) and I was very disappointed with the VR on this lens, especially at the longer focal lengths. I sold this lens and purchased the 24-200s lens and it has substantially improved VR using IBIS with my Z7 inspite of being a slower lens. I would still prefer a future 28-300 s lens but this won't be available for some time. Overall, I am pleased with the 24-200.
Great video , How you compare w/ Sigma 18-250 f/3.5 THANKS
how about 70-200 f4 f mount v/s this new one? or 70-200 z mount v/s this new one ??
If the 24-200 Z is almost as good as the 70-200/4 in the common fl range, well either the 24-200 is a miracle (but optics/physics doesn't make miracles), or the 70-200/4 is a scam (it isn't) ;-) I own the 70-200/4 VR and have seen full-res pictures taken with the 24-200 Z. I've realized that the 70-200/4 is visibly better in terms of sharpness, contrast and CA. I guess you won't see significant differences in A4 prints. Things may be different when printing larger than A3+.
@@riccardopolini1289 thanks... that's reassuring to know that f mount lens is still worth investing money..
Hey ! Have you tried taking pictures of any moving objects with this lens in daylight? Runners, moving cars...? Is it slow or acceptable in daylight?
Dobri den' Goski from Slovakia, love the country, has been there many times! I did take some photos of the moving subjects and the performance was slightly slower than 24-70 f/4S lens especially on the longer end. However, it is on par with F mount 28-300 and may be marginally better. So, no professional choice (70-200 would be the right answer here) but usable as a travel enthusiast option.
@@graysofwestminster well, thanks. Too bad I can't try the lens. Not in store :-(. I work as a ski resort photographer. Most pics of moving people are in the range 24-70 mm. Longer than 70 is only for still pictures for me as mountains, landscape - not necessary fast focus. All pics are displayed only on social networks and some printed flyers.I have Olympus OMD 5 II with Zuiko 12-40 Pro but autofocus here is not good :-(. I hope Z6 will be great upgrade.
How is the autofocus compared to the 28-300mm lens?
AF definitely feels faster.
Good to hear
Becky is different today.
😄
Hi Kon, f stop is too much for me seems a good lens though
Hi Chris, I totally agree. It is the versatility over the image quality and bokeh. But in my opinion it is a such convenient option when you want to travel light! And yes, I would recommend to have a prime lens (suitable for your style of photography) to go with it for wide aperture deliciousness. In my case it is either the 50mm f/1.8 S or 85mm f/1.4G.
Nikon Z 24-70 F2.8 S 2296.95 $
Nikon Z 70-200 F2.8 VR S $2,596.95
If you want 24-200 but F2.8
Pros
F2.8 Match sharper
Cons
Very expensive big and heavy
Nikon Z 24-200 F4-6.3 VR 896.95$
Pros you get 2 lens in on
Very light lens
67mm filter
Price….
Cons
F4-6.3 Most of the time you’re probably need to use High ISO
THANK YOU! No one wants to put into perspective that for $900 you are getting a nice lens. People that have this lens are happy with it and don’t have any serious complaints. That’s why I’m buying one in two days. Not many people have $2000 plus for a lens. Thanks for posting that comment.
Obviously this lens is useless in anything other than daylight.
So it’s exclusively a daytime lens.
Also not great wide open. So, it’s really a 7.1 beyond 70 mm
It is technically sharp but not at all as good a lens at the 24-70.
Don’t be fooled by the reviews.
There is more to image quality than just the chart sharpness checks.
You’ll see :)
начинай ботать по русски...