Hello All! May be it will be helpful for Nikon 7zii owners. I had problem "Lens initialization failed" during the first attachment of 24-200 Nikkor Z Lens to camera. It was solved when I turn camera on with the lens adjusted to the maximum focal length - 200 мм. It was my second lens of this type. The first has defect of small plastic ring with Nikkor name at the front of the lens - the ring was not fixed correctly - it jumps out - I exchanged it. The first lens also has initialization error - but it was gone by turn camera off and on as suggested.
Coupling this lens with either the 16-50 kit lens, or if you are willing to spend the money and carry more weight in return for a little more sharpness, the 14-30 f4 S, is a great combo with the APS-C cameras. It gives you a huge range of focal lengths and really minimizes the need to change lenses. The 50-250 is also a great lens, but the lack of overlap of focal lengths, I find, means changing lenses more often.
I have a Z50, and a Z6II. This lens is very nice on both. I guess I can see why it's not an 'S' lens, however, for a superzoom, the quality is astounding. Using it on the Z6II is nice, as it's basically double-stabilized.
@mipmipmipmipmip You are welcome. Furthermore, Matt Irwin talks about the VR working with the IBIS in one of his recent videos. It's one of the videos with him and the new 105 macro VR.
@mipmipmipmipmip And confusingly enough, the e-VR isn't either. It's its' own thing. The e-VR is built into the camera, but it drops the sensor a bit, as it actually achieves further stabilization by using a bit of the sensor as a stabilizer, by electronically moving the image slightly, as vibration happens. Enough already eh? To be fair, I'd rather have all these options than not!
Thanks for review. This is perfect, I wanted to see video samples at 200mm with this lens and your bird video and photos look great. I can now feel confident buying this lens to get the quality I want. I also have a Z5 and wanted to add this lens along with my smaller kit lens. Cheers!
I got mine with a Z6ii for the same reason as you, wildlife and travel/landscapes. We're heading to Norfolk Island soon, so I'm looking forward to giving it a good workout, along with my Sigma 50-500mm.
Thanks for your review. It is a convenient lens but alas I sold mine because I found it too soft outside the DX zone, especially in the corners for landscape at the long end. My AF-P 70-300E f4.5-5.6 VR is sharper across the frame and goes to 300mm. Need to use the FTZ adapter unfortunately but it's a great travel and landscape lens if you need to go light and get to 200 or 300mm..
I probably will buy that for my Z6 as there's still no lightweight zoom on the roadmap (why Nikon!?). Will then be my hiking lens. It's good to not have to change lenses somewhere on a mountain and I often need the 24mm. Your photo at 4:22 is fantastic btw!
Used the 24-120/4 on DSLRs but without knowing when the 24-105 is coming out & that it may be rather large (talk of a variable aperture 2.8-4.0?), ended up with the 24-70/4 kit lens.
Just purchased a z5 with a 24-50mm kit lens. However, I also wanted something for wildlife and birds that's light and affordable which for mirrorless Nikon doesn't seem to have. So this looks like a very good option. the z5 is an upgrade from my original crop sensor camera D5100 which I used a Nikon DX 55-300mm lens. I wish Nikon made a similar lens for mirrorless full frame cameras that would be affordable.
Thanks for watching. It’s great for video work, and I’ve used it a lot on professional jobs here and there. Not sure about over heating, so I don’t think that it’d be a problem. I use it with a Z6 and Z50 and have had no issues
The key with this lens is convenience. It's one lens that really does dual jobs (wide-angle, 24mm to telephoto 200mm) and is very suitable for travel and casual (walkaround) shooting. That's it's target market. I agree I wouldn't go selling any lenses if you get this. This is just a supplement to your bag for travel, but not a replacement, not even for the 24-70 f/4, even though they do perform similarly, the 24-70 does edge out the 24-200 in a few areas I feel, particularly corner sharpness at longer FLs, but the 24-200 is no slouch there either -- it does decent, but if I had to choose one or the other for under 70mm, I'd go with the 24-70 f/4 but the 24-200 isn't really meant as a replacement. The corner issues may be less on an APS-C camera and you would have an near ideal travel zoom, if you paired this with say a 16-50 lens for wide angle).
I have also a Z50 with the two lens kit but I m starting to explore other telephoto lens and I saw this option for Nikon 24-200 f/4-6.3, I know about the crop factor but in comparison with the 50-250mm kit one, is it good option when using then the Nikon 24-200 in a Z50? I like for instance to take hummingbird photos or other birds and that's why I would like to have a good lens selection for sure. I appreciate any advice of it. Thanks.
Thanks for watching. 24-200 is great but since you have both kit lenses, it might not be the lens for what you need. The 50-250 will give you a little bit more reach so if you specifically want to shoot birds it would be more than enough. I’d personally use that one for the time being. …Gives you time to save for the new Nikon 100-400!! 😆
I have a Tamron 100-400 with FTZ on my Z50. Probably with some more expensive lenses you can get better autofocus performance, but for the price picture quality and ergonomics are really good. I also have Olympus 100-400 with E-M1 II and the Nikon with Tamron config swipes the floor with it when it comes to picture quality of birds. If you wish I can send you some photos of ducks and stuff from this lens :)
I’m amazed that no one ever talks about how this lens (24-200 6.3 ) will not make you happy when compared to your 24-70 t4. Yes, it’s pretty sharp, but it’s a trick …. the lens is very contrasty. Using the auto mode will be useless, unlike with the 24-70. It doesn’t handle colours as well as the 24-70 either. If you only had this lens, you’d think it was fine. Good even. But we all have other lenses so… of course one compares. And of course you have to shoot a stop over wide open, so it’s really a t 7.1
It all depends on your application. I had both those lenses and ended up sending the 24-70 f4 back. The focal lengths were redundant. I didn't find it any sharper. It's only slightly smaller, and it didn't give me enough reach to take good shots of wildlife that presented themselves while I was hiking. Also, it doesn't have VR, which the 24-200 does. That was fine on my Z7ii, but not fine on my Zfc or Z50, so I'd have to hike with my bigger, heavier camera if I wanted VR. Also, I personally have found Nikon's in lens VR more effective than its IBIS, so even with the Z7ii, I find the lack of VR suboptimal. The constant f4 was nice, but for my purposes, it didn't outweigh the shortcomings. Better to get the shot at a higher ISO than I'd prefer, than to not get it at all.
@@jaybleu6169 thank you this info. I’m getting into photography as a hobby and am about to buy the Z6ii with this lens as a starting point. Your experience and info is helpful to me!
Having the wide end of the 24-200 available is much more useful than having the extra 50mm of the 50-200. The practical difference between 200 and 250 is minimal.
Seems a bit slow. If you want to stop a seagull in flight, you need a shutter speed of 1500 or faster. And a seagull does not fly very fast. The practical maximum aperture is f/8. At a shutter speed of 1500, you'll need to use ISO 800 in bright sunlight. On a fairly dark cloudy day, that translates to an ISO around 5000. I'm waiting for an f/4 long lens. The f/2.8 is too heavy and too expensive. Back in the film days, I had a Hasselblad/Zeiss 350mm f/5.6, which was just barely fast enough in bright sunlight for moving subjects. I like what Nikon is doing with lenses - it's just that this one is not quite there.
As the reviewer emphasized, THIS IS A KIT LENS. As such it does well for what it is as the reviewer mentioned several times. I think you missed most of what he was saying. And it's barely a wide angle lens at 36 mm. It fits blinsaff's needs and that's what he was extolling.
If you watch part 2 - which is about using it for landscape photography - I have a few low light, ambient/rain forest examples. Thanks for watching/commenting though 👍
Hello All! May be it will be helpful for Nikon 7zii owners. I had problem "Lens initialization failed" during the first attachment of 24-200 Nikkor Z Lens to camera. It was solved when I turn camera on with the lens adjusted to the maximum focal length - 200 мм. It was my second lens of this type. The first has defect of small plastic ring with Nikkor name at the front of the lens - the ring was not fixed correctly - it jumps out - I exchanged it. The first lens also has initialization error - but it was gone by turn camera off and on as suggested.
Coupling this lens with either the 16-50 kit lens, or if you are willing to spend the money and carry more weight in return for a little more sharpness, the 14-30 f4 S, is a great combo with the APS-C cameras. It gives you a huge range of focal lengths and really minimizes the need to change lenses. The 50-250 is also a great lens, but the lack of overlap of focal lengths, I find, means changing lenses more often.
nice reco
I have a Z50, and a Z6II. This lens is very nice on both. I guess I can see why it's not an 'S' lens, however, for a superzoom, the quality is astounding. Using it on the Z6II is nice, as it's basically double-stabilized.
Yeah it’s great for what it is. It’s just fun to use
100% what i wanted to read. Heavily considering it
@mipmipmipmipmip Yes, they work together.
@mipmipmipmipmip You are welcome. Furthermore, Matt Irwin talks about the VR working with the IBIS in one of his recent videos. It's one of the videos with him and the new 105 macro VR.
@mipmipmipmipmip And confusingly enough, the e-VR isn't either. It's its' own thing. The e-VR is built into the camera, but it drops the sensor a bit, as it actually achieves further stabilization by using a bit of the sensor as a stabilizer, by electronically moving the image slightly, as vibration happens. Enough already eh? To be fair, I'd rather have all these options than not!
I do mainly landscapes, some wildlife photography.. and I am very happy with this lens! So easy to walk, hike and travel with.
Oh yeah it’s the perfect travel lens
Thanks for review. This is perfect, I wanted to see video samples at 200mm with this lens and your bird video and photos look great. I can now feel confident buying this lens to get the quality I want. I also have a Z5 and wanted to add this lens along with my smaller kit lens. Cheers!
Awesome! Glad to have helped!
I got mine with a Z6ii for the same reason as you, wildlife and travel/landscapes. We're heading to Norfolk Island soon, so I'm looking forward to giving it a good workout, along with my Sigma 50-500mm.
Oh nice, perfect spot to do it! It's on the list of places to go for me
Thanks for your review. It is a convenient lens but alas I sold mine because I found it too soft outside the DX zone, especially in the corners for landscape at the long end. My AF-P 70-300E f4.5-5.6 VR is sharper across the frame and goes to 300mm. Need to use the FTZ adapter unfortunately but it's a great travel and landscape lens if you need to go light and get to 200 or 300mm..
Do not like high zoom ratio lenses because IQ is mostly one big compromise but this lens pulls it off very good.
I probably will buy that for my Z6 as there's still no lightweight zoom on the roadmap (why Nikon!?). Will then be my hiking lens. It's good to not have to change lenses somewhere on a mountain and I often need the 24mm.
Your photo at 4:22 is fantastic btw!
Nice! Yeah it’s actually really great, the more I use it, the more it has been staying on my camera. Where is that 24-105 z lens???
@@Blinsaff I'm also waiting for the 24-105 but on the roadmap it looks like a (for this zoom range) big and heavy lens ...
Ah yes, more weight means for expense!
Used the 24-120/4 on DSLRs but without knowing when the 24-105 is coming out & that it may be rather large (talk of a variable aperture 2.8-4.0?), ended up with the 24-70/4 kit lens.
Just purchased a z5 with a 24-50mm kit lens. However, I also wanted something for wildlife and birds that's light and affordable which for mirrorless Nikon doesn't seem to have. So this looks like a very good option. the z5 is an upgrade from my original crop sensor camera D5100 which I used a Nikon DX 55-300mm lens. I wish Nikon made a similar lens for mirrorless full frame cameras that would be affordable.
I think this lens would suit your needs. The price to quality can't be beat
Buy a FTZ adaptor to mount the 55-300mm on the Z5
Use this with my Z6. Think its a great versatile lens.
It really is
Great video. How is it when it comes to videography? Any issues like overheating when used with Nikon z5?
Thanks for watching. It’s great for video work, and I’ve used it a lot on professional jobs here and there. Not sure about over heating, so I don’t think that it’d be a problem. I use it with a Z6 and Z50 and have had no issues
Hey man, thanks for the review.
I'm thinking of picking one up. Does it make sense for the Nikon Z5?
Thanks! Yes, it'd be a great combo to use
Is it available in Blackwater?
@@mistrimandi2853 it is. But the Pinkertons are hiding it
This lens on this body cropped,yes? 36-300mm
Correct!
How does is the quality at low light? I live in NYC and like to do Street photography (sometimes at night).
It’s not the best in real low light, but would be fine in most situations, Z cameras are pretty good in low light
Picked one up a week ago. Great review, can't wait to try it out. Thanks 😊
Nice! You’ll love it!
Not just a focus ring, i recently discovered. It's a multifunction ring. I changed my 24-70 to ISO management. Which is cool
Yes that’s right, such a great feature
Lucky you. The ring on my 50 f/1.2 S is too sensitive and I have to disable it to avoid potential mistakes.
@@bfs5113 to be honest, I've changed the iso several times by mistake. Lol
The key with this lens is convenience. It's one lens that really does dual jobs (wide-angle, 24mm to telephoto 200mm) and is very suitable for travel and casual (walkaround) shooting. That's it's target market. I agree I wouldn't go selling any lenses if you get this. This is just a supplement to your bag for travel, but not a replacement, not even for the 24-70 f/4, even though they do perform similarly, the 24-70 does edge out the 24-200 in a few areas I feel, particularly corner sharpness at longer FLs, but the 24-200 is no slouch there either -- it does decent, but if I had to choose one or the other for under 70mm, I'd go with the 24-70 f/4 but the 24-200 isn't really meant as a replacement. The corner issues may be less on an APS-C camera and you would have an near ideal travel zoom, if you paired this with say a 16-50 lens for wide angle).
Is there use in Z7II or Z6II
I am not a professional photographer. I am just curious how this lens perform when taking pictures indoors or in the evening .
If the room is dark it’d be a struggle. So I wouldn’t use it in super dark places.
@@Blinsaff Thank you. I guess then in normal room or street lighting it will work. Thank you so much. Thank you for the review helped me a lot.
@@vadimkeylis5855 no worries. Yep, in decent lighting it should give you a good result
Excellent review!
Thanks for watching!
I have also a Z50 with the two lens kit but I m starting to explore other telephoto lens and I saw this option for Nikon 24-200 f/4-6.3, I know about the crop factor but in comparison with the 50-250mm kit one, is it good option when using then the Nikon 24-200 in a Z50? I like for instance to take hummingbird photos or other birds and that's why I would like to have a good lens selection for sure. I appreciate any advice of it. Thanks.
Thanks for watching. 24-200 is great but since you have both kit lenses, it might not be the lens for what you need. The 50-250 will give you a little bit more reach so if you specifically want to shoot birds it would be more than enough. I’d personally use that one for the time being. …Gives you time to save for the new Nikon 100-400!! 😆
I have a Tamron 100-400 with FTZ on my Z50. Probably with some more expensive lenses you can get better autofocus performance, but for the price picture quality and ergonomics are really good. I also have Olympus 100-400 with E-M1 II and the Nikon with Tamron config swipes the floor with it when it comes to picture quality of birds. If you wish I can send you some photos of ducks and stuff from this lens :)
nice review!
Thanks for watching!
I’m amazed that no one ever talks about how this lens (24-200 6.3 ) will not make you happy when compared to your 24-70 t4.
Yes, it’s pretty sharp, but it’s a trick …. the lens is very contrasty. Using the auto mode will be useless, unlike with the 24-70.
It doesn’t handle colours as well as the 24-70 either.
If you only had this lens, you’d think it was fine. Good even.
But we all have other lenses so… of course one compares.
And of course you have to shoot a stop over wide open, so it’s really a t 7.1
It all depends on your application. I had both those lenses and ended up sending the 24-70 f4 back. The focal lengths were redundant. I didn't find it any sharper. It's only slightly smaller, and it didn't give me enough reach to take good shots of wildlife that presented themselves while I was hiking. Also, it doesn't have VR, which the 24-200 does. That was fine on my Z7ii, but not fine on my Zfc or Z50, so I'd have to hike with my bigger, heavier camera if I wanted VR. Also, I personally have found Nikon's in lens VR more effective than its IBIS, so even with the Z7ii, I find the lack of VR suboptimal.
The constant f4 was nice, but for my purposes, it didn't outweigh the shortcomings. Better to get the shot at a higher ISO than I'd prefer, than to not get it at all.
@@jaybleu6169 thank you this info. I’m getting into photography as a hobby and am about to buy the Z6ii with this lens as a starting point. Your experience and info is helpful to me!
why not just use the z50-250??
I also use it on a Z6, so would rather use a full frame lens than a DX one
Having the wide end of the 24-200 available is much more useful than having the extra 50mm of the 50-200. The practical difference between 200 and 250 is minimal.
Should I buy 24-200mm lens for z50
Or
16-50 + 50-250 mm z50 kit
, I can afford kit than camera body and 24-200
What should I do ?
24-200 would be good, but if you can pickup both the 16-50 and 50-250 I'd go with that
@@Blinsaff ok thanks
Seems a bit slow. If you want to stop a seagull in flight, you need a shutter speed of 1500 or faster. And a seagull does not fly very fast. The practical maximum aperture is f/8. At a shutter speed of 1500, you'll need to use ISO 800 in bright sunlight. On a fairly dark cloudy day, that translates to an ISO around 5000. I'm waiting for an f/4 long lens. The f/2.8 is too heavy and too expensive. Back in the film days, I had a Hasselblad/Zeiss 350mm f/5.6, which was just barely fast enough in bright sunlight for moving subjects. I like what Nikon is doing with lenses - it's just that this one is not quite there.
Definitely, but it fills a gap until the f/4s turn up
As the reviewer emphasized, THIS IS A KIT LENS. As such it does well for what it is as the reviewer mentioned several times. I think you missed most of what he was saying. And it's barely a wide angle lens at 36 mm. It fits blinsaff's needs and that's what he was extolling.
All your images were taken at daylight, no twilight or even night photos!
If you watch part 2 - which is about using it for landscape photography - I have a few low light, ambient/rain forest examples. Thanks for watching/commenting though 👍