I have both and for their respective uses, they’re both great. The way I approach these 2 depends on what kind of “Travel” photos I’ll be shooting. I think the 24-200 is great for a general vacation lens where reach for things like wildlife aren’t a concern. The 28-400 is stellar for things like Yosemite, etc where you really want that reach when needed. The 24-200 on my Zf fit fine in my Clever bag with a Fuji X100 in there with it. The 28-400 wouldn’t allow that space wise. Either way… I think both are great travel lenses!
Makes perfect sense... both of them have their place, depending on the shooting scenario you're in. I like that setup you have with the Zf and 24-200 along with the X100, pretty nice combo there!
I have both of these lenses. I like the 204-200 better. Question about your Z7. When in super low light or if the lens cap is on, the screen has that underexposed fuzz. Same with the viewfinder. But my Z6 doesn't have it. Is my Z7 okay? I just bought the z7 a month ago. Great video btw.
After much consideration, mulling through, going back and forth, and watching your other comparison video with the 100-400, I decided to get the 28-400 as a travel lens. I always end up lugging way too many like most photographers. If I needed a better IQ lens on the shorter end, I can default to my 24-120, but travel wise, like our upcoming Yellowstone trip, this with the 15-30 and the 180-600 will be my gear. My wife will surely love using this lens for its versatility for the long reach, and we can always tweak some in post. Thank you for both video comparisons.
Thank you for the detailed comparison. Both lenses seem to be good choices, re lens performance I would hazard a guess that these lenses will be more suited to 24 MP cameras. I use the 24 - 200 for general photography and I am quite pleased with it.
i have the 24 to 200. i generally dont need a zoom beyond 200 the 28 to 400 is impressive for its length but with your comparison it is too soft for my taste. excellent comparison video!
At this point I think almost any modern lens is going to be more than good enough in terms of image quality. It just depends on other factors like weight, aperture, price etc..
I wonder if you shoot the 28-400 at 200mm at f 13 instead of f8..would the edge be sharper. As a landscape photographer, i generally shoot at f11 generally (depending on situation).
The 28-400mm is a pretty good range, I have a Tamron 18-400mm Di II VC and its my go to lens for walking around that park taking pictures of birds, insects, flowers and people.
Thank you so much for doing this comparison. I own the Nikon Z 24-200mm lens and have been curiously since the introduction of the Z 28-400mm how these two lenses compare? Your analysis seems spot on. Truth is, I tend to hike with my Nikon Z 24-120mm f4, and while I love that lens, the prospect of extra reach from the 28-400mm lens, even given the slight loss in sharpness and light, I may pick up that lens for those days when edge sharpness is an acceptable outcome.
I'm glad the comparison was useful for you. The 28-400mm is a great option for hiking. It's definitely the lens I'm taking with me for times when I don't want to lug around the 100-400mm
I have been in the same situation, owned both the 24-120 and 24-200, but specifically when hiking in mountain areas (Alpes here) I found that if I wanted to have more than the 120mm the 200mm still wasn't enough. So I got me the 28-400 and sold the 24-200, as it also has less overlap with the 14-30. For my travel to Scotland in a few weeks, I only can afford 2 lenses based on travel restrictions, so the 14-30+28-400 will be my choice for best possibilities in cities with historical small streets, as well as areas in the Highlands where you cannot get near enough.
Thanks for sharing it's an interesting comparison. If the main difference is the focal length, and the quality is the same it's a great win for a 14x zoom... What about the Af and VR are those comparable as well? I'm super happy with my 24-200 but I'm tempted to make the change since there aren't any cheap lens over 300 in the nikon z system... yet when I go hiking with one lens, I'm sure I will miss the 24mm and feel the extra weight!😅
I didn't test out the VR as everything was shot on a tripod and the VR was turned off. The 28-400 is supposed have 5.5 stops of VR, which is just a half stop over the 5 stops of VR of the 24-200. I'm guessing they are similar when it comes to real world VR performance. As far as AF, I only used single point for the shots in this video so I can't really speak to AF performance in other scenarios at this time. However, I'd guess they are similar in AF since both use stepping motor AF. Yeah if you are hiking with one lens it is kind of a toss up as far as which one is best isn't it haha... sometimes that 24mm is needed to get the shot and other times that 200-400mm is needed. I think my setup for backpacking or longer day hikes will to bring the 28-400 and a wide angle lens as well (either the 14-30mm or the 20mm f/1.8 if I think conditions will be good for astrophotography)
These results aren't that surprising. Especially at 200mm we'd expect the 24-200 to be a little less sharp (although decently sharp) against the 28-400, since it's would be at the end of it's zoom range, which is generaly where lenses fall apart (particularly the "travel zoom" type). But overall, it will come down to a choice between speed and sharpness, and aperture, over zoom range.
Nice comparison. Really impressive how good these two superzooms perform through their range and across the image fields. Really great job by Nikon! Personally, if I had to go for one or the other, I'd go for the 24-200mm because I tend to use 24-28mm range a lot in travel photography more so than I go beyond 200mm. That said, the 28-400mm is certainly more useful for sports and nature/wildlife scenarios. But I could personally probably live with going into crop mode when I needed the extra reach more easily than I could live without the 24-28mm range. The slightly lighter weight is a nice bonus. Certainly would be nice to have both "one lens to do it all" lenses on the shelf when needed, though!
Thanks! That makes perfect sense... gotten pick what works best for your own style / preferences. The 24-200 still has quite a bit of reach and like you mentioned, you can use DX mode and get in a bit closer as well. For me I'm usually shooting on a tripod and figure I can do a pano with the 28-400 if I need a wider field of view, if I only have the one lens with me... but honestly I'd probably also bring along a wide angle zoom to pair with the 28-400 :)
If I will get Sony Xperia 1 VI to be always with me for its 16mm, 24mm, 48mm, and 2X macro plus it's 85-170mm uses, should I get 70-180mm with 2X tele converter or 28-400mm for the Zf as the only lens on it for a long time for abstract kind of photography, not a bokeh guy but one project might need or benefit from having it, can the 28-400mm have some blur background with a full person subject in the frame because if it able to then it might be more useful with that range, I might get a manual lens for fun and bokeh in the future like Voigtländer 40f1.2/50f1/65f2mm and also a 14-30mm f4 for everyday closer stuffs
Check the video description for gear discounts, my gear list, and more. Thanks for watching!
I have both and for their respective uses, they’re both great. The way I approach these 2 depends on what kind of “Travel” photos I’ll be shooting. I think the 24-200 is great for a general vacation lens where reach for things like wildlife aren’t a concern. The 28-400 is stellar for things like Yosemite, etc where you really want that reach when needed. The 24-200 on my Zf fit fine in my Clever bag with a Fuji X100 in there with it. The 28-400 wouldn’t allow that space wise. Either way… I think both are great travel lenses!
Makes perfect sense... both of them have their place, depending on the shooting scenario you're in. I like that setup you have with the Zf and 24-200 along with the X100, pretty nice combo there!
I have both of these lenses. I like the 204-200 better. Question about your Z7. When in super low light or if the lens cap is on, the screen has that underexposed fuzz. Same with the viewfinder. But my Z6 doesn't have it. Is my Z7 okay? I just bought the z7 a month ago. Great video btw.
After much consideration, mulling through, going back and forth, and watching your other comparison video with the 100-400, I decided to get the 28-400 as a travel lens. I always end up lugging way too many like most photographers. If I needed a better IQ lens on the shorter end, I can default to my 24-120, but travel wise, like our upcoming Yellowstone trip, this with the 15-30 and the 180-600 will be my gear. My wife will surely love using this lens for its versatility for the long reach, and we can always tweak some in post. Thank you for both video comparisons.
Thank you for the detailed comparison. Both lenses seem to be good choices, re lens performance I would hazard a guess that these lenses will be more suited to 24 MP cameras. I use the 24 - 200 for general photography and I am quite pleased with it.
i have the 24 to 200. i generally dont need a zoom beyond 200 the 28 to 400 is impressive for its length but with your comparison it is too soft for my taste. excellent comparison video!
At this point I think almost any modern lens is going to be more than good enough in terms of image quality. It just depends on other factors like weight, aperture, price etc..
I tend to agree with you, though I suppose ‘good enough’ means different things to different folks
Thanks for the detailed comparisons!!! Well thought out!!! 📸
Thanks, I appreciate it!
I wonder if you shoot the 28-400 at 200mm at f 13 instead of f8..would the edge be sharper. As a landscape photographer, i generally shoot at f11 generally (depending on situation).
The 28-400mm is a pretty good range, I have a Tamron 18-400mm Di II VC and its my go to lens for walking around that park taking pictures of birds, insects, flowers and people.
Nice. Have you gotten pretty good results out of the Tamron 18-400? That's also quite the range!
Thank you very much for this amazing comparison!
My pleasure!
Thank you so much for doing this comparison. I own the Nikon Z 24-200mm lens and have been curiously since the introduction of the Z 28-400mm how these two lenses compare? Your analysis seems spot on. Truth is, I tend to hike with my Nikon Z 24-120mm f4, and while I love that lens, the prospect of extra reach from the 28-400mm lens, even given the slight loss in sharpness and light, I may pick up that lens for those days when edge sharpness is an acceptable outcome.
I'm glad the comparison was useful for you. The 28-400mm is a great option for hiking. It's definitely the lens I'm taking with me for times when I don't want to lug around the 100-400mm
I have been in the same situation, owned both the 24-120 and 24-200, but specifically when hiking in mountain areas (Alpes here) I found that if I wanted to have more than the 120mm the 200mm still wasn't enough. So I got me the 28-400 and sold the 24-200, as it also has less overlap with the 14-30. For my travel to Scotland in a few weeks, I only can afford 2 lenses based on travel restrictions, so the 14-30+28-400 will be my choice for best possibilities in cities with historical small streets, as well as areas in the Highlands where you cannot get near enough.
Nice review bro.. do u happen to knw any update on nikon z5ii coming in?
Thanks! I haven't heard anything about the Z5II. I'm guessing it won't be coming out soon though since the Z6III was just released
@@ZJMichaels sad...
Thanks for sharing it's an interesting comparison. If the main difference is the focal length, and the quality is the same it's a great win for a 14x zoom... What about the Af and VR are those comparable as well? I'm super happy with my 24-200 but I'm tempted to make the change since there aren't any cheap lens over 300 in the nikon z system... yet when I go hiking with one lens, I'm sure I will miss the 24mm and feel the extra weight!😅
I didn't test out the VR as everything was shot on a tripod and the VR was turned off. The 28-400 is supposed have 5.5 stops of VR, which is just a half stop over the 5 stops of VR of the 24-200. I'm guessing they are similar when it comes to real world VR performance. As far as AF, I only used single point for the shots in this video so I can't really speak to AF performance in other scenarios at this time. However, I'd guess they are similar in AF since both use stepping motor AF. Yeah if you are hiking with one lens it is kind of a toss up as far as which one is best isn't it haha... sometimes that 24mm is needed to get the shot and other times that 200-400mm is needed. I think my setup for backpacking or longer day hikes will to bring the 28-400 and a wide angle lens as well (either the 14-30mm or the 20mm f/1.8 if I think conditions will be good for astrophotography)
These results aren't that surprising. Especially at 200mm we'd expect the 24-200 to be a little less sharp (although decently sharp) against the 28-400, since it's would be at the end of it's zoom range, which is generaly where lenses fall apart (particularly the "travel zoom" type). But overall, it will come down to a choice between speed and sharpness, and aperture, over zoom range.
Nice comparison. Really impressive how good these two superzooms perform through their range and across the image fields. Really great job by Nikon!
Personally, if I had to go for one or the other, I'd go for the 24-200mm because I tend to use 24-28mm range a lot in travel photography more so than I go beyond 200mm. That said, the 28-400mm is certainly more useful for sports and nature/wildlife scenarios. But I could personally probably live with going into crop mode when I needed the extra reach more easily than I could live without the 24-28mm range. The slightly lighter weight is a nice bonus.
Certainly would be nice to have both "one lens to do it all" lenses on the shelf when needed, though!
Thanks! That makes perfect sense... gotten pick what works best for your own style / preferences. The 24-200 still has quite a bit of reach and like you mentioned, you can use DX mode and get in a bit closer as well. For me I'm usually shooting on a tripod and figure I can do a pano with the 28-400 if I need a wider field of view, if I only have the one lens with me... but honestly I'd probably also bring along a wide angle zoom to pair with the 28-400 :)
Well done! Thanks!
Thanks! Much appreciated!
I would choose the 28-400, on it isn't Canon compatible!
If I will get Sony Xperia 1 VI to be always with me for its 16mm, 24mm, 48mm, and 2X macro plus it's 85-170mm uses, should I get 70-180mm with 2X tele converter or 28-400mm for the Zf as the only lens on it for a long time for abstract kind of photography, not a bokeh guy but one project might need or benefit from having it, can the 28-400mm have some blur background with a full person subject in the frame because if it able to then it might be more useful with that range, I might get a manual lens for fun and bokeh in the future like Voigtländer 40f1.2/50f1/65f2mm and also a 14-30mm f4 for everyday closer stuffs
Did you focus point exactly in the same place in each comparison? I could bet the differences were caused by that
Yes, the focus point was in the same spot for each comparison