Nikon Z 24-200mm vs 70-200mm f4. Picture Quality, Focus breathing.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 ноя 2024
- Hi All
In todays video we compare the Nikon 24-200mm against the Nikon 70-200mm F4. As you will see the focus breathing of the 70-200mm f4 causes a difference in field of view. However these lenses offer very similar quality and I think it will come down to other things like size weight and aperture as in that respect these lenses are very different.
For those of you that want to skip sections here are the video timings
70mm test 4:01
135mm test 9:16
200mm test 15:15
Focus Breathing 19:32
I hope you find this video useful !
If you want to follow along with my photography then follow me on instagram: / nikonricci
Upcoming videos will be 70-200mm and Z5 related videos ! Subscribe so you don't miss those !
Whats around the Corner...
Thank you So much for watching !
Good bye !
#Nikon #Nikkor #NikonZ
![Coheed and Cambria - Searching for Tomorrow [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hDsYGLbmadg/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey Everyone !
I certainly think the 24-200mm held up really well against the 70-200mm F4 with almost comparable picture quality. So for me I think deciding between these lenses will come down to the "other things" like the size and weight of the lenses, the Aperture differences and the focal length differences. For me the Range of the 24-200 and the size and weight make it my preferred lens.
Let me know what your preferred lens will be some of you might not be able to be without the F4 contestant aperture.
As always thanks so much for watching !
These reviews are great. It is nice to see that you look for many of the same things I do, and also rationalize "is it a big deal?!" I'm also noticing how much we can split hairs comparing modern lenses! I'd really like to see a comparison of the 50-250mm and the 24-200mm to justify the upgrade. Probably best done on a Z50, but I also tried a Z7 out to shoot @20mp, and use the FTZ with my decent AFP zooms. However, I found that color depth (fall off?) on the Z7 in DX mode was less than my D500 I'm moving to mirrorless from. My tests aren't as thorough because I test how I mostly us them, handheld. The techie in me likes to know what they do in a studio as well. ;)
Ho ricci. been a great admirer of your reviews. Thanks. Especially the 24-200 z lens that I am planning to buy as a kit instead 24-70. Could you please help us on its performance in lowlight( indoors).and a comparison with 70-200 2.8 if possible.
I also prefer 24-200 lens
Why carry two lenses , 24-70 and 70-200 , when you can combine them into one ?
f/4 does not matter as the Camera does excellent Auto ISO to compensate for higher apertures in 24-200 lens
Have used the 70-200f4 for almost 5 yrs now and never regretted the purchase. Use it even with 1.4 TC and now use it with my Z6. I have used the 24-70f4 and 70-200f4 with Z6 travelling all over Africa. The only negative is having to use the FTZ with the lens. For me the negative with 24-200 is the f6.3. No need to sell the 70-200 for as I use it on my D500 with TC 1.4 for nature photography.
You got me hooked :D I shoot on Canon for 10 years now. I do both professional real estate and landscape and I think I found myself a new system for landscapes. This lens + Z5 is what I have been dreaming of for years now.
My copy of the 24-200/4-6.3 needs stopping down for the corners and is weakest at the wide end. Neither of these issues matters to me, however, because I shoot landscapes at small apertures and wide angle duties are handled by my 14-30/4. These two lenses complement each other really well, less than 2kg with my Z7, which I think is pretty incredible for a full-frame camera system covering 14-200mm.
Simon, did you have the 70-200 f/4 and 24-70S?
@@K4783 Hi Jon, never had the F-mount 70-200/4. I do have the Z-mount 24-70/4 S. My copy of the 24-200/4-6.3 compares favourably with my 24-70/4. Interestingly, both are a little weak at the wide end. A Nikon trait perhaps or maybe just sample variation. I haven't had the 24-200 for long, but it's a far more useful range to me than 24-70, particularly when paired with the 14-30. Just keep in mind that I mainly shoot landscapes stopped down for DoF. YMMV.
Thanks for doing this comparison video. The new Z-mount 24-200mm is very good. The focus breathing of the 70-200mm can make a pest of itself during focus stacking, as another post mentioned, and I never thought of that before. I thought the 24-200mm had a slightly cooler color rendition vs. 70-200mm.
Can I make a small recommendation when running these tests in the future? Can you put a lighter colored object (preferably with a lot of tiny detail) in the corners of the image frame? In this video you had black camera bodies in the corners, and it is hard to compare sharpness when all one sees are murky black shadows! In your previous comparison video of the 24-200mm vs. 24-70mm Z mount, you had a orange-colored circuit board in the lower left hand corner...can you put objects similar to that in the image corners, so we can clearly compare sharpness in the corners? Thanks.
Again, thanks for doing these many comparison videos as they are very helpful to the photo community!😃👍
Thanks for a great video. Based on MTF charts alone, the 70-200 f4 looks better. But, in actual use, I can't see enough difference and the convenience of having one lightweight lens become the deciding factor.
The 24-200 S looks to be a great lens, but it's rather sad to see people missing the point of what makes the 70-200 F4 superior. Try shooting portraits with both wide open and the 70-200 will be FAR better at creating creamy bokeh, which in turns adds to the dimensionality of an image. Faster glass means more control over DOF and that's very important. I already own the 70-200 E, so not interested in either of these lenses, but the 70-200 F4 is still a great option and superior if you use it for portraits and candid work.
two thirds of the people here miss the point,they should do their homework before asking stupid questions..and I do mean stupid questions.
I have an 85 1.8 Z so it doesn't matter so much to me. Using the 24-200 for travel and video until they release a smaller z mount 70-200 f4. Like you, if I wanted a one lens solution in that range, I'd get the 70-200 2.8 and not get the prime or this one, but I don't like the weight on camera, for me better to cover it with both the 85 and the 24-200 for less money than a 70-200 2.8. I sold my 70-200 f4 and FTZ, same price as the 24-200.
18:59 is actually where the focus breathing test starts!
Thanks for making these!
Interesting test Ricci. I still like my little 70-200f4, it's so light and small compared with my 70-200f2.8vrII. What surprised me is the amount of vignetting on the new z24-200, I assumed obviously wrongly that the larger flange design of the new Z cameras would eradicate this problem, maybe it's just a case of optical physics to a certain degree. Thanks for sharing all this info with us, it's mighty appreciated. Some folk have said on Facebook etc that your reviews may be slightly biased because you're a Nikon employee, well I think that's nonsense, I've been a Nikon user for 35 years(NPS for six or so) so I appreciate reviews by people who actually know the product, like yourself. Cheers.
Thanks Ricci, I was one of the first to ask you for this review so I am very pleased to finally see it. I said I was contemplating selling my 70-200mm f/4 and would wait until I had seen this review, but I went ahead and sold it anyway! Now I know it was the right decision and look forward to getting my 24-200mm when I can finally get my hands on one in the UK. One lens against two, without sacrificing hardly anything in IQ, but saving weight, size and getting improved autofocus, a no brainer really for me.
Hi Peter, how have you got on? A lot of promo on this lens recently and am thinking about doing the same...
Finally a proper review of the 70-200 f/4. I tried it once and I liked the IF and the relatively small size, but I missed the focus breathing. It was in a shop and I had like 5 min with it. Definitely won't get this lens now. Whatever next lens I buy will most likely be a Z lens, but I'm waiting for more offerings. I'm very curious about the upcoming 24-105. If that one is a fixed aperture like f/4, it would be optimal.
Z 24-120 f4?
Your summary says it all, I placed my order for the 24-200mm today , thank you
Late comment here. Somehow missed this when I was shopping for the 24-200 Z lens, for my Z7, or just failed to post a comment if and when I did watch it?
I have to say, this Man is a Photographic Genius, IMO, and yet he feels he has to make apologies during the video! Very well done, and very informative and validates my purchase as well as my experience with the 24-200. It offers a lot for what it is, and is hard to beat for the versatility of the Zoom range. It holds up rather well on the Z7, although I believe owners of the Z5/Z6/Z6II would be better served by it.
Thanks for the effort and expertise You invest in your videos and Channel. Why You're not closer to 100K is beyond me. I call it ‘Quality, not Quantity!’ 😊
To me the 70-200f/4 is rendering a warmer hue especially noticable in whites and spectral highlights on all the textured black midtones .I suspect this would be great to enhance skin tones in portaiture work .Wheras the 24-200 as with all z lenses is much more clinical in its rendition which makes sense as the 70--200 would be geared to work with early sensors and film .I have noticed this clinical rendering by swapping various f primes with the z mount counter parts .Of cource all this is erelevent when post processing enters the arena
Your vids are truly fantastic and i imagine a lot of work put into each video .
Hi Ricci, awesome video! I do own the 70-200 F4, are you planning to do a 70-200 F4 vs 70-200 f2.8S?
Great review! Awesome thanks from Japan. Hope you will release Z 70-200 F2.8S vs. F 70-200F4 comparison as well.
Nice test. I have the 70-200 f4, Very good lens. The range of the 24-200 is better. And more compact.
hello.
what about the AF speed & tracking comparison between them ?.
thanks for your videos .
Thanks for this comaprison, I compared Nikon 70-200 f4 to Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2. I found out that there is huge difference in sharpness when you focus to infinity or somewhere near. Tamron is tack sharp in closer focus distances and yet Nikon was clear winner with shots to infinity.
I can see the dilemma you have when putting this video together. It probably doesn't make too much difference which solution you choose as there are pro's and con's for each. I would have liked to see a same size comparison with either/both 1/1 and 2/1 via electronic zoom.
Good video Ricci. Thanks for taken the time to put this together.
Now eagerly looking forward to the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S +TC's reviews.
Excellent information as always Ricci, thanks for sharing this with us. So looking forward to seeing the 70-200f2.8 Z lens. Cheers.
This comparison is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!
Super job, Ricci. Thanks for all of your work and efforts in producing this comparison. Going to be hard to let my 70-200 F4 go with tight of comparison so maybe hang on a little longer; that is until I've decided the extra weight isn't worth it.
Hi Ricci, -thanks for this review. I absolutely like them
Is there a review of the af 70 200 f4 versus the z 70 200 2.8 from you , or wil it come soon?. Furthermore, will there be a z 70 200 f4 coming in the coming year? Ik dont hear or see anything from Nikon.
Henk from The Netherlands
Just bought the af-s70-200f4 and found myself here ,Bought it for 225 euro and it works a treat on the Z7ll .Looking at your samples ,i see the 24-200 has a cooler output which would give a punch to landscape photog's and the af-s for portrait .having said that in post process could easily match these .In truth the high pass filter can make mediokre imagew output look really look good .Btw the lens i purchased was in box and used a handful of times ,Great video and informative .Thank you .
I wanted the 24-200, then decided to wait and get the 70-200. After watching your great video, no need to wait and spend double money.
Hey Ricci, Thanks for the great video as always. I am interested how the picture quality of the 24-200 compares to the Z 70-200 f2.8. Did you do a test to compare those?
Great review,.Will you be comparing the 70-200 f2.8 z lens with the 70-200 f2.8 fl lens?
The 70-200 f/4 is known to be a very sharp lens, especially at longer focal lengths. That the 24-200 was right up there with matching focal ranges is a credit to that lens. The advantage of the 70-200 f/4 is the better low light potential that the 24-70mm lens just can't match. Testing these lenses under those conditions for noise differences would seem appropriate. For me the decision is easy, my bag has a Z 24-70 f/2.8 and a Z 70-200 f/2.8. Shooting anywhere below 200mm without a maximum aperture of at least f/4 is a non starter. For others, it may well work fine and the 24-200 should be an excellent value to obtain sharp images with good light.
IMO It is still a step up for Z50 50-250mm owners who don't want to swap lenses so often. I could afford $8,000 in gear, but I'd rather not carry it. I'm holding out to see what the compact primes offer before getting a FF mirrorless body.
Thanks for this comparison, Ricci. (I own the 70-200 f/4) Looking forward to your 70-200 f/2.8 review, which should be exciting!
Thanks for another great video.
I'd be curious to see how this 24-200 stacks up against the F-mount 70-300mm P.
The versatility vs. range showdown. Is the 24-200 Z mount sharp enough that it's worth losing 100mm at the long end?
Hi Kyle !
I'm curious too.
I hesiting for a month now between the 24-200 and the AFP 70-300
I already have a 70-200 f2.8 for shooting session with model.
But I need an light telephoto lense for hiking.
Don't know which one to choose. 24-200 for versatility or 24-70 + 70-300
for range and better IQ.
What do you think ?
@@karlnacreon for hiking 24-200 much better.
