Despite many people looking down on the superzoom lens, this is one of my favorite lens. People should always factor in versatility when evaluating optical performance. Getting the shot is more important than bokeh or corner sharpness. With good VR and reasonable autofocus, this lens should be in every Nikon Z owner's bag.
This lens never leaves my camera. It’s versatility is it’s best benefit. I travel for work and need to keep my kit light. Highly recommend this lens. Want bokeh? Get closer to your subject and zoom in. Love this lens.
I was choosing between this lens and the Z 24-120 for when I can only bring one lens. After seeing your review of the 24-120's exceptional image quality I ended up getting it and have been very impressed by it's performance. Seeing this review of the 24-200 I would most likely have been very happy whichever one I got.
One suggestion: I feel a wide range zoom (like this one) would deserve checking more focals, especially as it is sometimes enough to just leave the extremes to see drastic improvements. Here, seeing at 28 or 35mm and at 135 or 150mm I feel would be of interest. But great review anyway, keep up the good work !! 😊 And yesss... I'm sure we were many to wait your test of this lens ! 😁
I love this lens, before I got the 70-200 and 400mm it was the longest focal length lens I had and is still my go-to street or backpacking lens. It was great on the Z50 because it had VR.
I own the lens and can’t really complain. Not the lens I use for the pictures that matters the most to me but cityscapes, short trips, general use,… really good. Sealed, stabilised, sharp and with short minimum focusing distance. But it in bundle with the body and have no regrets
I have found this lens to serve me really well. Most of the issues can be worked around. Having VR + IBIS is great for handheld. A great lens for hiking and long distance backpacking. The only issue I personally have is issues with quite heavy flaring when shooting into the sun compared to other lenses.
Chris, can you perhaps pick different focal lengths to test? Like, from 24 to 100mm is a big jump - over 4 times. Then from 100 to 200mm is just 2 times. I think 50mm might be worth including as well. And coincidentally, that’s the “normal” focal length.
Might be a good idea for his patreon page for meticulous test. I think the main purpose of this lens is intended for an extreme measure. Seasonal photographers who already know what their own sweet focal length might be uninterested of this one.
I think for the sake of time, he only does the three tests in all of his videos. I know that this can be a problem because some lenses can have good and bad focal lengths as you go up the zoom range, but that's not really as common, and more common is that they either go from good, to better or OK, to good or worse, so they may start out strong, get better or worse, and then towards the end usually get a little worse. Also by giving too many FLs it may confuse some people too.
I think you shouldn't have skipped 50mm in sharpness tests. Relation between focal length of a zoom and its IQ is not always linear. Improvement on such lenses often comes just behind the 24mm territory.
True, also 100mm is not the middle of this lens' zoom range, ~75mm would be, so Christopher should have either chosen that, or added 50mm, like you said, for equidistant divisions.
True, but it does give an indication of how a lens performs at various FLs though, so to some, it may be important. I actually like his videos because he does go through the various FLs (some people just test the extremes and that's it, and that's not telling us much about the general performance -- plus we can make an educated guess about the extremes based on MTF charts but mid-ranges in zoom lenses are not usually graphed out on such charts, so tests like this have value.
Chris, Olympus makes an F/4 constant lens with the same focal range (12-100mm but works as 24-200mm on FF). Would LOVE to see you do a review of that, it's a lens in a class of it's own but NOBODY anywhere has done a proper review of it. Any chance you could run it through it's paces? M43 cameras need a bit of love too.
I have both Z 24-200 (which I bought earlier) and then the Z 24-120 f/4. I was planning on selling the 24-200 after I bought the second lens, but very reluctant as this is an awesome super zoom when travelling or backpacking in the wilderness. So for now I have both, 24-200 on my old Z6 and the 24-120 and other S lenses go on my Z8.
