Hey ! I hope you find This Video useful ! For me the 28-300 was a good lens at its time but its starting to show its age (2010) as zoom lens quality has improved since its introduction. As always thanks for watching !
Thanks for making this video. Really useful. Looking forward to watching the VR comparison. I am also interested to see the comparisons of both lense zoom in and out in full length. Thanks.
Thanks for the video! It would have been interesting to compare FOV of the 24-200 @200 to the 28-300 @300 to see how much (if anything) you gain from the extra 100mm.
@@knightsabre7 @UCa5RmHE7y8gfmE77UJeBQaw As @UC_zUJ0ql9enWxm2cDwApbgw pointed out below at closest distance there is only "30mm more length" in the 28-300. Could you test the difference at infinity and cropping the 24-200 to behave like a "300mm" lens. If the lenses are comparable there I will definitely switch.
I'm probably one of the ca. 5 people in Germany who has actually got a 24-200 already? Woohoo! And your review very much confirms my impressions since yesterday. The 24-200 is _ridiculously_ sharp when compared to the 28-300. I'd even say the 28-300 gets so soft in the 200+ range, you actually don't get more details from it at 300 than from a Z6 (not to mention a Z7) DX crop of the Z lens. The Z zoom also has much less distortion, and all in all produces extremely clean images. Me likes. BTW, what no review can adequately confer to people who have not tried it themselves is the sheer difference in bulk. The 28-300 is quite compact, but it is heavy, and the FTZ adds another 200 grams at least. All in all we are talking about a kilo of glass attached to the Z6/7, and the combination just handles awkward, not to mention the sheer weight gets tiresome. The 24-200 feels light like a feather by comparison. I guess I'll just never take it off my Z6 again (okay, maybe to shoot with the Z 85/18, love that lens).
Thanks for this interessting comparison. I am very positively surprised at the good optical performance the Z 24-200 delivers. Apparently the days of huge compromises when it comes to sharpness with ultrazooms are finally over. I think it works very well for video too, especially because of the low focus breaking. As always, I'm looking forward to your next video. Thumbs up!
Very helpful information. I think it would be very helpful for landscape photographers if you could possibly compare the Z 24-200VR against the Nikon 70-200 f/4 G lens. If it's close to that lens in focus accuracy then we've got a real game changer. Really appreciate your reviews.
@@RicciTalks Oh, a minor nitpick I noticed: It looks like you might have 2 hot pixels in the top right corner in that high ISO shot towards the end. Last night, I found out about the 'double sensor cleaning' trick to remap the pixels and fix it. Do you know if this feature is new to Z series cameras, or has it been there all along and I'm just a slow learner?
I have switched to Z mount and I don't see a 70-200 f4 on the roadmap .can you please compare 70-200 f4 F mount to 24-200 Z .this would be a huge weight saving for me and I would only have to carry a 14-30 and 24-200 which is very attractive .im just concerned about image quality .
@@christopherrowbottom7489 the problem for me with the 100-400 is the 95mm filter ring, which would mean i would have to buy 150mm square filter kit just for 1 lens, when i am heavily invested in the 100mm system
This review will be very helpful, and good news for my wife. She's finding the D810/28-300 a bit heavy and bulky and we were wondering about moving her to the Z6II and the 24-200. Although she will gain significantly more FOV at the wide end, I had been concerned she would lose quite a bit going from 300 to 200mm. However she often takes zoomed-in shots of flowers and butterflies etc, and your work shows that she will be losing almost nothing due to the focus breathing on the older lens. Combined with the sharper edges this is fantastic news. Thank you!
Ah, that dot matrix printer sound of the 28-300 AF. I know it well. You have convinced me to go for the 24-200 just on the basis of the AF motor. And yes, the focus breathing on the 28-300 is INSANE.
I would have liked to see what FOV the 28-300 offered at 300 vs the 24-200 at 200 since the extra 100mm of focal length may help to compensate for some breathing. The question is, even if the 28-300 is not always a true 300, does it still offer more magnification?
Ricci, thanks for the review and comparison. Right after you review the VR version in your next video, I'm convinced I'll be ordering this lens... Thanks you.
Very interesting. I'm not really surprised that the 28-300 was less good but I generally use mine on travels outdoors at f8-f11. I also use the 24-120mm f4 for shootings indoors so I'm interested in the comparison with the 24-200
Ricci, your tests are really the only ones on YT that tell us what we need to know about lenses we are considering. The consistent test methods and traits compared are VERY helpful. The 24-200 we could assume was pretty good just from the lenses in Z mount that came before. Unfortunately, my large collection of F mount lenses are a lot less satisfying now that I have a number of S lenses. Even my long time favorites, like the 85 1.4g just do not get used anymore. I can see the difference between the 85 G and S and grab the S lens every time. My 70-200 VR 2,8 that not that long ago was my favorite portrait lens really shows its weaknesses compared to 85 S at the same FL even when stopped down. I have the 24-70 f/4 and 2.8 and while the 2.8 is stunning I use the f/4 much more often because for the weight and size, it is not much of a compromise, it punches well over its weight. My wedding, engagement and event/performance bookings all disappeared since formal weddings are still not permitted after 4 months of lock down so about the only shooting I am doing is personal, landscapes and 18th and 19th-century architecture while I wait out the lifting or restrictions. So I do not feel the pressure to get the 70-200 2.8 S as much as I did last winter in prep for the new season. My businesses here are incoming tourism, photography and a shop for repairing professional audio equipment and all are shut down for the season, a year to year and a half with no income can be weathers pretty well simply because the cost of living here is about 1/10th of what it was back home in the US.
Thanks for the test. I think I found a mistake in focus calibration or autofocus. At 120mm tests and further to the end of all tests you can clearly see that the numbers on the lens behind the colours are better focused at 28-300.
Great review as always Ricci thank you. Are you planning on doing one in comparing it to the 70-200mm f/4 VR, Since I don’t see a replacement for that lands in the roadmap anytime soon would be nice to see how it compares so I can get rid of mine
I resisted buying the 28-300 for many, many years. I always felt that the 28-300mm was simply not worth the money, even on the sale price. Too heavy, poor focus breathing, poor VR, poor sharpness at all focal length, and not wide enough. Huge difference between 24mm and 28mm, and that was the dealbreaker. At the long end, it is not a true 300mm either. Its more like a 250mm. Not that it matters, because once you are over 100mm or so, you are much better off in a 100-400mm lens. I got the 24-120mm f4 instead, and never regretted it. I have a Z 24-200mm on pre-order since March, and after seeing this video I am keeping my pre-order. Its not for the 120-200mm range above the 24-120mm f4. Its for the 24-120 portion. I want a more quality lens (all attributes) in that range, and the extra range is just for when something is happening right now and I dont have time to switch to a 100-400mm. Yes, Nikon will eventually release the Z 24-105 f4, and I'm sure the image quality will be even better. But, the additional cost and weight will make it unattractive for most.
The 28-300mm looks like the focusing is off (back focusing). Look at at 10:21 point, numbers on the lens in the background are sharper then the 24-200mm even though they are both at the same f stop. Could that be why the lens doesn't appear as sharp?
Great video Ricci. I had the 28-300 and loved the versatility but with my D800 back in the day it just wasn't sharp enough. I had to trade it in the end for a 24-70 f2.8 Great to see the benfefits of the Z-mount though. Hope you're well, Adrian
As always a clear coherent look at the lens. Thank you. I think that what comes through as much as anything is the consistent performance of the 24-200 across the frame and throughout the focal range. It really is starting to remind me a lot of the Olympus 12-100 for a full frame.
Thank you very much for the very detailed videos! They helped me a lot in order to take a good decision what to buy! Greetings from Chile! Look how far your videos reach!
I guess this is sort of to be expected... the Z is not only newer, but as mentioned in the video a few times (and in my experience) the zoom range on the 28-300, while larger, tends to mean more compromises in terms of sharpness, and considering at their new prices, if someone doesn't have either one, the Z is the clear winner here, unless you need the 200-300mm range, but I think for many, 24-200 should cover most people's needs. Couple the 24-200 with a 14-30 and you have a nice, light weight and fairy compact travel kit. Thank you as this was exactly the comparison I was looking for... something side-by-side between the two as I was tempted to get the 28-300 myself because it's more readily available (and I travel a lot) but I think I can wait a little longer and go with the 24-200.
Very helpful, I've been wondering how quick I want to worry about upgrading away from my 28-300mm to a native lens and if the quality gap is this great I want to make the upgrade ASAP.
Nice comparison, thanks. For focus breathing, I measured the length of the same objects. In order to get the same field of view of the 24-200 at closest focus distance, you would have to put the 28-300 at about 270mm, which almost negates the difference in the rated focal lengths of the lenses. Can you compare the field of view at 200mm focused at infinity? That is the circumstance where any differences in the field of view will matter most to me. To round things out, comparing the field of view when at 28mm and focussed at minimum and maximum distances would also be very useful.
That is really interesting. At closest distance there is only "30mm more length" in the 28-300. Could somebody here test the difference at infitiy and cropping in with the 24-200 to behave like a "300mm" lens. If the lenses are comparable there I will definitely switch.
What's also apparent in Ricci's other comparison to the 70-200/4 is that the 24-200 never actually reaches 200mm, it always has a wider field of view at any focus distance when set at 200mm. I estimated it to be about 180mm in comparison to the 70-200/4 at 200mm. And so since this vlog shows the 28-300 set at 200mm and focused at infinity (its tightest) has a similar FoV to the 24-200, about 180mm, overall the 28-300 is probably at best a 28-280mm lens at infinity and with the significant focus breathing you mention, it is about a 28-230mm lens at shorter focus distances! There really should be some rules on how these superzooms are measured.
Great test and comparison, Ricci. Thank you very much! I'm quite sure I will get a Z24-200 as an "all road" lens.. By the way I've got the 28-300 since it reached the market and I've never realized its "powerfull" Focus Breathing!
Without doubt a scientific comparison on the sharpness of these two lenses. I just bought the 28-300 for my D700 and I am surprised by its sharpness. At 50 mm it is equal to my 50 mm ais lenses, it is sharper than my 100 mm. I also use it on my D200 and then it has a reach of 450mm and great contrast. So I really appreciate having that 300 mm when I need it. It's a relatively compact lens, and well made too just a bargain...
@@skyrunr its amazing! It is the perfect hiking lens. I am prepared for whatever I may encounter from a wide vista to a deer, squirrels, or even butterflies and bees. And it is incredibly sharp. Even cropped 100%. Can you tell I love it? Lolol
Oh, if you want to check out some of my results you can check my IG page at frankbottphotography. Everything I have posted in the last month or so is shot with that lens.
@@frabo1000 Thank you, I had both kits for my Z50, change lenses too often, tried a Z7 with the 24-70f4 (too much money and only matches my d500 quality,) went back to the Z50 (keeping D500,) and didn't get the 50-250mm the second time around. I'll probably swap it for the 24-105mm IF it isn't too pricey. ;)
I have the F 28-300mm and going to pick up my Z 24-200mm tomorrow. Thanks for the very informative review. At closest focus for the Z lens @ 200mm, what indicated focal length on the 28-300mm was required to show a similar field of view?
OMG! Thank you for the review and comparison. I felt like the 28-300 was talking to me during that AF test. Of course, I don't jave a Z, so the 24-200 is not an option for me. But knowing what else is out there is also enlightening.
Hi Ricci, finding your channel has been great since I bought my Z6 last year and use your channel to decide which lenses would work best for my purposes. One note of feedback, if I may, is that in your talking head shots, the volume is too low. Thanks for the reviews and hard work!
This is actually a very good test? I had to focus very closely and follow what you where showing and I was able to notice the difference quite well, especially corner sharpness and the focus breathing. I was also surprised because of the focus breathing at 200mm there was a difference between the two lenses how close the distance was revealed to be. Good test indeed, thank you.
Thank you, thank you, thank you Ricci for doing this comparison. The Nikon Z 24-200mm might be my new hiking lens. The quiet video was a real eye opener.
All Z mount lenses vs f mount AF-S lenses wil come out the same because of the af motors used in the lenses there are a couple of Af-p lenses that are silent like the Z lenses
I ordered this lens when it was announced, I hope to get it by mail this week! Thank you for the comparison, now I know I will not be disappointed. Would be nice to have a review of the VR functionality, how does it work out in the field on a Z6 or a Z7. I have a very (very!) old 200mm F4 (from 1972!) and it's not working very good handheld, very shaky. On a tripod it's excellent however but I guess it's superseded by this 24-200 with VR.
The 24-200 is ... pretty impressive as an all-in-one. Would you recommend this for APS-C (Z50 or whatever new camera is coming out) or would you just recommend the Z DX telezoom? And have you heard about any more DX news? Great video as always. Objective and well-informed comparisons every single time.
BTW the focus breathing is kind of hilarious. But it's not hard to see that this is a shooter's camera, a travel camera, and not primarily for video. Also, old-school AF-S being so loud and overall cruddy in video is probably more important if you're doing video on the fly as in a travel scenario. Anyway, again, great video.
