NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR vs NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
jthomas39 Regular Member • Posts: 455
24-200 review

I'm thinking about getting the 24-200 for a one-lens hiking setup. I want to avoid changing lenses out on the trail. With my 24-70, I often wish for reach beyond 70mm.

I also like night shots in the city. The 24-70 F4 works great for this level of light. I've tried the 70-300 at night, and it's smaller apertures are difficult to work with.

See this article: Nikon Z 24-200mm lens review in real life

I liked this review, with example photos. He's clear about the lens advantages and disadvantages.

Apertures, from the review:

A zoom lens like this comes with tradeoffs. There is no magic here. The most obvious one is the aperture which is mediocre. The f4 is available only at its widest focal length. At 35mm it is already f4.8, at 50mm it is f5.6 and as soon as you get past 70mm the aperture get to f6.3. The good thing is that the lens is sharp wide open and in low light situation one needs to rely on camera high ISO performance.

Use in these situations, from the review:

  • Hiking and mountaineering where size and weight matters
  • Walkaround lens on my travels
  • Family photography when I can’t bring multiple lenses
  • Difficult conditions where I can’t swap lenses (I wish I had this lens in Omani desert)

Not for these uses, from the review:

  • Portraits. In this case I prefer to use prime lenses like 35m, 50m or 85mm 1.8
  • Landscape photography where I can carry my best , heavier and bulkier lenses and I want absolutely best image quality
  • Cityscapes and blue hour photography – I prefer to use lenses that give me nice sunstar effect and even less flare
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow