shuncheung
Veteran Member
Thom, please just let him buy something. The money is burning a hole in his pocket. :-D
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Torn between the Z 24-120, Z 24-200 and Z 28-400 for Europe trip this fall
- Thread starter sirhawkeye64
- Start date
I think you’re right - the biggest FOMO here is missing out on a new lens if he listens to us!!!
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
True and a valid point. But the other thing I am sort of on the fence about is carrying the Z8 all day or just using the Zf (which in crop mode is only 10MP or so, should I find the need for a 180mm equivalent).
I might go back and consider the 24-200 (although the $899 regular price now isn't that appealing, but i have time too, and if I do decide to get it again, hopefully it may go back on sale in the next few months). ON the other hand, I tend to remain undecided for long periods of time basically to a point where I don't do anything and just end up using what I have (which has worked for me, and against me, at times).
--
PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.
Last edited:
Ryan Schwartz
Senior Member
quattro88
Senior Member
Welcome to the club
.I am going on a Spain and Portugal trip in September and I have exactly the same decision to make. I have both 24-200 and 24-120. Surprisingly, 24-200, as a superzoom, is not supposed to be good, but it is. Two years ago I was on a road trip to the Maritime provinces of Canada, including Newfoundland, and I had with me Z7 with 24-200 and Z 20mm f1.8. I brought home a lot of images but when I looked through them now, I found maybe a dozen images taken at 200mm. This tells me that 24-120 would have been quite sufficient. I also didn't use Z 20mm very often and sold it last year when I bought Z 17-28 f2.8. Last November I was on a Mediterranean cruise, visiting Barcelona, France, Italy and Greece. I had my Z7ii with Z 24-120 and Z 17-28 f2.8. I never needed 200mm FL and 24-120 was a perfect choice. I used Z 17-28 inside cathedrals and churches and some other tight quarters. It's a great lens, I chose it instead of 14-30 and have no regrets.
So, for my upcoming trip, I decided to bring my new Zf, 24-120, 17-28 and Z 40mm. I might also bring my new Viltrox 20mm f2.8 Z as it is very sharp, small and almost weightless. Zf with these small 40 mms and 20mm will work well when walking the streets at night and to not attract unwanted attention.
It would have been nice to bring along Z7ii as a spare, but I am not sure about carrying the extra weight. I am still on the fence about it.
Sagittarius
Veteran Member
(snip)
Like I wrote earlier in this thread, last year on two weeks trip to Turkey, I carried Z 7II with z 24-200 and Z 6II with z 14-30. Outside I carried Z 7II on the BlackRapid strip and Z 6II in the small backpack. When inside I swapped cameras, which is very easy with BlackRapid. Had no problems at all carrying them around. An I am rather a small man in late 60.
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
I am just going to use the Z8 and 24-120 in crop mode and avoid buying anything.
But as for GAS I have a slightly different approach over the past few years... and that is if I buy a new lens, another lens has to go bye-bye. So this in itself slows down that process. When I got the Z8, I had to sell the Z7 II. When I got the Zf, the Z6 II and Z5 had to go. It would be more "gear swap" syndrome than GAS.
My 24-200 went to pay for the 24-120 (although that may not have been a good move necessarily in hindsight and should maybe have just gotten the 24-120 outright.)
BUT the travel zoom (or lenses for travel) is the tricky one i feel, especially when you don't know what you're going to encounter. IF I was doing landscape or portraits, I have that gear and it would be a simpler choice (24-70, 50 or 80 for portraits, or my 14-30 and 24-120 for landscape), but with travel, you may be presented with a scene that demands a wide angle one minute, and then 30 minutes later, a scene that could be wide or you could go in an do detail and having not been to some of these areas before, it's new, so I just wanted to be prepared. But in the end, I will probably not buy anything and just go with what I have (although I have had to walk away from some shots in the past simply because I didn't have the reach).
And looking at much of the gear, it's more than I'd care to pay at this point, $2k for the Z7 II (good price, but it's $2k); 24-120 $899 (a lot for this lens), 28-400 is pretty much sold out and $1299 is a lot for that lens (not necessarily bad, but don't know if I'd want to spend that much on such a lens). IF I do go with something else (a lens) I may just rent it and be done (a 24-200 for 2 weeks can't be much more than $100 or so).
--
PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.
Last edited:
You could pick up the Viltrox 20mm 2.8 and throw it in a bag for occasional UWA... It's 150 bucks and weighs 157g.
I sent with the longer 24-200 just to my one lens for the day when MAX IQ isn't a concern but MAX versatility is a concern.
I have used 24-120 range before and felt restricted at the long end. Not on FF, but I had 16-80 on Fuji and 15-85 on canon.
So I went back to a more similar travel set up that I had before with the 18-135 and 18-200 lenses. Not the best lenses but they were ok on 10/12mp cameras.
On those lenses I felt restricted by 28mm equiv... getting to 24mm is really important to me as it opens up a lot of landscapes and architecture shots.