Nice comparisons, but it leaves a simple question unanswered. If there's a small bird about 20 m away, which lens can capture a better picture? It's fine to compare lenses at the same focal length and aperture, but if I have a faster or longer lens, I'll take advantage of it. For this bird, focus breathing is not an issue, and the longer lens will require less cropping. I'd like to see the best picture the two lenses can capture in a given context, and compare those.
IMO If you have the 28-300 you might want to consider using it. It's not quite as sharp as the 24-200 but it's a 1/3 stop faster on both ends, plus a little longer on the long end. But if you don't, go for the 24-200. While it is a little slower, the extra 4mm on the wide end is useful. But I don't know if you'd gain enough to justify $850 buying the 24-200 if you already have the 28-300. Yes the 24-200 is sharper and it's also smaller and lighter. I love mine, and it's become my new favorite travel lens (actaully replaced my 24-70 f/4 and AFP 70-300 for travel, so now I'm down to just a 14-30 and 24-200 for my travel kit).
Excellent video. I don’t follow anyone on RUclips but this might be an exception. Just got my 24-200 Z mount. Nice lens overall but 6.3 can be a bummer sometimes.
With this performance, wish we could have seen a 24-200 @200mm compared to 28-300 @300. With more sharpness and narrower field of view the 24-200 might give better image when scaled up than the 28-300 :) Amazing. Anyway, thank you Ricci, this will be a must have lens for travel with a Z.
I did think about that! I could do that if you really want to see it but at 300mm the performance is not better than at 200 and the field of view doesn’t actually change that much due to breathing!
@@RicciTalks Would be nice but only if others are interested as well. It is just stunning that this new lens could give better result on 200mm than the other at 300mm when the final image is cropped to the same size. For enthusiast wild and travel photographers this can be a game changer.
Thanks for the video! Coming from Sony, I am new to the Nikon lens lineup. Got the z 24-200 and thinking if the 28-300 is better for me. Your video answered that very clearly!
I am using my old 70 - 200 f4 on the ftz adapter with great results.. that lens has always been extremely sharp and remains so on my Z bodies... In crop mode on my Z7 I get a 300 mm field of view and if I add my 1.4 teleconverter I'm up to over 400 m m at 5.6, albeit with a slight hit in image quality... If I use my 1.7 teleconverter, there is a noticeable change in IQ. For my Z50 body I bought a used 70 - 300 4.5-6.3 DX P which is an inexpensive, small light and compact lens and relatively new in design with great image quality but not quite matching the 70-200 F4. I am not seeing the need to buy any Zmount variable focal length/ aperture lenses anytime soon, certainly not for a casual walkabout telephoto.. The only downside to the F4 lens is it's rather large and somewhat heavy on the Z7.
Great Information! Would like to see a relative f stop comparison between lenses. For example using the ƒ4 24-70 Z lens 2 stops from wide open compared to the 24-200 Z lens 2 stops from wide open.
This was a layup for the Z lens. The 28-300 was already a flawed lens by F-Mount standards. Thanks for the test, though. It's nice to see how far Nikon has come.
Thank you for the information, very much appreciated. Looking forward to seeing how it compares with Z 70-200 and 24-70 2.8’s before I decide on a purchase.
Don’t get me wrong the 24-200 is a great lens but the Z2.8 and the Z 70-200 are better in outright picture quality. The question is how much better and are you willing to carry two heavy lenses over one light lens for the extra quality.
Good comparison as I'm considering one of these, in these tests the 24-200 looks better, but I would have liked to have seen the extra reach the 300 brings, and I'll be using mainly for landscape so the focus breathing wouldn't be a concern if it only really effects focusing on close objects
hi ricci, i look up to your videos a lot for my lens decision making... however could you please test the lenses in different light conditions.. please don't take this comment as a criticism... you see not many have access to test lenses before buying and i am one such so people like me need some one like you to give us that info.. even a couple of sample test shots in low light conditions would be helpful..
Not criticism at all I make these videos for you guys so anything you want to see let me know! In some of my earlier videos I did add in real world sample images from the lens i was talking about. As my comparison detail increased I felt like I had less “time” to add in the everyday samples. My videos are already really long I don’t want them to be much longer. That being said if you and others (like this comment) wouldn’t mind a longer video that adds in real world samples in different lighting I can definitely do that for future lenses I think for the 24-200 I’ll make a separate video just consisting of different samples in different lighting obviously won’t be right away maybe in 1-2weeks time if that’s ok ???
Philosophy of use? Travel walk around lenses? Identical image quality from my perspective on small screens where holiday happy snaps are likely most shared. Which one can be had at the lowest price?
Hi & thanks for your great review! I was wondering if maybe it would be more fair to compare these lenses after lens corrections applied on the 28-300, since the new Z-line bake in the corrections in the RAW files themselves. Which is convenient but not a fair comparison. Would love if you could please check that out for me. Thanks!
nice reviews, this series comparing the 24-200 , against the 24-70 f4 S series & the 70-200 f4 Fmount have convinced me to get rid of both and replace with this 24-200..
Yes great I was just going to purchase 28 to 300mm Nikon second-hand but I do love of the New Z lenses so I'll wait till Nikon brings more Z lenses thanks again cheers Jonathan
Hi.. I might be interested in the 24 200 but, as i do a lot of long exposures photography, i am concerned about the micro shakes when using long focals.. Did you test it ? Thanks
I'd really like to see a comparison of the 24-200 versus the 50-250mm. Including a 24mm comparison with the 16-50mm. I know which one I'd rather have in my bag, but should someone keep the kit lens if they already have it, or use it to fund getting the 24-200 or 24-105?
I would love to see a comparison of the 24-200 with the 24-70 f2.8. I know they're very different lenses, but I'm trying to decide between the two. I know the 24-70 is going to be a great lens, but the range of the 24-200 makes it very attractive at 1/3 the price.
I can tell you that the 24-70 2.8 is much sharper than the 24-200. Can't quantify it but around the corners especially the 2.8 is much sharper. I'd probably classify them as: 24-200 < 24-70 f/4 < 24-70 f/2.8. (The f/4 is close to the 24-200 but I'd still put the f/4 slightly in front of the 24-200 in terms of sharpness overall, although the 24-200 is no slouch).
Good review I own the 24-200 z lens and used to own the 28-300 which I used to think was a very good lens. Times change looking forward to using the new lens.
Hi sir ,lots of love from India, I have sigma 150-600mm Contemporary lens which currently I am using with my D500. Is Sigma 150-600 mm Contemporary lens compatible with Nikon Z6 with FTZ adapter??? Please let me know sir. I will be waiting for your reply. Thank you.
Excellent video but, anybody thinking to buy the 28 to 300 would have liked to at least seen the test at 300 MM since many super Zooms tend to get dull at their maximum reach
Got mine 2 days ago. I can say it produces much cleaner/clearer then my 28-300 on my D750. Can't do side by side comparison as I no longer have the D750 and I will now sell the 28-300.