@@АлександрК-ю3в I asked that question 2 years ago. Since, I bought the 24-200 and I'm very happy with it. No regret. I paired it with the 14-30 and it's a very convenient combo for hiking.
Thanks for the review. At the same time, I'm looking forward to your in-depth review of z5 in different conditions with both 24 50 and 24 70 f/4.
With thanks...
Hi Ricci, would you recommend a Z 24-200 or an AF-P 70-300 for a Z 6 as a telephoto zoom?
That should be an easy choice as they serve different purposes. Do you have another f-mount body? If so, the 70-300E might make more sense. Do you already have the 24-70f4 which is BETTER than the 24-200mm in that range (edge sharpness in Ricci's other video and the fixed f4 low light advantage?) I'm replacing the 50-250mm for th Z50 and my other camera is a D500. So I can easily justify having both. I doubt I'll keep the 70-300 once I get a FF body, and the 300/f4 would replace it.
Hey mate, I'd really like to see a comparison of the 24-200 vs the 70-200 f2.8 Z.
I am soooooooo looking forward to the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 reviews. I preordered mine in January and am still patiently waiting. Your videos will help appease my spirit.
Ricci, as always, I love your reviews. However, your setup does not really gauge longer reach lenses effectively. Bokeh, background separation and compression becomes highly important at 85mm on up, and this is where things really fall apart for the Z 24-200. I, myself, could care less about corner sharpness 85mm on up. I only care about center sharpness. Yes, the Z 24-200 is sharp center and corner to corner. No question. But the overall IQ is rather dull. Its very cold and unappealing, which has been evidenced in numerous reviews now vs F mount lenses including this one. The F70-200 f4 overall IQ looks better, just like the F 24-120 f4 overall IQ looks better. Improvements in focus breathing are always welcome, as are quieter, quicker AF.
Just makes me think imagine what Nikon could do with a 70-200 f4S. My dream kit would be the 14-24 2.8s, 50mm 1.8s, and the 70-200 f4s. I would keep the 24-70mm f4s for travel, its a great lens. I would also add in a macro lens when one is available. The only true "pro" lens I would buy would be the 14-24 as I love astro photography so I need the 2.8 plus the ability to use filters is a game changer.
I would love to see a Z 70-200mm f4
For astrophotography I use nikon z 17-28 2.8 - awesome lens
This helped me a lot! I've had the 70-200 f/4 for years and I know how good it is. I'm going to be shopping for a Z tele zoom soon.
Hello. I'm new to your channel, but so far am impressed with your speedy delivery, and information. Would you be doing a test of the Z 24-200 in conjunction with the Z 2x tele sometime?
Thanks !
But You can not use the 24-200 with the 2x tele
@@RicciTalks Well... That sucks...... Why not?
It’s completely normal tele converters never work with smaller lenses.
I go in to more detail about this on my tele converters video
Interesting with the focus breathing, I have (are) using the 70-200 f/4, and prefer it over the f/2.8 due to weight (hiking), and at f/8 there is hardly any difference. Also as I’m still on F mount there aren’t an option for the lighter lenses. Interesting video, thanks.
Thank you so much for this review, I’ve been interested in the 24-200mm since it came out but I’ve been shy about pulling the trigger on the purchase. One big question remains for me… how sharp are the images if you want to print big, for example a 30x40 or even larger? Would I be better off purchasing the f/2.8 versions of the 24-70mm and 70-200mm?
Large prints always depend on the settings if you are shooting at f8 on a large print I don’t think you would see too much difference
The 2.8 lenses will be sharper at f4 and f5.6 so comes down to the use case really
Thank you for the speedy reply, I appreciate your insight and you may have swayed me into purchasing the 24-200mm!
at 17:00 24-200 at 200mm is more like 180-190mm, zoom breath or it is 24-180mm lens? Do you have them side by side outside, focused at longer distance?
At the end of the video I show you 200mm vs 200mm focuses at infinity they are identical the 70-200 increases its focal length with breathing so at 17 minuets you looking at 24-200 at 200mm vs the 70-200 at 200mm but looks more like. 220-230
Photographic theory of ages ago: focal length is defined at infinity.
The angle of view towards the subject has a mirror image between the nodal point of the lens and the film/sensor.
When you focus at closer distance than infinity, you would normally move the lens away from the film/sensor.
This changes the angle of view (focal length ...).
Or, focus breathing is normal. Lenses that compensate focus breathing need specific design elements for that and these introduce new challenges: additional surfaces that cause flare and introduce chromatic aberration that would have been eliminated before adding the elements to compensate focus breathing. Lenses with internal focusing already have "floating elements" for focusing and may compensate focus breathing easier.
When did it become an issue? In movie shots where focus is shifted during filming from far away to nearby or the other way around. Here a shift (breathing) is the frame can become visible and a viewer might not like that. Might. As it only will be noticeable in frames where very clear references demarcate the frame.
Would you recommend the 24-200 for focus bracketing? Would I be getting artifacts due to focus breathing?
Hello Ricci and thanks for all the work you put into the lenses comparison videos!
If possible I'd like to ask for a short comparison between 24-200 f4-6.3 and the new 24-120 mm f4 when you have the time to do one. Maybe just your opp. based on usage as i can't imagine these videos are easy to make. Up until now I only have my kit lens 16-50 and the 50 mm 1.8 and think I need one zoom lens (or a macro but who can make a decision, not me) and am wondering if I'd wait...
Such a shame Nikon didn’t make it 24-200f4 that would have been awesome. The Z looks sharper at most and the colours look more defined.
Hi planning to buy z6. Is it better to go with 24-70 f4 or 24-200 f4 as kit lens?
Very informative and helpful! Thanks so much. I definitely was not expecting these two lenses to be so similar. Nikon users will now expect very high quality for quite a bit less than they have been paying until now!
Great video Ricci! How would you suggest buying this lens with the Z5 as kit?
Thanks for the comparison. Am I the only one seeing that he colours appear to be a bit more muted on the 24-200?
waiting for this for a while, very detailed and informative since I have the 70-200 F/4 for years, time to let GO!
Thank you for spending time on this, it was very useful. Thank you also for saying what I wanted to hear!
The f4 is a bit sharper to me at when at equal apertures, at least on RUclips.
Thanks I've been waiting for this review. Having owned the 70- 200 F4 for years, when I bought into the Z Mount system (Z7 &Z50) I did not feel the need to purchase Z-mount zoom, and have been more than satisfied with the image quality I get. When using that lens in crop mode coupled with either of my two teleconverters I get a 420 mm @ f:5.6 with hardly any change in image quality or 510mm @ f:6.7 with a slight degradation of image quality & focus acquisition.. other than size and weight no reason for me to upgrade.
24-200 is very helpful when traveling. So I even accept a little worse than 70-200
Hi Ricci,
I tried the 70-200mm f4 with the FTZ adapter on the Nikon Z7, all with the latest firmware. It doesn't work. The Z7 does not recognize the FTZ adapter or the lens. But the lens is ok, the adapter too. Is there any trick to get the combination to work?
Is it equally sharp flat field close up corner to corner? this is also important to me, as a versatile lens, I often use my zooms for close up abstracts of surfaces and textures where corner to corner sharpness is essential! Some lenses don’t do so well in this regard, for instance the 16-80 2.8-4 isn’t very sharp close up, but superb at normal focusing distances, but my old 16-85 was superb in this regard! My Olympus 12-200 f4 is incredibly sharp close up, but Im interested in this lens for my full frame Nikon’s....Information on this would be much appreciated!
That was a great review, that was the one I’ve been waiting to see the most since it will be replacing my 70 to 200. Now if I only ever get my pre-order can’t wait to try it out. I will say I am really impressed mostly at the difference on the focus breathing, that’s going to be a huge difference for me when using the lens. A Lot of times I like to focus stack and that will make the whole process in PS Much simpler when all the images are pretty much at the same focal length.
I have seen all your tests and they are marvelous, but all static and on a tripod. I have the "kit-lens" 24-70 and the 24-200 and when handheld, even when both are on 70mm the 24-200 is stabilized, since it has VR. I took some pics where it was rather dark so I though I use the 24-70, but forgot that it didn't had VR, so they where all a little fuzzy. With the 24-200 at 70 I would probably have been better off, since it has VR, which I think works terrific together with IBIS.
The Z6 and Z7 have IBIS which should give you pretty much the same VR ability as the 24-200 on all lenses, do you have it turned off or have a Z50 or something? I'm able to shoot my 24-70 down to 1/2 second handheld and get pixel perfect sharp shots.
@@Agjdbtighend I have a Z6. I mounted my old 200mm F-mount lens (from 1973) on my Z6 and could clearly find that the IBIS did not manage that handheld. That's why the 24-200mm has VR. When zooming out to 70mm, it must be better with the 24-200mm with VR than the 24-70mm without VR.
I rarely use the 24-70mm since I got the 24-200mm VR so I tend to forget to hold the camera as still as needed when using the 24-70.
@@patricklindahl868 Great comment Patrick. I have the Z6 w/24-70 F4S and I find I can get sharp shots at 1/2 a second at 70mm, but your totally right about the much longer lenses. IBIS works best on lenses with a wide to moderate focal range - however most of my F mount lenses have been amazing with the IBIS (although yes, all IBIS is lessened with telephoto). That's why Nikon added IBIS to the 24-200mm. They sure know what they are doing over there ;)
Great comparison Ricci - thank you. Oh, do you have any info on when we might be seeing the Z7s? That's my next camera - once I have that I'm selling my D850! By the way, you did the comparison perfectly - I appreciate all of the thought you put into it - just use this as a template now for future lenses that have focus breathing - All the best from Canada my friend - Chris.
Thanks for making this comparison - very helpful, but I don't think you mentioned which camera body was being used here. Not that it matters when it's the lenses that are being tested but I'm just curious.
Thanks a lot for this valuable comparison. Very detailed as every time.
Another fantastic video. Thanks Ricci
Thanks a lot !
Is 24-200 good for videos with Z6 ||?
Love this comparison. Thank you!
Very interesting. By dxomark, 70-200/F4 is THE sharpest Nikon zoom. Here you show that, except the far edge (200mm) the 24-200 is not significantly worse, at least in terms of sharpness. Thank you.
I own both lenses but may sell the 70-200 f4. I use it on my Nikon D750 which I will sell if I get the z7S camera when it is released.
The 24-200 looks like a great all-purpose lens for either an FX or DX Z-mount body. Great for travel.
However, if we consider the focus breathing examples and it is correct to assume that the 70-200 is at 200mm at the points when it is most zoomed in (i.e. it is not more than 200mm), then comparing to the field of view shown for the 24-200mm at both close focus and distant (since it has little breathing), it seems like the 24-200 reaches to about 175mm at best. This is not unusual for superzooms, but I do wonder about how they are allowed to market a lens that should really be called a 24-180mm.
11:12 i don't mean to be critical but if you look at the D6 on the camera body, the 70-200 f/4 looks sharper, same with the "Nikon" text. The color checker it appears to be flipped os I'm not sure if part of this maybe has to do with things like diffraction control which I'm not sure if you can turn that on for F-mount adapted lenses or not. I know on Z lenses, there is an option in the menu for Diffraction control, and things like that.
Also maybe I missed it, but are you shooting these comparisons on a Z6 or Z7. I could see where a Z6 would produce very similar results, partially because of the impact of the AA filter in sharpness, but on a Z7, with it's lack of an AA and higher resolution, would really test the optics on these lenses as I would think sharpness differences would start to appear, plus you remove the impact of the AA Ftiler.
Even the first test result showed the 70-200 f/4 had better micro-contrast. 🙂
As a whole the 70 200 F4 is sharper, but not by much. This is expected as the 24 200 is an all around zoom. For more critical use the 70 200 is the choice. This is not surprising either,, as other tests have shown that the F4 lens actually outperforms Nikons own F2.8 VR version, not the super expensive E but the model before that. So the 24 200 has performed great.
Thank you for this insightful test. The 24-200mm is very difficult to get but I've just received one and I confirm your results, that with the limitations given by the slow aperture, this is a very good lens.
I’m likely very stupid, it wouldn’t be the first time, but why is the 70-200 image on the right more zoomed in? Were they shot on two different cameras with one higher rez?
Very useful review, thanks a lot!
I still wish Nikon had a 70-200 f4 in the roadmap. Im really really waiting for the Nikon 100-400 or 200-600. I think I'm going to have to pull the trigger on the Tamron 150-600 if it isn't at least announced soon.
I really appreciate that you put so much thought into your videos 👍 Great video, as always
Thanks a lot for watching
For a non S line lens, this super zoom 24-200 is pretty good. Its a bargain really. In broad daylight, its as good with the rest
Hi, Ricci
Are there any news from Nikon when to expect the Z 24-105 F4? Thanks
Sadly not but seeing how good the 24-200 is I’m optimistic it’s going to be a great lens
Why do they call it Focus Breathing when it has nothing to do with focus? It’s field of view or focal length related, correct?
Very informative, thank you for sharing
Thank you awesome work !! ...
I find it strange since I had read many reviews where it was indicated that 70-200 f4 did not suffer from focus breathing. It will not be the opposite with 24-200 maybe the framing problem is from this lens
Have these lenses been calibrated before the test?
Just a quick question shot with a Z* 5,6 0r 7. Thanks
Sorry should of mentioned that all shot on Z7 video all shot on a Z6
Hmm... Based on my unbiased observation, (given my eyes are still at 20/20 vision) this 24-200mm can't stand against the old 70 200 f4. Perhaps the complexity of the design and the very long range of the lens. But this 24 200 is a marvel compared to the near F-mount equivalent (possibly 28-300). Cheers Nikon!
thank you , it looks like my 70-200 f4 is up for sale
The 24-200 is really a very good lens. Must be great for allround, travel and hiking. I would just need this lens and in addition a tiny 16 or 18mm wide angle like the Samyang 18m 2.8 for Sony.
Price is a little bit too high in my opinion.
It makes sense for a DX shooter upgrading on the Z50. ;) I just wish I could wait until it was available used. Kit lenses are generally half price in a few months! Look how cheap the 24-70f4 is at $500 right now. I think it is a relative bargain.
Was this test done on a Z7 or Z6 ?
Well done man 👏👏👏
70-200 F/4 is clearly sharper.
Very good review. Thank you
An idea... make the sharpness comparison more concise and explore more other aspects like bokeh, flare and other lens characteristics in tough conditions ...
Great topic... not sure about the pink background... great on a shirt... not so good otherwise :)
Abnormal fringing around background items.
Went for something different you know 🤣 when I was editing it I was thinking why have I done this 🤣 but I think I like it for now I might change the colour every now and then
No compelling reason to lose the 70-200 f4 with that and the 14-30 in the bag for landscapes. Z. Mount 70-200 f4 doesn’t seem to be on the horizon.
Yes, Terry - the 70-200 f4 is an amazing lens. For travel, I would take the 24-200mm Z, mount that on my camera and forget it. I would keep the 70-200 f4 for sure though ;)
Another great Z lens wich is not possible to buy :-)
7mths late I am lol, however I'm one of the rare breed that actually thinks on your testing the F4 just wins....constant F4 is not to be sniffed at, as for the weight ? Well that's not a problem really as the f4 is half of that of 2.8 lens and to be fair I've had heaver primes, the feel of the f4 for me is better, so conclusion incase anyone asks I sent the Z lens back to amazon within the free return time and kept the F4.....but don't get me wrong I see no reason why nikon didn't release the f4 on the Z line up,all they have done is offer 70-200 at mega bucks or a variable aperture lens that for me is in real world not user friendly
Hi there.
I currently have the 24 70 f4, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8.
I'm a casual shooter so im thinking about selling the 24 70 for the 24 200. Will I lose to much picture quality? Would a teleconverter be a better option?
Check my older videos I have compared the 24-70 f4 against the 24-200 that will show you the difference between those lenses ..... also non of ur lenses will work with a tele converter
Man the Z is brighter at F6 the F at F4. I'm assuming you adjusted time but at F6.3 on both is the same, idk. Did you adjust time or iso to match EV?
I'm assuming b/c on Z cameras natively the light maybe hit the sensor better idk
We have the same shirt 🤗
You have a great t shirt 😊
Pokemon fans! ❤️
Thanks for another excellent review. IMHO I think you should zoom them to an equal width of view because that would probably better reflect how we use them in real life. I think no one actually look at the zoom ring before they take a photo!
Yeh I thought that a photographer would move them self or zoom out a little if their frame wasn’t correct and this obviously didn’t reflect that. But I also thought it was important to show what each lens would give you if you had to stay in the same place like for sports ect
Maybe it's the vignetting I'm seeing