It’s a great lens. I enjoy taking pictures when out hiking in the Lake District and this is on the camera. I don’t really pixel peep and this lens on my Z5 does all I need. I’ve got a z50 mm and z28 mm but they gather dust really
Cheers to a great review and recommendation on a high quality lens that I already know and LOVE!! I bought this lens with my new Nikon Z6 II back in November of 2022 and it is fantastic for what it is, what it does and what it costs. I also bought the Nikkor Z 40 mm/F2 Prime for Portrait or "street" photography, so both of these lenses balance out my kit and produce everything that I need in image quality, for what they cost. I am a retired engineer and an avid amateur photographer who travels the world and I do not desire to carry a bag full of expensive lenses when I travel. Both of these lenses have been to Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland since I purchased my new system and I am extremely happy with the images they have produced. I always shoot Raw, so I don't care so much about the "perfect" Bokeh, Chromatic Aberration, Barrel or Pin Cushion, as I let the camera try to do its best to compensate, or I adjust these attributes in Lightroom afterwards. The majority of my edited Favorite photos are either displayed on an Aura type electronic frame display, or as computer wallpaper or professionally printed on canvas to hang somewhere in my home. Thanks again for a great review!
Little lighter than the 28-300, and without the hood relatively bit smaller. If you need the 24-200 range I say get it, or if you still want smaller lens and prefer f/4 aperture i would go with the chreaper 24-70
Missed the usual parfocal test you do.. I saw another video of the lens and the footage with z6 ii looked parfocal.. don't know if it really is, or if it's the carmera doing a great job of correcting the focus real time...
I watch your reviews regardless of brand. It’s always good to know what the competition of my camera brand of choice has to offer. And I loved the ending! 😂
I’m looking at buying the z50 (mainly for a safari holiday) with the option to get the two kit lenses (18-50 and 50-250). Alternatively I could get the z50 body only with this single superzoom for the convenience. What do you think is the better option?
Regarding eye detect in video, make sure you have the latest firmware installed. I updated my Z5 and it focuses better, especially for touch screen object detection, it locks on a subject and remains on it even when I move the camera around. From object to object in touch mode it focuses fast between objects with the touch of the screen in object (yellow box) mode. Oddly my z30 has eye detection, but the Z5 does not yet, even with latest firmware, but its object subject detection is good. I am looking at this lens for video and it sounds smooth zoom with no focus breathing.
@@truthseeker6804 The RF 24-240 is equal or a bit under the nikon in center sharpness, but much worse in the corners as Canon corrects distorsion and CA in camera instead of optically, which leads to mediocre corners because of the terrible distorsion and CA (especially at wide angle, where the image doesn't even cover the whole sensor). Despite being at the same price, the canon is also worse in flare resistance, AF speed, and built quality.
@@pierrevilley6675 you have no knowledge of what you're saying. The Canon 24-240 uses USM focusing and it's fast in focusing. And canon autofocus is generally considered better than nikon. Also the center sharpness of the Canon would be better than the nikon.
@@truthseeker6804 Just watch the review from CF, Canon AF is usually better than Nikon's, but not in this case, probably because canon re-used motors from smaller lenses to make the 24-240 cheaper to produce, resulting in it being underpowered. And for the center sharpness, it is debattable, both are on the same level, but IMO Nikon is a tad above Canon. Besides, for a travel lens, you really need decent corners on the wider end, which is exactly where the canon fails spectacularly. In one sentence, Nikon made a decent superzoom, whereas Canon once again purposefully underdesigned their equivalent (don't get me wrong, it is still a decent lens, but it could have been much better) to make more money and push their customers to buy L glass just to get corner sharpness.
Thanks for this review. I have quite a niche reason for wanting this lens, which is to be able to capture dolly zoom videos when driving through interesting looking scapes along the road ahead.
Despite not being a nikon fan at all, I must say nikon's lenses are, for now, the only and greatest reason I would tell someday to jump on the nikon system. Even this super zoom is way better than canon's equivalent, especially with distortion or sensor coverage at wide angles. If only Canon would bring back the original L line built quality, with metalic bodies and nice feeling zoom rings, especially for the most expensive L RF lenses... I mean, optically, both companies create outstanding optics, but Canon surely falls behind when it comes to built quality. Too much plastic. I mean, a little metal barrel next to the mount, as nikon does with their S line lenses, would certainly be appreciated. And the zoom on the 28-70 f2 rf feels a little cheap for what a masterpiece of a lens it is. If only I could get Canon's Af system and motors, electronics ,and innovation, and Nikon's taste for design of lenses and build quality, toghether, i think that would be almost perfection. I love Canon, and that is that. But I feel a bit jealous when looking at some of Nikon's lenses. I mean, even the kit 24-70 f4 Z is just wow, in terms of the zoom ring dampening. I miss that luxury, a little. I don't mean Canon's lenses aren't great, the RF 24-70 f2.8 is just perfection in almost every aspect. Didn't get the opportunity to play with a Z24-70 f2.8, but that must be just as good, if not a little better in terms of built quality. But nikon does a little better when it comes to cheaper non premium lenses.
Typically I prefer to use my primes or 2.8 zoom lenses together with my Z9. However while backpacking, carrying that body with even a couple of those lenses is just not practical (weight & space), so for an upcoming backpacking trip I'll use my Z7 ii along with this 24-200. The lens weight and zoom coverage range are great, and the fact that I'll be shooting all outdoor and in daylight means I hope the lens speed won't be a critical issue. I generally prefer to keep my ISOs low, but have found that with the Z bodies/sensors I can tolerate higher ISOs without suffering too much noise. I'll clip the camera to my backpack shoulder strap using Peak Designs Capture clip, which provides quick access to the camera while hiking.
Im a nikon fan boy. But this coupled with my z7II is perfect. Dont be put off by the none S line as this is as sharp as the other glass they offer. 24mm can be abit none perfect but this has replaced a trinity of lens. Do your research before buying this compared to the 24120f4 but there isnt any difference imo. This lens is a very good go to landscape lens and walk about lens.
I had this lens and absolutely loved it, but I the f6.3 just struggled a little bit too much for the video work I do. Such a same, I know there's that fringing at wider angles, but provided I had light it was small and light weight enough to take anywhere I wanted. I traded for a Tamron 35-150 but that's a lot heavier so I do a lot less travel photography in my free time now.
Looking at these samples, I probably had a bad copy... mine were quite soft in the corners above 135mm and definitely at 200mm. I've considered getting this again (sold the one I Had) and trying again as it was a convenient lens, although Idid get the Z 24-120 on sale to take its place, but I could make an argument for having both I guess.
Image quality is what non pros run after when it comes to lenses.. image quality means nothing to anyone who will do some sort of post work.. more important factors are either not emphasized or skipped when lenses are reviewed
@@joshmcdzz6925 It matters to pros, but probably not at the same level (they don't usually pixel peep like the enthusiasts, but they are still somewhat concerned about sharpness among other things. I mean there's a reason why pros will shoot with say a 70-200 2.8 versus third party 70-180's for example and usually that comes down to sharpness (and overall build quality perhaps). And yes you can address some loss of sharpness in post ,but you will usually reach a limit or start to degrade the image (basically, you can't get the same level of sharpness back t hat you never had in the first place. Sharpening in post is more or less adjustintg contrast, to give the appearance of sharpness but that too has its limits).
@@18yearsoldnot In the longer FLs it's better overall, but am considering possibly getting a 24-200 again (I had one of the first few batches and from what I know, there were some QC issues with some of the batches, where lenses weren't as sharp or calibrated proplerly, so I'm willing to try another 24-200. SAme story with the 14-30 I own. First copy had some issues, but i didn't realize it until after about 6 months but later sold that and bought another copy which is much better (issues in the first lens appeared to be decentering ass one side was sharper than the other, although minor, it was visible).
Why aren't there 24-200mm or 24-240mm lenses with an f2.8 aperture? I think this would be the best lens choice and I'm sure it won't be too expensive when compared to the 24-70mm f2.8 + 70-200mm f2.8 lenses, especially if it's made by a third party like sigma, tamron, samyang etc although the drawbacks will definitely make it heavier and larger than lens like tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6
@@daviddyephotography I mentioned above "it won't be too expensive", you can see from the price of the Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 (launch price $729) which is quite affordable....maybe the price will be 2-3x more expensive than that, but it's still more affordable when compared to native 24-70mm f2.8 + 70-200mm f2.8 lenses from Sony, Canon, Nikon etc.
Because such a big fast zoom would either be impossible to create, would have poor image quality, or would weigh far more than you would be willing to carry. There's a reason why almost all f/2.8 lenses are about 3x zoom.
@@bangjoe7845 Okay so if it was possible to create an optically great 24-200 f/2.8 why has no one made it yet? It would sell a lot since it could be the only lens you'd ever need. Therefore companies would want to make it if they could.