Thanks for your test. This is excellent info! I took my D850 with the 28-300 on our vacation to New Mexico last autumn and I could see some softness in the images. Obviously this lens was designed for F mount cameras with lower resolution. The images that I created with my Z7, 24-70 F/4 and the 70-300 FP FX lens with the FTZ adapter on our trip to the Canadian Rockies a few months before were noticeably sharper (sometimes too sharp with some morie). I just picked up my new 24-200 Z at my camera store today and it is nicely balanced with the Z7 compared with the 28-300 with the FTZ adapter. I ordered the 24-200s based on one of your earlier reviews. Thanks!
@@RicciTalks Glacier National Park in Montana, Banff and Jasper National Park in Alberta are just gorgeous. Just make certain that you don't go to the Canadian Rockies during Canada Day in early July. It gets slammed with visitors and people from nearby Calgary then.
To end: out of curiosity I bought the Z6 with the 24-200. Sold it half a year later because it is no match for the D700 and the 28-300. Just an opinion.
Getting very hard for me to justify any more F mount lenses. I wonder if Nikon will look at redoing some of the favorite F mount lens to bring them up to this new standard.
There are some newer F-mount lenses that keep up like the 105 F1.4. I think what we are seeing here is a 10 year old zoom lens against a brand new zoom lens
Hi, Is it a good idea to ditch my kit lenses - AF-P DX 18-55mm 3.5/5.6 VR and AF-P 70-300mm 4.5/6.3 VR ED - for a: FX AF-S 28-300mm 3.5/5.6 VR (offer for $250 USD)? I have a D3400 a 50mm 1.8G and a DX 35mm 1.8G I like taking photos anywhere and I mainly shoot animal (birds, dogs, etc.)
Could you comment on the VR quality between Z24-200 vs. F28-300 e.g. on a Z6. I had a quick go at the shop and my simulated shake was much better controlled with the F28-300 and I though I would end up with more rejects with the Z24-200 and did not make the purchase that day. Was I right or wrong about the VR?
Iv found the opposite the VR + ibis set up on the 24-200 allowed me to shoot slower shutter speeds than possible with the 28-300mm The 28-300 will only get 3axis VR The 24-200 will get 5 axis VR
Image quality looks good, but I tend to prefer lenses with a constant aperture. I never liked lenses with variable/increasing aperture as the focal length increases.
Hey Ricci, do you know if Nikon is planning a 70-200/f4 S or something similar? The f2.8 S version is more lens than I need, but I do want a constant aperture throughout the zoom range. Thanks.
Such a lens is not on Nikon's roadmap to 2021, so if it were to be made it would be at least two years off. Ricci probably doesn't know Nikon's plans that far in the future, and even if he did, he would be under NDA, so the roadmap is all the info you are going to get. Tamron's 70-180/2.8 may be released in Z mount not too far off also.
@@Bayonet1809 Thanks for your reply! I knew an f4 version wasn't on the roadmap. I could pick up an F mount version for $1399 but I swore I wouldn't adapt F mount lenses. Maybe wait for the Tamron. I just don't utilize the 70-200 focal lengths enough to justify purchasing the f2.8 Z mount. I did get the 24-70/2.8 S since I use that focal length range all the time. Thanks again!
Why compare two totally different lens? Z 24-200 is a Z mount (yep) 28-300 is F mount and yes they are very different mounts. The 28-300 was manufactured from August 2010 now discontinued, the 24-200 began production 10 years later in February 2020, have Nikkor improved their R & D and production in 10 years? Whilst I do not disagree with the findings of the comparison test do wonder if using an FTZ adaptor would have any bearing on those tests? My tuppence worth.
I see you limit the lens. The lens was meant to zoom out to 300 and you only did 200. This would’ve made quite a difference. It would’ve have been zoomed in much more and that’s a fact but you limit it to make it seem like it can only do 200 or not even 200 because of focus breathing, but if you would’ve had, let it go all the way out to 300 this would’ve been even better comparison… 28 to 300 still holds his own even though it is so old it’s doing a great job…
Hey !
I hope you find This Video useful !
For me the 28-300 was a good lens at its time but its starting to show its age (2010) as zoom lens quality has improved since its introduction.
As always thanks for watching !
Thanks for making this video. Really useful. Looking forward to watching the VR comparison. I am also interested to see the comparisons of both lense zoom in and out in full length. Thanks.
Thanks for the video! It would have been interesting to compare FOV of the 24-200 @200 to the 28-300 @300 to see how much (if anything) you gain from the extra 100mm.
Just in case you used some template: typo at 2:48 (Qulity instead of Quality) :)
Thank you for all the great reviews you do!
@@knightsabre7 @UCa5RmHE7y8gfmE77UJeBQaw As @UC_zUJ0ql9enWxm2cDwApbgw pointed out below at closest distance there is only "30mm more length" in the 28-300. Could you test the difference at infinity and cropping the 24-200 to behave like a "300mm" lens. If the lenses are comparable there I will definitely switch.
I'm probably one of the ca. 5 people in Germany who has actually got a 24-200 already? Woohoo! And your review very much confirms my impressions since yesterday. The 24-200 is _ridiculously_ sharp when compared to the 28-300. I'd even say the 28-300 gets so soft in the 200+ range, you actually don't get more details from it at 300 than from a Z6 (not to mention a Z7) DX crop of the Z lens. The Z zoom also has much less distortion, and all in all produces extremely clean images. Me likes. BTW, what no review can adequately confer to people who have not tried it themselves is the sheer difference in bulk. The 28-300 is quite compact, but it is heavy, and the FTZ adds another 200 grams at least. All in all we are talking about a kilo of glass attached to the Z6/7, and the combination just handles awkward, not to mention the sheer weight gets tiresome. The 24-200 feels light like a feather by comparison. I guess I'll just never take it off my Z6 again (okay, maybe to shoot with the Z 85/18, love that lens).
I've come to the point that I press "like" before even start watching your videos.
Well thank you 🤣
Thanks for this interessting comparison. I am very positively surprised at the good optical performance the Z 24-200 delivers. Apparently the days of huge compromises when it comes to sharpness with ultrazooms are finally over. I think it works very well for video too, especially because of the low focus breaking. As always, I'm looking forward to your next video. Thumbs up!
In the past it was always difficult for me to recommend all in one lenses. But this one is good enough for the range and convenience it gives !
Have you checked, which focal lengh you had to choose on the 28-300mm to match the frame of the Z lens at 200mm at your test-distance?
Very helpful information. I think it would be very helpful for landscape photographers if you could possibly compare the Z 24-200VR against the Nikon 70-200 f/4 G lens. If it's close to that lens in focus accuracy then we've got a real game changer. Really appreciate your reviews.
Z mount continues it's winning streak! Thank you for these practical comparisons.
Thank you for watching them!
@@RicciTalks Oh, a minor nitpick I noticed: It looks like you might have 2 hot pixels in the top right corner in that high ISO shot towards the end.
Last night, I found out about the 'double sensor cleaning' trick to remap the pixels and fix it.
Do you know if this feature is new to Z series cameras, or has it been there all along and I'm just a slow learner?
I have switched to Z mount and I don't see a 70-200 f4 on the roadmap .can you please compare 70-200 f4 F mount to 24-200 Z .this would be a huge weight saving for me and I would only have to carry a 14-30 and 24-200 which is very attractive .im just concerned about image quality .
Will be doing that test in the next week or so just trying to get hold of a 70-200mm f4
@@RicciTalks thanks so much it would be amazing if the 24-200 wins or nikon release a tele f4 trinity .looks like the Z 100-400 will fill the spot
Agreed. This is key for landscape and travel photographers where size/weight/quality trumps speed every day of the week.
+1 thanks in advance...
@@christopherrowbottom7489 the problem for me with the 100-400 is the 95mm filter ring, which would mean i would have to buy 150mm square filter kit just for 1 lens, when i am heavily invested in the 100mm system
This review will be very helpful, and good news for my wife. She's finding the D810/28-300 a bit heavy and bulky and we were wondering about moving her to the Z6II and the 24-200. Although she will gain significantly more FOV at the wide end, I had been concerned she would lose quite a bit going from 300 to 200mm. However she often takes zoomed-in shots of flowers and butterflies etc, and your work shows that she will be losing almost nothing due to the focus breathing on the older lens. Combined with the sharper edges this is fantastic news. Thank you!
Ah, that dot matrix printer sound of the 28-300 AF. I know it well. You have convinced me to go for the 24-200 just on the basis of the AF motor. And yes, the focus breathing on the 28-300 is INSANE.
I would have liked to see what FOV the 28-300 offered at 300 vs the 24-200 at 200 since the extra 100mm of focal length may help to compensate for some breathing. The question is, even if the 28-300 is not always a true 300, does it still offer more magnification?
That focus breathing is insane on the 28-300mm.
Ricci, thanks for the review and comparison. Right after you review the VR version in your next video, I'm convinced I'll be ordering this lens... Thanks you.
Very interesting. I'm not really surprised that the 28-300 was less good but I generally use mine on travels outdoors at f8-f11. I also use the 24-120mm f4 for shootings indoors so I'm interested in the comparison with the 24-200
Ricci, your tests are really the only ones on YT that tell us what we need to know about lenses we are considering. The consistent test methods and traits compared are VERY helpful. The 24-200 we could assume was pretty good just from the lenses in Z mount that came before. Unfortunately, my large collection of F mount lenses are a lot less satisfying now that I have a number of S lenses. Even my long time favorites, like the 85 1.4g just do not get used anymore. I can see the difference between the 85 G and S and grab the S lens every time. My 70-200 VR 2,8 that not that long ago was my favorite portrait lens really shows its weaknesses compared to 85 S at the same FL even when stopped down. I have the 24-70 f/4 and 2.8 and while the 2.8 is stunning I use the f/4 much more often because for the weight and size, it is not much of a compromise, it punches well over its weight. My wedding, engagement and event/performance bookings all disappeared since formal weddings are still not permitted after 4 months of lock down so about the only shooting I am doing is personal, landscapes and 18th and 19th-century architecture while I wait out the lifting or restrictions. So I do not feel the pressure to get the 70-200 2.8 S as much as I did last winter in prep for the new season. My businesses here are incoming tourism, photography and a shop for repairing professional audio equipment and all are shut down for the season, a year to year and a half with no income can be weathers pretty well simply because the cost of living here is about 1/10th of what it was back home in the US.
Thanks for the test. I think I found a mistake in focus calibration or autofocus. At 120mm tests and further to the end of all tests you can clearly see that the numbers on the lens behind the colours are better focused at 28-300.
Great review as always Ricci thank you. Are you planning on doing one in comparing it to the 70-200mm f/4 VR, Since I don’t see a replacement for that lands in the roadmap anytime soon would be nice to see how it compares so I can get rid of mine
Yeh I should get a 70-200mm f4 in a few days so I can do that test !
I resisted buying the 28-300 for many, many years. I always felt that the 28-300mm was simply not worth the money, even on the sale price. Too heavy, poor focus breathing, poor VR, poor sharpness at all focal length, and not wide enough. Huge difference between 24mm and 28mm, and that was the dealbreaker. At the long end, it is not a true 300mm either. Its more like a 250mm. Not that it matters, because once you are over 100mm or so, you are much better off in a 100-400mm lens. I got the 24-120mm f4 instead, and never regretted it. I have a Z 24-200mm on pre-order since March, and after seeing this video I am keeping my pre-order. Its not for the 120-200mm range above the 24-120mm f4. Its for the 24-120 portion. I want a more quality lens (all attributes) in that range, and the extra range is just for when something is happening right now and I dont have time to switch to a 100-400mm. Yes, Nikon will eventually release the Z 24-105 f4, and I'm sure the image quality will be even better. But, the additional cost and weight will make it unattractive for most.
Excellent comparison, thank you for sharing. I am looking forward to buy my new 24-200!
The 28-300mm looks like the focusing is off (back focusing). Look at at 10:21 point, numbers on the lens in the background are sharper then the 24-200mm even though they are both at the same f stop. Could that be why the lens doesn't appear as sharp?
don't think so, went through the video and at 12:00 point you see how much sharper the whole camera is on the 24-200 vs 28-300
Great video Ricci. I had the 28-300 and loved the versatility but with my D800 back in the day it just wasn't sharp enough. I had to trade it in the end for a 24-70 f2.8 Great to see the benfefits of the Z-mount though. Hope you're well, Adrian
As always a clear coherent look at the lens. Thank you. I think that what comes through as much as anything is the consistent performance of the 24-200 across the frame and throughout the focal range. It really is starting to remind me a lot of the Olympus 12-100 for a full frame.
Wow. Big difference, thanks for doing this for us. Hitting the pre-order button tonight!
Thank you very much for the very detailed videos! They helped me a lot in order to take a good decision what to buy! Greetings from Chile! Look how far your videos reach!
I guess this is sort of to be expected... the Z is not only newer, but as mentioned in the video a few times (and in my experience) the zoom range on the 28-300, while larger, tends to mean more compromises in terms of sharpness, and considering at their new prices, if someone doesn't have either one, the Z is the clear winner here, unless you need the 200-300mm range, but I think for many, 24-200 should cover most people's needs. Couple the 24-200 with a 14-30 and you have a nice, light weight and fairy compact travel kit. Thank you as this was exactly the comparison I was looking for... something side-by-side between the two as I was tempted to get the 28-300 myself because it's more readily available (and I travel a lot) but I think I can wait a little longer and go with the 24-200.