I guess once you are used to having this range it's harder to go back because you trained your brain to look for certain shots and used to being able to zoom in to a certain distance.
24-200 fit the bill for a travel/hiking lens.
Last edited:
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
I have the 20 2.8 but am not sure if I want to bring that over the 14-30 (which may be more versatile). Then again the 20mm weighs almost nothing and is very small and could easily be put somewhere. But more for practical uses, it may require more lens changes than I'd want while walking around. But I may bring it with me anyway (on the trop). I'm leaning towards just renting a 24-200 (I don't know if I want to buy another one though, especially at regular price of $899).
Yeah I get it.
Also I edited my post, I meant MAX IQ is not a concern, but max versatility is. I want the shots.
You know how you shoot a bit more than me on the 14-30mm end. I found I wasn't using either the 14-30 or the 20mm 1.8 much so got rid of them both now. I may pick up the Viltrox 20mm 2.8 just as in case... something like an 18mm may be better.
For me the 24-200 range or classic 24-70/70-200 combo is important. wider than and longer are nice to haves but I can usually get on without them.
I'm trying to go without them for awhile at the moment and see if I run into enough situations that actually warrant them.
I've been thinking of getting some kind of old F mount 18/20mm type lens and maybe a 300mm pf and TC for those rarer occasions. I don't need a 1000 dollar 14-30/20 1.8 z top of line z mount really for amount I was using them.
The 20mm 1.8g goes for like 350-400 bucks these days... still competent. 300mm pf 4 for 7-800 bucks. I could get to over 600mm equiv with 300mm and TC 1.4 on DX for not much money and occasional use.
Last edited:
And don't forget a little table tripod, like the one from Leica, and small ballhead. It comes handy for night shots in these beautiful old cities. Lightweight and fits in a pocket.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/30592-REG/Leica_14100_Table_Tripod.html
Last edited:
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
Yes I agree that versatility and shots greatly "trump" IQ for this case and probably most cases.
For me I find that I shoot mostly in the 16 or 18mm to 30mm rage (I don't shoot much at 14mm partially becaus I think that's the weakest part of the 14-30 and some of the distortion at 14mm can be rather extreme, more extreme than I'd like actually, but 16-18mm is usually plenty wide for me). Now that being said, I guess the minor "gaps" on both ends (in favor of a much lighter smaller lens) does make sense and most of my shots are going to be probably stepped down a bit probably to around f/5.6 to f/11 as most will be travel-type, or architectural photos. So I can see using the 20mm (I may still bring both with me on the trip though just so I have the options). I don't know if I could go on a such a trip without a wide angle, but I may challenge myself one day to shoot only shoot wide angle with the 20mm and limit myself to shots only at that FL. And really between 20mm and the 24-? I don't know that I'd be missing out that much not having the 14-30 with me for the day. I mean if I'm photographing ceilings /domes in a church then I might either have to crop out some stuff or skip some shots (those are instances where a 14-30 might be useful though).
--
PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.
Last edited:
NeedMorePractice
Senior Member
My last trip where I had an opportunity for a city walkabout, I brought only the 40 f/2 and 28 f/2.8 on my Z6 to keep it light and compact. As someone who rarely shoots much wide angle for fun, I was shocked when I got back to the hotel to realize I had never even taken the 40 out of my sling. I also noticed I didn't miss having the zoom (24-120) - which I typically take on that type of adventure - as it was a fun "challenge" to find photos from that single field of view, rather than have a massive field of view range for a huge variety of shots anywhere I happened to be standing.
In general, I find that I come back with more complete photo sets/collections in terms of a style and theme when I go on these types of walks or adventures with one or two primes compared to the zooms. It's happened with my 28, 40, and 50 on independent trips, and those sets are some of my favorites even though I have some killer zooms.
It's sort of like when I was in school and we'd have to write a paper in a certain style and length on a specific topic, rather than the teacher just telling us to write a paper about whatever we wanted with little to no direction. Both exercises had a purpose, but the paper with rules or guidelines often resulted in a more concise, focused, and complete piece or story.
I'm not suggesting you don't bring a zoom, just that there are multiple ways to think about a trip like this in regards to gear. Considering an end goal of some type might make it more interesting and less scattered if that mindset works with your personality type.
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Surprised to see the 24-200 as lighter than the 24-120. 24-200 would be my choice
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
For me it's sort of the other way around actually. I found that while I had been carrying around a wide angle lens, I don't shoot much wide angle (except grand landscapes but even those are starting to get a little boring to me having done it so long). So I'm more going for the telephoto end. Now the only reason I would bring a wide angle is that since I'm going to Portugal for my upcoming trip, many of those streets are very narrow and you almost need a wide angle for some of the shots since you can't get back far enough unless you're shooting a tram head-on maybe but from an angle it may be harder.
I'll probably bring both, but perhaps instead of carrying around the 14-30 and having the wide angle flexibliity, I'll bring the 20mm when I'm out walking around (with the 24-120) so at least I can force myself to think about the wide angle shots differently. Although looking at some of the locations I plan to visit ,I will need to use a longer focal length anyway because I may not be able to physically get closer to certain subjects or to isolte a part of something.
