Comparing a 24-200 f/4-6.3 vs older 70-200 f/4G F-mount (120mm-200mm range)

Mavots wrote:

I bought a Z50 as a second (light/travel) body to pair with a Z6.

Since the Z50 is non-IBIS, I'm considering a 24-200 f/4-6.3 (and my 14-30 f/4) as a travel kit.

I also own a Z6 and am slowly replacing all my F-mounts lenses with Z-mounts.

I want to sell my AF-S 70-200 f/4G ED VR to help offset the cost of a new lens and am considering how that affects telephoto shots with my Z6:

Option one is to use the new 24-200 f/4-6.3 with my Z6 as well as the Z50. I already have a 24-120 f/4 S so it's job will primarily be above that focal range.

Option two is to sell the 70-200 f/4G for a new Tamron 70-300 f/4-6.3 lens for the Z6. I handled the Tamron lens at my local store and liked how light and small it was compared to the 70-200 f/4G. No VR though and this does not help me with getting a VR travel lens for the Z50.

If I decide to sell the 70-200 f/4G and get the 24-200 f/4-6.3, I'm curious how the two lenses compare in the 120-200 range, especially in full frame.

Thanks.

My advice - don't sell the 70-200mm f/4. It is a pretty good lens for what it offers and is similar in weight to Sony's 70-200mm f/4 (which has also been around for a while). And importantly you will not get a lot for the 70-200 f/4 - probably $500 or less. Where can you get a 70-200 f/4 lens for $475? Use it as a companion to 14-30 f/4, 24-70 f/4 on FX cameras. Or probably use the 24-120 f/4 on your Z6 and use 70-200 f/4 on your Z50 (effectively 105-300mm range). If you want to go lighter, use your 14-30 f/4 S on Z6 and 24-120 f/4 S on your Z50.

BTW, I pretty much have all the lenses you have - in fact more than those and have a significant overlap. I just mix and match as per the occasion. Check my gear profile. Yes, it may cost a few hundred or a few thousand extra - but over a long term it is not a lot of money if it saves you agony and you use those lenses (even occasionally).