Very helpful, I've been wondering how quick I want to worry about upgrading away from my 28-300mm to a native lens and if the quality gap is this great I want to make the upgrade ASAP.
Nice comparison, thanks.
For focus breathing, I measured the length of the same objects. In order to get the same field of view of the 24-200 at closest focus distance, you would have to put the 28-300 at about 270mm, which almost negates the difference in the rated focal lengths of the lenses.
Can you compare the field of view at 200mm focused at infinity? That is the circumstance where any differences in the field of view will matter most to me.
To round things out, comparing the field of view when at 28mm and focussed at minimum and maximum distances would also be very useful.
That is really interesting. At closest distance there is only "30mm more length" in the 28-300. Could somebody here test the difference at infitiy and cropping in with the 24-200 to behave like a "300mm" lens. If the lenses are comparable there I will definitely switch.
What's also apparent in Ricci's other comparison to the 70-200/4 is that the 24-200 never actually reaches 200mm, it always has a wider field of view at any focus distance when set at 200mm. I estimated it to be about 180mm in comparison to the 70-200/4 at 200mm. And so since this vlog shows the 28-300 set at 200mm and focused at infinity (its tightest) has a similar FoV to the 24-200, about 180mm, overall the 28-300 is probably at best a 28-280mm lens at infinity and with the significant focus breathing you mention, it is about a 28-230mm lens at shorter focus distances! There really should be some rules on how these superzooms are measured.
Great test and comparison, Ricci. Thank you very much! I'm quite sure I will get a Z24-200 as an "all road" lens.. By the way I've got the 28-300 since it reached the market and I've never realized its "powerfull" Focus Breathing!
Without doubt a scientific comparison on the sharpness of these two lenses. I just bought the 28-300 for my D700 and I am surprised by its sharpness. At 50 mm it is equal to my 50 mm ais lenses, it is sharper than my 100 mm. I also use it on my D200 and then it has a reach of 450mm and great contrast. So I really appreciate having that 300 mm when I need it. It's a relatively compact lens, and well made too just a bargain...
This lens works phenomenally on the D700 bodies.
Yep really good lens with rhe d700, its only on bodies with very high resolution that it dissappoints
I just got home from my local camera store. I pre-ordered and it came in today! I can't wait to get out and try it on my Z6!
how was it?
@@skyrunr its amazing! It is the perfect hiking lens. I am prepared for whatever I may encounter from a wide vista to a deer, squirrels, or even butterflies and bees. And it is incredibly sharp. Even cropped 100%.
Can you tell I love it? Lolol
Oh, if you want to check out some of my results you can check my IG page at frankbottphotography. Everything I have posted in the last month or so is shot with that lens.
@@frabo1000 Thank you, I had both kits for my Z50, change lenses too often, tried a Z7 with the 24-70f4 (too much money and only matches my d500 quality,) went back to the Z50 (keeping D500,) and didn't get the 50-250mm the second time around. I'll probably swap it for the 24-105mm IF it isn't too pricey. ;)
Thanks for doing the Nikon Z 24-200mm at 200mm, seems I will be getting the lens soon.
No worries just made more sense comparing here against another lens that went to 200mm
Thank you man, your video brought me one of the best lenses I ever had, keep going with that vids , great work !!!
I have the F 28-300mm and going to pick up my Z 24-200mm tomorrow. Thanks for the very informative review. At closest focus for the Z lens @ 200mm, what indicated focal length on the 28-300mm was required to show a similar field of view?
Great Work Ricci as usual. I'd love to see the F 70-300 AF-P vs the Z 24-200 comparison
OMG! Thank you for the review and comparison.
I felt like the 28-300 was talking to me during that AF test.
Of course, I don't jave a Z, so the 24-200 is not an option for me. But knowing what else is out there is also enlightening.
Hi Ricci, finding your channel has been great since I bought my Z6 last year and use your channel to decide which lenses would work best for my purposes. One note of feedback, if I may, is that in your talking head shots, the volume is too low.
Thanks for the reviews and hard work!
This is actually a very good test? I had to focus very closely and follow what you where showing and I was able to notice the difference quite well, especially corner sharpness and the focus breathing. I was also surprised because of the focus breathing at 200mm there was a difference between the two lenses how close the distance was revealed to be. Good test indeed, thank you.
Thank you, thank you, thank you Ricci for doing this comparison. The Nikon Z 24-200mm might be my new hiking lens. The quiet video was a real eye opener.
All Z mount lenses vs f mount AF-S lenses wil come out the same because of the af motors used in the lenses there are a couple of Af-p lenses that are silent like the Z lenses
I ordered this lens when it was announced, I hope to get it by mail this week! Thank you for the comparison, now I know I will not be disappointed.
Would be nice to have a review of the VR functionality, how does it work out in the field on a Z6 or a Z7. I have a very (very!) old 200mm F4 (from 1972!) and it's not working very good handheld, very shaky. On a tripod it's excellent however but I guess it's superseded by this 24-200 with VR.
The Z 24-200mm is looking good in these specs, and is a good seller in 2023. I may have to get one not long from now. Thanks for the comparison.
Another win for Z glass
not really
The 24-200 is ... pretty impressive as an all-in-one. Would you recommend this for APS-C (Z50 or whatever new camera is coming out) or would you just recommend the Z DX telezoom? And have you heard about any more DX news?
Great video as always. Objective and well-informed comparisons every single time.
BTW the focus breathing is kind of hilarious. But it's not hard to see that this is a shooter's camera, a travel camera, and not primarily for video. Also, old-school AF-S being so loud and overall cruddy in video is probably more important if you're doing video on the fly as in a travel scenario. Anyway, again, great video.
Nice comparisons, but it leaves a simple question unanswered. If there's a small bird about 20 m away, which lens can capture a better picture? It's fine to compare lenses at the same focal length and aperture, but if I have a faster or longer lens, I'll take advantage of it. For this bird, focus breathing is not an issue, and the longer lens will require less cropping. I'd like to see the best picture the two lenses can capture in a given context, and compare those.
IMO If you have the 28-300 you might want to consider using it. It's not quite as sharp as the 24-200 but it's a 1/3 stop faster on both ends, plus a little longer on the long end. But if you don't, go for the 24-200. While it is a little slower, the extra 4mm on the wide end is useful. But I don't know if you'd gain enough to justify $850 buying the 24-200 if you already have the 28-300. Yes the 24-200 is sharper and it's also smaller and lighter. I love mine, and it's become my new favorite travel lens (actaully replaced my 24-70 f/4 and AFP 70-300 for travel, so now I'm down to just a 14-30 and 24-200 for my travel kit).
Excellent video. I don’t follow anyone on RUclips but this might be an exception. Just got my 24-200 Z mount. Nice lens overall but 6.3 can be a bummer sometimes.
With this performance, wish we could have seen a 24-200 @200mm compared to 28-300 @300. With more sharpness and narrower field of view the 24-200 might give better image when scaled up than the 28-300 :) Amazing. Anyway, thank you Ricci, this will be a must have lens for travel with a Z.
I did think about that!
I could do that if you really want to see it but at 300mm the performance is not better than at 200 and the field of view doesn’t actually change that much due to breathing!
@@RicciTalks Would be nice but only if others are interested as well. It is just stunning that this new lens could give better result on 200mm than the other at 300mm when the final image is cropped to the same size. For enthusiast wild and travel photographers this can be a game changer.
I’ll see what I can do !
I was thinking this exact same thing.
Thanks mate helped me make the decision I have the z6ii and went for the 24-200
Thanks for the video! Coming from Sony, I am new to the Nikon lens lineup. Got the z 24-200 and thinking if the 28-300 is better for me. Your video answered that very clearly!
Great video and spelling "qulity" I can really get behind ;-) Seriously, thanks for posting your reviews their super useful.
I am using my old 70 - 200 f4 on the ftz adapter with great results.. that lens has always been extremely sharp and remains so on my Z bodies... In crop mode on my Z7 I get a 300 mm field of view and if I add my 1.4 teleconverter I'm up to over 400 m m at 5.6, albeit with a slight hit in image quality... If I use my 1.7 teleconverter, there is a noticeable change in IQ.
For my Z50 body I bought a used 70 - 300 4.5-6.3 DX P which is an inexpensive, small light and compact lens and relatively new in design with great image quality but not quite matching the 70-200 F4.
I am not seeing the need to buy any Zmount variable focal length/ aperture lenses anytime soon, certainly not for a casual walkabout telephoto..
The only downside to the F4 lens is it's rather large and somewhat heavy on the Z7.
Same scenario as me. I love the 70-200 f/4.
Great Information! Would like to see a relative f stop comparison between lenses. For example using the ƒ4 24-70 Z lens 2 stops from wide open compared to the 24-200 Z lens 2 stops from wide open.
This was a layup for the Z lens. The 28-300 was already a flawed lens by F-Mount standards. Thanks for the test, though. It's nice to see how far Nikon has come.
I expected nothing less but like you say we are comparing a zoom lens from 2010 to a zoom lens from 2020.
Thank you for the information, very much appreciated. Looking forward to seeing how it compares with Z 70-200 and 24-70 2.8’s before I decide on a purchase.
Don’t get me wrong the 24-200 is a great lens but the Z2.8 and the Z 70-200 are better in outright picture quality. The question is how much better and are you willing to carry two heavy lenses over one light lens for the extra quality.
@@RicciTalks Ricci, can you do a comparison between the 24-200 and the Z 70-200 f2.8? I would be keen to see the difference in picture quality.
Good comparison as I'm considering one of these, in these tests the 24-200 looks better, but I would have liked to have seen the extra reach the 300 brings, and I'll be using mainly for landscape so the focus breathing wouldn't be a concern if it only really effects focusing on close objects
Thank you, no comparison on sharpness, contrast and quality, will sell my 28-300 and get the 24-200 as a travel lens
hi ricci, i look up to your videos a lot for my lens decision making... however could you please test the lenses in different light conditions.. please don't take this comment as a criticism... you see not many have access to test lenses before buying and i am one such so people like me need some one like you to give us that info.. even a couple of sample test shots in low light conditions would be helpful..
Not criticism at all I make these videos for you guys so anything you want to see let me know! In some of my earlier videos I did add in real world sample images from the lens i was talking about.
As my comparison detail increased I felt like I had less “time” to add in the everyday samples. My videos are already really long I don’t want them to be much longer.
That being said if you and others (like this comment) wouldn’t mind a longer video that adds in real world samples in different lighting I can definitely do that for future lenses
I think for the 24-200 I’ll make a separate video just consisting of different samples in different lighting obviously won’t be right away maybe in 1-2weeks time if that’s ok ???
@@RicciTalks Not OP but I'm in the same situation so if you don't mind, yes please do and take as long as you need! Thank you!
Haha I don’t want to take too long you might just buy the lens and not watch the video 🤣
@@RicciTalks Lucky for you it's still out of stock where I live 😅After this video I don't have much doubts left, I'm definitely getting one.
Love your reviews. I wish you would have put them side by side for a physical size comparison.
I have done that in my previous 24-200mm video where I compare size against a number of lenses including the 28-300
Philosophy of use? Travel walk around lenses? Identical image quality from my perspective on small screens where holiday happy snaps are likely most shared. Which one can be had at the lowest price?
Can you compare the Z 24-200 with the I8-200
Hi & thanks for your great review! I was wondering if maybe it would be more fair to compare these lenses after lens corrections applied on the 28-300, since the new Z-line bake in the corrections in the RAW files themselves. Which is convenient but not a fair comparison. Would love if you could please check that out for me. Thanks!
nice reviews, this series comparing the 24-200 , against the 24-70 f4 S series & the 70-200 f4 Fmount have convinced me to get rid of both and replace with this 24-200..
Yes great I was just going to purchase 28 to 300mm Nikon second-hand but I do love of the New Z lenses so I'll wait till Nikon brings more Z lenses thanks again cheers Jonathan
Hi.. I might be interested in the 24 200 but, as i do a lot of long exposures photography, i am concerned about the micro shakes when using long focals.. Did you test it ? Thanks
Great job Ricci and Thanks for sharing
Thanks for watching!
I'd really like to see a comparison of the 24-200 versus the 50-250mm. Including a 24mm comparison with the 16-50mm. I know which one I'd rather have in my bag, but should someone keep the kit lens if they already have it, or use it to fund getting the 24-200 or 24-105?
I would love to see a comparison of the 24-200 with the 24-70 f2.8. I know they're very different lenses, but I'm trying to decide between the two. I know the 24-70 is going to be a great lens, but the range of the 24-200 makes it very attractive at 1/3 the price.
I can tell you that the 24-70 2.8 is much sharper than the 24-200. Can't quantify it but around the corners especially the 2.8 is much sharper. I'd probably classify them as: 24-200 < 24-70 f/4 < 24-70 f/2.8. (The f/4 is close to the 24-200 but I'd still put the f/4 slightly in front of the 24-200 in terms of sharpness overall, although the 24-200 is no slouch).
Hi Ricci, you are determined to get me to but my hand in to my pocket and bye a Z camera and some lenses. :) I am thinking....
Good review I own the 24-200 z lens and used to own the 28-300 which I used to think was a very good lens. Times change looking forward to using the new lens.
I was about to buy an f mount zoom lens for my z6, quickly changed my mind...
Hi sir ,lots of love from India, I have sigma 150-600mm Contemporary lens which currently I am using with my D500. Is Sigma 150-600 mm Contemporary lens compatible with Nikon Z6 with FTZ adapter??? Please let me know sir. I will be waiting for your reply. Thank you.
I rather enjoyed that presentation. If I were in the market for that type of lens, this comparison would definitely influence me.
Excellent video but, anybody thinking to buy the 28 to 300 would have liked to at least seen the test at 300 MM since many super Zooms tend to get dull at their maximum reach
Got mine 2 days ago. I can say it produces much cleaner/clearer then my 28-300 on my D750. Can't do side by side comparison as I no longer have the D750 and I will now sell the 28-300.
thanks to help me take decisions Z 24-200 for Camera daily bag
Did I miss the comparison @ 200mm & 300mm, both at maximum tele? Just to see the difference and the impact of the focus breathing. Shame.
Excellent Video !!
Thanks for your test. This is excellent info! I took my D850 with the 28-300 on our vacation to New Mexico last autumn and I could see some softness in the images. Obviously this lens was designed for F mount cameras with lower resolution. The images that I created with my Z7, 24-70 F/4 and the 70-300 FP FX lens with the FTZ adapter on our trip to the Canadian Rockies a few months before were noticeably sharper (sometimes too sharp with some morie). I just picked up my new 24-200 Z at my camera store today and it is nicely balanced with the Z7 compared with the 28-300 with the FTZ adapter. I ordered the 24-200s based on one of your earlier reviews. Thanks!
moire
Glad to hear you like it ! And thanks for watching !
I’d love to shoot landscape in the Rockies One day !
@@RicciTalks Glacier National Park in Montana, Banff and Jasper National Park in Alberta are just gorgeous. Just make certain that you don't go to the Canadian Rockies during Canada Day in early July. It gets slammed with visitors and people from nearby Calgary then.
Thanks for the info !
To end: out of curiosity I bought the Z6 with the 24-200. Sold it half a year later because it is no match for the D700 and the 28-300. Just an opinion.
Many thanks for this excellent video,
Volume level is lower than normal. Please improve if possible. Thanks for good information. I am using Nikon for last 45 years.
Getting very hard for me to justify any more F mount lenses. I wonder if Nikon will look at redoing some of the favorite F mount lens to bring them up to this new standard.
There are some newer F-mount lenses that keep up like the 105 F1.4. I think what we are seeing here is a 10 year old zoom lens against a brand new zoom lens
Very informative, thank you for sharing
What is field of view difference at max focal lengths-200 vs 300 ??
Can you compare nikon 18-300 and 18-200?
Hi, Is it a good idea to ditch my kit lenses - AF-P DX 18-55mm 3.5/5.6 VR and AF-P 70-300mm 4.5/6.3 VR ED - for a: FX AF-S 28-300mm 3.5/5.6 VR (offer for $250 USD)?
I have a D3400 a 50mm 1.8G and a DX 35mm 1.8G
I like taking photos anywhere and I mainly shoot animal (birds, dogs, etc.)
i think they are the same. choose which one was lighter.
Thanks for review, but why you didn't say anything about huge chromatic aberration that has 24-200? Especially at 28 and 50mm.
I can't see any HUGE chromatic aberration on my 4k Monitor. Maybe some tiny edges but nothing to worry about?!
@@markusschlevogt Look at the white Nikon logo on the black camera in the corner shots.
A gremlin lives in the 28-300mm managing focus. Listen to it clicking on the video focus test... 😆
Michael A Tomcal 🤣
Is it too late to get the D750?
Very impressive, thanks!
Could you comment on the VR quality between Z24-200 vs. F28-300 e.g. on a Z6. I had a quick go at the shop and my simulated shake was much better controlled with the F28-300 and I though I would end up with more rejects with the Z24-200 and did not make the purchase that day. Was I right or wrong about the VR?
Iv found the opposite the VR + ibis set up on the 24-200 allowed me to shoot slower shutter speeds than possible with the 28-300mm
The 28-300 will only get 3axis VR
The 24-200 will get 5 axis VR
Great comparisons
Image quality looks good, but I tend to prefer lenses with a constant aperture. I never liked lenses with variable/increasing aperture as the focal length increases.
Hey Ricci, do you know if Nikon is planning a 70-200/f4 S or something similar? The f2.8 S version is more lens than I need, but I do want a constant aperture throughout the zoom range. Thanks.
Such a lens is not on Nikon's roadmap to 2021, so if it were to be made it would be at least two years off. Ricci probably doesn't know Nikon's plans that far in the future, and even if he did, he would be under NDA, so the roadmap is all the info you are going to get.
Tamron's 70-180/2.8 may be released in Z mount not too far off also.
@@Bayonet1809 Thanks for your reply! I knew an f4 version wasn't on the roadmap. I could pick up an F mount version for $1399 but I swore I wouldn't adapt F mount lenses. Maybe wait for the Tamron. I just don't utilize the 70-200 focal lengths enough to justify purchasing the f2.8 Z mount. I did get the 24-70/2.8 S since I use that focal length range all the time. Thanks again!
Bayonet Be interested to compare that with the Nikon S 70-200, since the Nikon lens seems to be vapourware at this point.
I would love to see pictures in the real world. Landscapes, sports, people.
Why compare two totally different lens? Z 24-200 is a Z mount (yep) 28-300 is F mount and yes they are very different mounts. The 28-300 was manufactured from August 2010 now discontinued, the 24-200 began production 10 years later in February 2020, have Nikkor improved their R & D and production in 10 years? Whilst I do not disagree with the findings of the comparison test do wonder if using an FTZ adaptor would have any bearing on those tests? My tuppence worth.
In my opinion nikon shld just make a f mount 24-200 too, to inprove quality or just introduce new version of 28-300 to imrpove optics quality
I see you limit the lens. The lens was meant to zoom out to 300 and you only did 200. This would’ve made quite a difference. It would’ve have been zoomed in much more and that’s a fact but you limit it to make it seem like it can only do 200 or not even 200 because of focus breathing, but if you would’ve had, let it go all the way out to 300 this would’ve been even better comparison… 28 to 300 still holds his own even though it is so old it’s doing a great job…
Yes, very useful
Thank you!
Good video, thx!
nice channel📸
That focus breathing of the 28-300 is ridiculous.