Compared to the Tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 this lens from Nikon is not even close. As a non professional photographer I would buy into the Sony system just for this Tamron lens. If only Canon or Nikon would open their lens mounting systems...
24-200 900 pounds 24-120 1100 pounds 28-400 1300. best quallity is 24 120 but the best range is 28-400. as usual there is no possibility of putting a teleconverter on the 24 120 so for me 28-400 it is as I don't need 24mm
A nice, balanced review. The Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.4 has presented a bit of a dilemma for me personally. I bought the Z 24-200mm when I purchased a Nikon Z6ii a couple years ago. I now shoot with both the Z8 and Z9 and having bought the Nikon Z 24-120 when I bought the Z9, I find that the Z 24-200mm languishes on my shelf. Honestly, I've taken quite nice landscapes and even some outdoor dog show movement shots with the 24-200mm. The obviously problem is less-than-stellar low light capability. Really, aside from that, the lens is quite capable as you noted. The Z 24-120 f4 has become my go-to travel lens and jack-of-all-trades on both my cameras. I don't like things going unused and I may trade it in one of these days, but for the perhaps $300 I would receive on a trade-in perhaps I'll keep it and try to reach for it more often.
Olympus 12-100. I think that is a bit sharper tbh but costs more. With the Z7 or Z50 you effectively get 300mm reach though, so better in that respect.
Sorry Chris, over the many years I've used / owned many 'super zooms' and yes they are flexible but NEVER stellar - £900 (!!!) for this one - MASSIVE PASS NIKON - thank you for your review.
Wrong.. I will prioritize reach over the subjective notion of sharpness or wider aperture based on what I shoot.. so it's same with every other photographyer who make choices based on their need.. having options is what's necessary
![Снимаем на Nikkor Z. Объектив 24-200mm f/4-6.3 [#ProОбъектив №8]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XmVxqpvFNfw/mqdefault.jpg)
![Снимаем на Nikkor Z. Объектив 24-200mm f/4-6.3 [#ProОбъектив №8]](/img/tr.png)
Despite many people looking down on the superzoom lens, this is one of my favorite lens. People should always factor in versatility when evaluating optical performance. Getting the shot is more important than bokeh or corner sharpness. With good VR and reasonable autofocus, this lens should be in every Nikon Z owner's bag.
underestimated lens
Maybe many people prefer carrying lots of primes than carrying one (or two) zoom lens
agreed! love the lens for video as well due to the VR
I agree! It's in my bag for sure! I love it!
I have to agree
This lens never leaves my camera. It’s versatility is it’s best benefit. I travel for work and need to keep my kit light. Highly recommend this lens. Want bokeh? Get closer to your subject and zoom in. Love this lens.
I was choosing between this lens and the Z 24-120 for when I can only bring one lens. After seeing your review of the 24-120's exceptional image quality I ended up getting it and have been very impressed by it's performance. Seeing this review of the 24-200 I would most likely have been very happy whichever one I got.
0:39 I never felt so offended by something that is absolutely true
One suggestion: I feel a wide range zoom (like this one) would deserve checking more focals, especially as it is sometimes enough to just leave the extremes to see drastic improvements. Here, seeing at 28 or 35mm and at 135 or 150mm I feel would be of interest.
But great review anyway, keep up the good work !! 😊
And yesss... I'm sure we were many to wait your test of this lens ! 😁
Chris only shows us the interesting bits, he tests zoom lenses at many different focal lengths.
I love this lens, before I got the 70-200 and 400mm it was the longest focal length lens I had and is still my go-to street or backpacking lens. It was great on the Z50 because it had VR.
I own the lens and can’t really complain. Not the lens I use for the pictures that matters the most to me but cityscapes, short trips, general use,… really good. Sealed, stabilised, sharp and with short minimum focusing distance. But it in bundle with the body and have no regrets
I have found this lens to serve me really well. Most of the issues can be worked around. Having VR + IBIS is great for handheld. A great lens for hiking and long distance backpacking. The only issue I personally have is issues with quite heavy flaring when shooting into the sun compared to other lenses.
Chris, can you perhaps pick different focal lengths to test? Like, from 24 to 100mm is a big jump - over 4 times. Then from 100 to 200mm is just 2 times. I think 50mm might be worth including as well. And coincidentally, that’s the “normal” focal length.
I'm sure at 28 or 30mm those corners don't have the CA
Chris only shows us the interesting bits, he tests zoom lenses at many different focal lengths.
Might be a good idea for his patreon page for meticulous test.
I think the main purpose of this lens is intended for an extreme measure. Seasonal photographers who already know what their own sweet focal length might be uninterested of this one.
I think for the sake of time, he only does the three tests in all of his videos. I know that this can be a problem because some lenses can have good and bad focal lengths as you go up the zoom range, but that's not really as common, and more common is that they either go from good, to better or OK, to good or worse, so they may start out strong, get better or worse, and then towards the end usually get a little worse. Also by giving too many FLs it may confuse some people too.
I think you shouldn't have skipped 50mm in sharpness tests. Relation between focal length of a zoom and its IQ is not always linear. Improvement on such lenses often comes just behind the 24mm territory.
True, also 100mm is not the middle of this lens' zoom range, ~75mm would be, so Christopher should have either chosen that, or added 50mm, like you said, for equidistant divisions.
The lens gets great praise from several top Landscape photographers
True, but it does give an indication of how a lens performs at various FLs though, so to some, it may be important. I actually like his videos because he does go through the various FLs (some people just test the extremes and that's it, and that's not telling us much about the general performance -- plus we can make an educated guess about the extremes based on MTF charts but mid-ranges in zoom lenses are not usually graphed out on such charts, so tests like this have value.
Chris, Olympus makes an F/4 constant lens with the same focal range (12-100mm but works as 24-200mm on FF). Would LOVE to see you do a review of that, it's a lens in a class of it's own but NOBODY anywhere has done a proper review of it. Any chance you could run it through it's paces? M43 cameras need a bit of love too.
I have both Z 24-200 (which I bought earlier) and then the Z 24-120 f/4. I was planning on selling the 24-200 after I bought the second lens, but very reluctant as this is an awesome super zoom when travelling or backpacking in the wilderness. So for now I have both, 24-200 on my old Z6 and the 24-120 and other S lenses go on my Z8.
Just finished bingeing your F and Z reviews, just for this to come out, very nice!
It’s a great lens. I enjoy taking pictures when out hiking in the Lake District and this is on the camera. I don’t really pixel peep and this lens on my Z5 does all I need. I’ve got a z50 mm and z28 mm but they gather dust really
Listen, I don't appreciate being called out in the beginning of this video 😂
Cheers to a great review and recommendation on a high quality lens that I already know and LOVE!! I bought this lens with my new Nikon Z6 II back in November of 2022 and it is fantastic for what it is, what it does and what it costs. I also bought the Nikkor Z 40 mm/F2 Prime for Portrait or "street" photography, so both of these lenses balance out my kit and produce everything that I need in image quality, for what they cost. I am a retired engineer and an avid amateur photographer who travels the world and I do not desire to carry a bag full of expensive lenses when I travel. Both of these lenses have been to Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland since I purchased my new system and I am extremely happy with the images they have produced. I always shoot Raw, so I don't care so much about the "perfect" Bokeh, Chromatic Aberration, Barrel or Pin Cushion, as I let the camera try to do its best to compensate, or I adjust these attributes in Lightroom afterwards. The majority of my edited Favorite photos are either displayed on an Aura type electronic frame display, or as computer wallpaper or professionally printed on canvas to hang somewhere in my home. Thanks again for a great review!
I have been waiting for this test for a long time! Thanks Chris!
I'm happy with my Z5 & 24-200 👍, coming from a DSLR & 28-300
Hi, Is the kit heavy? Can it be hiked comfortably?
Little lighter than the 28-300, and without the hood relatively bit smaller.
If you need the 24-200 range I say get it, or if you still want smaller lens and prefer f/4 aperture i would go with the chreaper 24-70
Missed the usual parfocal test you do.. I saw another video of the lens and the footage with z6 ii looked parfocal.. don't know if it really is, or if it's the carmera doing a great job of correcting the focus real time...
I love this lens. It’s sharp and very versatile.
Looking at this as a secondary/travel lens as I mull whether to head to Nikon. Depends what Panasonic ends up releasing next for m43
I have this lens on the Z5, something fantastic!
me too
I have Z5.this lens it is full frame ?
@@radupetrut3813 yep, ff lens!
I watch your reviews regardless of brand. It’s always good to know what the competition of my camera brand of choice has to offer.
And I loved the ending! 😂
We have been waiting a long time for a review of this lens, thank you very much.
I’m looking at buying the z50 (mainly for a safari holiday) with the option to get the two kit lenses (18-50 and 50-250). Alternatively I could get the z50 body only with this single superzoom for the convenience. What do you think is the better option?
If I were to get a Nikon camera, this would be my first lens.
Good review. Nice to see the weather sealing for a do everything type lens.
Hello, Are you going to test the Samyang 35-150 f2-2.8? It would be nice to hear your thoughts and also some comparisons to the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8
Best travel lens ever! It so good I use it with tourist sessions on the streets of Lisbon
Regarding eye detect in video, make sure you have the latest firmware installed. I updated my Z5 and it focuses better, especially for touch screen object detection, it locks on a subject and remains on it even when I move the camera around. From object to object in touch mode it focuses fast between objects with the touch of the screen in object (yellow box) mode. Oddly my z30 has eye detection, but the Z5 does not yet, even with latest firmware, but its object subject detection is good. I am looking at this lens for video and it sounds smooth zoom with no focus breathing.
Can't believe it's brighter, sharper and with higher range than Canon's 24-105 4-7.1. Nikon killing it!
Well, that one is a kit lens...
seems you dont know canon has rf 24-240 f4-6.3
@@truthseeker6804 The RF 24-240 is equal or a bit under the nikon in center sharpness, but much worse in the corners as Canon corrects distorsion and CA in camera instead of optically, which leads to mediocre corners because of the terrible distorsion and CA (especially at wide angle, where the image doesn't even cover the whole sensor). Despite being at the same price, the canon is also worse in flare resistance, AF speed, and built quality.
@@pierrevilley6675 you have no knowledge of what you're saying. The Canon 24-240 uses USM focusing and it's fast in focusing. And canon autofocus is generally considered better than nikon. Also the center sharpness of the Canon would be better than the nikon.
@@truthseeker6804 Just watch the review from CF, Canon AF is usually better than Nikon's, but not in this case, probably because canon re-used motors from smaller lenses to make the 24-240 cheaper to produce, resulting in it being underpowered. And for the center sharpness, it is debattable, both are on the same level, but IMO Nikon is a tad above Canon. Besides, for a travel lens, you really need decent corners on the wider end, which is exactly where the canon fails spectacularly. In one sentence, Nikon made a decent superzoom, whereas Canon once again purposefully underdesigned their equivalent (don't get me wrong, it is still a decent lens, but it could have been much better) to make more money and push their customers to buy L glass just to get corner sharpness.
I'm not even watching his videos because I wanna buy the lens, I just watch it cuz they're relaxing
Hi and thank you for the video! I believe it's a great lens. Just ordered it together with the Nikon Z5 camera. Can't wait to test them.
I swithered between this and the 24-120Z, but went with the 24-120 in the end- I've got another camera for tele though. Nice review.
Very good video. Thanks so much for sharing your time and analysis. Very much appreciate it!
Now that I think of it... I've seen that bottle of Crystal Pepsi in almost all your videos xD
Thanks for this review. I have quite a niche reason for wanting this lens, which is to be able to capture dolly zoom videos when driving through interesting looking scapes along the road ahead.
Still waiting for Nikon Z 85mm f/1.2 review.
Despite not being a nikon fan at all, I must say nikon's lenses are, for now, the only and greatest reason I would tell someday to jump on the nikon system. Even this super zoom is way better than canon's equivalent, especially with distortion or sensor coverage at wide angles.
If only Canon would bring back the original L line built quality, with metalic bodies and nice feeling zoom rings, especially for the most expensive L RF lenses... I mean, optically, both companies create outstanding optics, but Canon surely falls behind when it comes to built quality. Too much plastic. I mean, a little metal barrel next to the mount, as nikon does with their S line lenses, would certainly be appreciated. And the zoom on the 28-70 f2 rf feels a little cheap for what a masterpiece of a lens it is. If only I could get Canon's Af system and motors, electronics ,and innovation, and Nikon's taste for design of lenses and build quality, toghether, i think that would be almost perfection.
I love Canon, and that is that. But I feel a bit jealous when looking at some of Nikon's lenses.
I mean, even the kit 24-70 f4 Z is just wow, in terms of the zoom ring dampening. I miss that luxury, a little.
I don't mean Canon's lenses aren't great, the RF 24-70 f2.8 is just perfection in almost every aspect. Didn't get the opportunity to play with a Z24-70 f2.8, but that must be just as good, if not a little better in terms of built quality.
But nikon does a little better when it comes to cheaper non premium lenses.
Typically I prefer to use my primes or 2.8 zoom lenses together with my Z9. However while backpacking, carrying that body with even a couple of those lenses is just not practical (weight & space), so for an upcoming backpacking trip I'll use my Z7 ii along with this 24-200. The lens weight and zoom coverage range are great, and the fact that I'll be shooting all outdoor and in daylight means I hope the lens speed won't be a critical issue. I generally prefer to keep my ISOs low, but have found that with the Z bodies/sensors I can tolerate higher ISOs without suffering too much noise. I'll clip the camera to my backpack shoulder strap using Peak Designs Capture clip, which provides quick access to the camera while hiking.
Im a nikon fan boy. But this coupled with my z7II is perfect. Dont be put off by the none S line as this is as sharp as the other glass they offer. 24mm can be abit none perfect but this has replaced a trinity of lens. Do your research before buying this compared to the 24120f4 but there isnt any difference imo. This lens is a very good go to landscape lens and walk about lens.
I had this lens and absolutely loved it, but I the f6.3 just struggled a little bit too much for the video work I do. Such a same, I know there's that fringing at wider angles, but provided I had light it was small and light weight enough to take anywhere I wanted. I traded for a Tamron 35-150 but that's a lot heavier so I do a lot less travel photography in my free time now.
Thanks for the review. I made a right decision around a year ago by purchasing this lens.😀
I'm wondering this one or etz tamron 28-200
Due to its versatility, 24-200mm is definitely my choice in Nikkor Z lenses
BTW... Couldn't have Canon made its 24-240 equally good?
Looking at these samples, I probably had a bad copy... mine were quite soft in the corners above 135mm and definitely at 200mm. I've considered getting this again (sold the one I Had) and trying again as it was a convenient lens, although Idid get the Z 24-120 on sale to take its place, but I could make an argument for having both I guess.
How much better image quality are you getting on the 24-120?
Image quality is what non pros run after when it comes to lenses.. image quality means nothing to anyone who will do some sort of post work.. more important factors are either not emphasized or skipped when lenses are reviewed
@@joshmcdzz6925 I think a lot of pros would argue that if they can get a lens which doesn’t require post, it’s a lot cheaper for them
@@joshmcdzz6925 It matters to pros, but probably not at the same level (they don't usually pixel peep like the enthusiasts, but they are still somewhat concerned about sharpness among other things. I mean there's a reason why pros will shoot with say a 70-200 2.8 versus third party 70-180's for example and usually that comes down to sharpness (and overall build quality perhaps). And yes you can address some loss of sharpness in post ,but you will usually reach a limit or start to degrade the image (basically, you can't get the same level of sharpness back t hat you never had in the first place. Sharpening in post is more or less adjustintg contrast, to give the appearance of sharpness but that too has its limits).
@@18yearsoldnot In the longer FLs it's better overall, but am considering possibly getting a 24-200 again (I had one of the first few batches and from what I know, there were some QC issues with some of the batches, where lenses weren't as sharp or calibrated proplerly, so I'm willing to try another 24-200. SAme story with the 14-30 I own. First copy had some issues, but i didn't realize it until after about 6 months but later sold that and bought another copy which is much better (issues in the first lens appeared to be decentering ass one side was sharper than the other, although minor, it was visible).
I've been waiting for this review on your channel Soo looong... 🎉
great review. was waiting for this
Great travellers lens
Every mount needs a 24-200 kit option.
`
Look Sony!! a 24-200mm for Nikon a all in one Lens, that is what I need for the E mount FF...a Sony 24-200mm F4-5.6 OSS G.
Nice job Nikon.
Tamron sells a 28-200 f2.8-5.6 for the same price...
0:39 i feel so attacked 😅
Finally спасибо
It seems a good lens unexpectedly
Henry turner uses this lens a lot for landscape. Loves it.
FINALLY!
Just so you know.. your crystal Pepsi is a little expired.
great review
Díky!
Thanks for your support!
Why aren't there 24-200mm or 24-240mm lenses with an f2.8 aperture? I think this would be the best lens choice and I'm sure it won't be too expensive when compared to the 24-70mm f2.8 + 70-200mm f2.8 lenses, especially if it's made by a third party like sigma, tamron, samyang etc
although the drawbacks will definitely make it heavier and larger than lens like tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6
and expensive
@@daviddyephotography I mentioned above "it won't be too expensive", you can see from the price of the Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 (launch price $729) which is quite affordable....maybe the price will be 2-3x more expensive than that, but it's still more affordable when compared to native 24-70mm f2.8 + 70-200mm f2.8 lenses from Sony, Canon, Nikon etc.
Because such a big fast zoom would either be impossible to create, would have poor image quality, or would weigh far more than you would be willing to carry. There's a reason why almost all f/2.8 lenses are about 3x zoom.
@@opalyankaBG I don't believe it's impossible or poor image quality unless it's said directly by the lens manufacturer
@@bangjoe7845 Okay so if it was possible to create an optically great 24-200 f/2.8 why has no one made it yet? It would sell a lot since it could be the only lens you'd ever need. Therefore companies would want to make it if they could.
Compared to the Tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 this lens from Nikon is not even close. As a non professional photographer I would buy into the Sony system just for this Tamron lens. If only Canon or Nikon would open their lens mounting systems...
Or u can buy etz2 pro for 250 usd. If u compair nikon 24-120 vs sony 24-105 or nikon kit 24-70/24-50 way better than sony
24-200 900 pounds 24-120 1100 pounds 28-400 1300. best quallity is 24 120 but the best range is 28-400. as usual there is no possibility of putting a teleconverter on the 24 120 so for me 28-400 it is as I don't need 24mm
Are you drunk on life? Loved the start. But yeah I did like this lens until I tried the 24-120. Can get both much cheaper on the used market.
Thanks
No, thank you!
How does the lens pair with the DX cameras?
A nice, balanced review. The Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.4 has presented a bit of a dilemma for me personally. I bought the Z 24-200mm when I purchased a Nikon Z6ii a couple years ago. I now shoot with both the Z8 and Z9 and having bought the Nikon Z 24-120 when I bought the Z9, I find that the Z 24-200mm languishes on my shelf. Honestly, I've taken quite nice landscapes and even some outdoor dog show movement shots with the 24-200mm. The obviously problem is less-than-stellar low light capability. Really, aside from that, the lens is quite capable as you noted. The Z 24-120 f4 has become my go-to travel lens and jack-of-all-trades on both my cameras. I don't like things going unused and I may trade it in one of these days, but for the perhaps $300 I would receive on a trade-in perhaps I'll keep it and try to reach for it more often.
Ill buy your 24-200mm
Has there been any other superzoom lens (for any mount) that covers the same/similar focal range and performs better than this??
Olympus 12-100.
I think that is a bit sharper tbh but costs more.
With the Z7 or Z50 you effectively get 300mm reach though, so better in that respect.
Want such a lens on a Sony system =)
Good eeeeevening 😂. Brilliant
Really looking forward to you taking the Canon RF 100-300mm F2.8 out for a stroll.
Decent lens... but I think Tamron lens gives more for lesser price
Only no lens stabilisation with the Tamron, which is more useful at such longer focal lengths.
Seems like lots of people like it in the comments
Chris
Just add some more bucks and get yourself a Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8. It's night and day difference
24 more useable than 35, twice the price, 2.5x the weight, 150 not enough reach. nah. id take this.
can this lens put on fujifilm xt30
Sorry Chris, over the many years I've used / owned many 'super zooms' and yes they are flexible but NEVER stellar - £900 (!!!) for this one - MASSIVE PASS NIKON - thank you for your review.
Nikon Z users don't need this. Nikon Z already have a 24-120 F/4 S for 5x Zoom. I think this is a waste of optics.
Wrong.. I will prioritize reach over the subjective notion of sharpness or wider aperture based on what I shoot.. so it's same with every other photographyer who make choices based on their need.. having options is what's necessary
reach is more important