But I will take that into consideration and maybe the 20mm will work itself and maybe part of the reason I'm a bit bored with wide angle is that the 14-30 allowed me too much flexiblity. However I don't think I could do travel photography without at least some sort of more telephoto focal ranges though, so I will probably keep the 24-120 with me as well. But the 20mm might be good for wide angle. And I really don't shoot the 14-30 all the way out at 14-16mm most of the time anyway.
*I would go with the 24 - 120 as it's a S" lens in the Z lens line up . I also believe it has the best combination of image quality , useful zoom range for street / travel and low weight for a trip to Europe .
whoosh1
Senior Member
I have done 3 weeks in Italy with the 14-30mm f/4 S and 24-120mm f/4 S. No check in bags and only train journeys (no car) - small carryon roller bag with a small backpack designed for small mirrorless kit as a personal item. The 14-30 was always on a Z7 and the 24-120 was always on a Z7 II. Two bodies as a an insurance for one going bad and no lens changes to avoid dust accumulating over 2-3 weeks (had a bad experience with dust on an earlier trip to other place). Only one or two places, did I feel the need for a longer lens (but cropped the view at 120mm - the Duomo shot). A lightweight travel tripod (RRS Ascend 14-long) used for some of the pics here and a small pocket tripod (RRS TFA-01) used for some of the pics here.
My guess is Portugal would be a similar trip.
Karl-FR
Forum Enthusiast
Thank you very much for your feedback, which tends to reassure me about keeping my Z 24-200.
I'm really hesitant to sell my 24-200 in favor of the 24-120, especially since I haven't found many direct comparisons between the two lenses.
Your observations about the differences in aperture and performance at f/8 and f/11 are particularly helpful for me, as I mainly shoot travel and landscape photos.
Thanks again for your feedback!
Maybe I can add a slightly other perspective. When traveling to a strange country you will often find many many opportunities to take interesting and memorable photographs. So many, that if you have a reasonable range, like with your 14-30 and 24-120, you will (mostly) not miss the larger focal lengths. Because you already take 100’s of photographs. Map your photographic opportunities versus your focal lengths.
So unless you specifically expect interesting things for you in the 200-400mm range that would be my advice.
Personally, last summer I went on holiday to the baltic states (I am a Dutchman) and brought my 17-28, 24-120 and AF-S 70-300 with me. The latter one I barely used, only some birds in a nature reserve. The 24-120 was enough to also capture more interesting architectural details in the cities. Sure, I would have liked a bit more length for that purpose, but it was enough. I really loved this lens. Using a lens which you love is perhaps also a consideration. All in all, I would say that more then 90% of my photographs were taken with the 24-120.
Later I bought the 24-200 additionally, and for me it felt like not much added value compared with the 24-120, and I could not get warm for this lens, other then a one lens have always with you sort of solution. When the 28-400 came out I immediately sold the 24-200 and the older 70-300, and bought the 28-400. I still have to think if I going to use it as my one lens hiking solution in the mountains, for the moment I enjoy it for birding. I am not sure if i would add it as a 3 lens solution for future use: 17-28, 24-120, 28-400, but that could be a possibility. I would love the 100-400 but find it expensive and heavy, and I am not sure how often I would use it.
my 2 cents.
Map your photographic opportunities versus your focal lengths.So unless you specifically expect interesting things for you in the 200-400mm range that would be my advice.
Personally, last summer I went on holiday to the baltic states (I am a Dutchman) and brought my 17-28, 24-120 and AF-S 70-300 with me. The latter one I barely used, only some birds in a nature reserve. The 24-120 was enough to also capture more interesting architectural details in the cities. Sure, I would have liked a bit more length for that purpose, but it was enough. I really loved this lens. Using a lens which you love is perhaps also a consideration. All in all, I would say that more then 90% of my photographs were taken with the 24-120.
Later I bought the 24-200 additionally, and for me it felt like not much added value compared with the 24-120, and I could not get warm for this lens, other then a one lens have always with you sort of solution. When the 28-400 came out I immediately sold the 24-200 and the older 70-300, and bought the 28-400. I still have to think if I going to use it as my one lens hiking solution in the mountains, for the moment I enjoy it for birding. I am not sure if i would add it as a 3 lens solution for future use: 17-28, 24-120, 28-400, but that could be a possibility. I would love the 100-400 but find it expensive and heavy, and I am not sure how often I would use it.
my 2 cents.
Here's a pretty good writeup from somebody that is more of an expert than me. Take a look for example at the comparisons around f/8 f/11 when you get to the focal length comparisons... Sometimes the 24-200 has sharper corners, for example.
https://photographylife.com/comparison/nikon-z-24-120mm-f-4-s-vs-nikon-z-24-200mm-f-4-6-3-vr
I already sold it once and regretted it when I had vacations coming up again and bought another one.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum