Real life usage and sample of 24-200 Z please?

Hi all,

Can i ask for Real life usage and sample of 24-200 Z please?

Having 24-70 and 70-200, I am curious about the compromise made with 24-200. Could someone share some photos? and raw if possible?

A few sample pic I took with a wide-range zoom lens (Tamron 50-300mm) which makes me think of 24-200 (not as sharp but handy).







--

The sharpness of the lens means less when you shoot higher ISO's as in your examples. A monopod with either lens and lower ISO will give you better results. The VR/IBIS are mostly useful if your subjects aren't moving. The 24-200VR is f6.3 around 70mm. If it helps, all of the Z lenses perform as you would expect them to, and IMO a bit better. Also, neither lens replaces another, either you have industry leading performance or industry leading range.

You compromise less when the light is good, and more when you push the limits, shoot into the sun, or have other light hitting the front element. Not to mention bokeh, CA, distortion (heavily corrected,) astro, and other concerns.

I'd lean towards the 24-120F4S which is less of a compromise, it is about the same size, doesn't need unlocking, and 120 F4 is VERY useful. If I need 200mm I need 300mm, and I need 300mm I want 600mm. Adding the 100-400S with the TC14 handles that.



















--
SkyRunR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
TIPS: Be kind, RT#M, use gear not signature, limit/shorten replies with quotes!
'The first casualty, when war comes, is truth' - Hiram Johnson (1866-1945)

Here are some examples (a.k.a. a bunch of photos of my toddler that you didn't ask for sorry). I'll have to dig around a bit for RAW files, but feel free to DM me if you want them.

pyang88 said:

Here are some examples (a.k.a. a bunch of photos of my toddler that you didn't ask for sorry). I'll have to dig around a bit for RAW files, but feel free to DM me if you want them.

Click to expand...

Your toddler is adorable! Does he ever stop smiling?

Marie

Peace_VN said:

Hi all,

Can i ask for Real life usage and sample of 24-200 Z please?

Having 24-70 and 70-200, I am curious about the compromise made with 24-200. Could someone share some photos? and raw if possible?

Click to expand...

The 24-200 is my main lens for most walk-around photography purposes. While there are some minor drawbacks in image quality in the corners (which I don't really care about), I would not want to switch to multiple lenses to replace it. Of course, if I am in a situation where I know I will need wider lenses, or low-light lenses, or longer reach, then I do switch. I would say 75% of my photos on my Z6 II are taken with the 24-200.







--
Paige Miller

And in a pinch you can crop at 200mm and still get decent photos for "wildlife"



It is a lens of compromises of course. Fewer compromises than the 28-400, more compromises than the 24-120 or 24-70.

To me its most glaring weakness is a tendency to "purple fringe" at 24mm. Really this is more specifically "violet fringe" as it is uncorrectable violet lateral CA. It can show up on high contrast features in the corners of the image. You can use fringe tools to eliminate it usually but it can occasionally be an annoyance. To me having to occasionally deal with that in post processing is a worthwhile trade for just how convenient a single lens solution it is!

The corners are softer at 24 than the other zoom choices. Like most superzooms it is going to be a bit softer and lower contrast at 200mm than a dedicated telephoto zoom. It is still entirely serviceable at 200mm and better than many compromised superzooms.

If I've got the room in my luggage and I'm not going to hiking long distances then my go to these days is the 24-120/4S along with the Tamron 70-300. I like the extra reach to 300 and the better corner performance at 24mm. But that's a much heavier and bulkier setup than the 24-200.

If I'm trying to be very compact or lightweight and I expect to need long focal lengths then the 24-200 is what I bring. Perfect example would be hiking up a canyon where I need wide-angle to a ridge line where I'll probably want a telephoto.

I think a lot of people here often feel the 24-120/4S is more their speed as it has few image quality issues and in many situations folks don't need 200. Or perhaps I should say, in some cases don't think they need 200. Telephoto is often thought of being for sports or wildlife, but actually it is an excellent tool for landscape and city as well. So really it is down to how useful you think 120-200 will be to your photography and are you willing to trade a bit of corner image quality and slower apertures to get it.

--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

InkedMarie said:

Your toddler is adorable! Does he ever stop smiling?

Marie

Click to expand...

Haha thanks, I'm only showing you his good side

Most of the photos in this thread were taken with the 24-200 (except for the two astro shots and the one long exposure): https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4681422

I have since upgraded to the 24-120 (it hadn’t been released when I took that trip) but the 24-200 was certainly a nice travel/all purpose zoom with “good enough” image quality. The long end of the zoom range was also nice to have when shooting landscapes to achieve compression of mountain ranges.

I have the Z 24- 200 and the Z7 11, I find the lens to be be plenty sharp enough and equal to my Z 24-70 f4 which I bought expecting it to be sharper but the two are pretty equal to my eyes. I shoot mainly Landscapes and usually use f8-f11, the variable aperature of the the 24-200 doesn't worry me, the lens is my main lens on my Z7.

I have a few photos one taken at 24mm and the other at 200, also a brick wall one photo with the 24-70 the other with the 24-70.














24-70







24-200

Crumbs!

I haven't seen a brick wall pic in years!

Very nice! :-D

If you are looking for a one-lens solution without having to compromise, might I suggest the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD? True, this lens is about twice as expensive as the Nikon Z 24-200mm, and it'll lack some focal range at the wide end and at the tele end.
But once you've used it, you just might want nothing else anymore. This lens is simply brilliant in all aspects save one: it suffers from flare. Other than that, this lens comes as close to perfect as I can imagine.

If the price of this lens is too hefty, you could also go for its F-mount predecessor, the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 Di VC OSD, mounted on an FTZ adapter. Although not as fast as the f/2-2.8, it would still be an improvement over the 24-200 in most aspects. It has been my main lens on my D7500 for years, and it continues to be on my Z6III.

A couple of sample of the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 Di VC OSD, shot with D7500:


Sparrow


Cascades in New Zealand



And some shot with Z6III:


Magpies


Concert at night

--
Tempestas Furit Cum Omni Vi
Tempestas In Capite Meo

I'm on the gulf coast this week and brought the 24-200 with me instead of the 24-120. I've had the 24-200 for over a year now and I've rarely used it since I picked up the 24-120 not long after I got the 24-200 because Amazon had one of their crazy flash sales and it was on sale brand new for $850. (I got the 24-200 from Nikon for $599 on one of their sales).

I definitely prefer the 24-120 as I've noticed it does focus faster and more accurately on my Z8. Also prefer the background OOF rendering on the 24-120. The constant aperture is a plus too.

But when you just need a cheap 200mm - it's hard to beat the 24-200. It's small and light and lets you get a huge range.

I'll post some shots here once I've had a chance to edit them.

see above recent post for samples,

yes, there are probably issues with the optical performance (Thom has the lens in the "Lenses That Don't Make the Top Three Lists" category) and you would not use it for an event (or I would advise against it at least). Still. when I'm hiking/travelling, it really gives me great versatility. I can shoot a panorama, but it also works nicely for primates. And I'm not shooting professionally - the people I show my pictures to don't care about corner sharpness or CA - just about whether the big subject is sharp. And the 24-200mm does that reasonably well. Yes, the 70-200 is the way better lens - but also much much more expensive and heavier. And I would have to rely on something else for landscape shots.
So, from my perspective, it's not the best lens in the world but a great compromise. It works best if you can get it some light. If I would choose a lens for faimily shots, it would probably be rather the 24-120mm - but when I'm travelling, I like having the 200mm

Be sure to respond and thank people who are helping you.

I like the 24-200 as a good, light, all-around travel lens for hiking. It punches way above its weight.




Full frame.




Just the eye.

Couple of images from a mountain hike in Sweden last fall.

















--
David.

I used to think it's my favourite lens, but Lightroom says I actually use the MC 105 and the 180-600 more. I try to stay around f/5.6-8 rather than wide open, but that just could be my cautiousness.

Any have a look at https://www.suresoft.ca/G044/G44F.HTM at the bottom of that page I have a 100% image taken with that lens at 155mm. It made a good print!

I certainly am happy with the lens, it delivers exactly what I want of it.

Note that the 24-200 was definitely struggling on the Z8 this time of day.

Especially of the heron on the beach because it was like 5:45 AM before the sun came up and very dark. The exposure was adjusted upwards on this about almost 2 stops in LR.









I also took it out at sunset for some family photos and it definitely struggled as well with the sun behind. There was considerable focus hunting.

Other than those times though, it was great!



--
--------------------------------------------
I like taking photos. Cams - Z8, Z6 (2x)

Thank you all for sharing such beautiful photos.

Yes.. I still cannot find which one fits me more. I am sure the 24-200 is nowhere near 24-120. I am thinking... if I crop dx, 120 becomes 180-200mm maybe it's good enough.

I normally travel with the 180-600mm, so 24-120 may fit in well I am going to a local Nikon shop to try it. hope few shoot of traffic with show something to compare.

btw... I changed to z9, not sure it is a good move as much heavier setup now.

kenw said:

And in a pinch you can crop at 200mm and still get decent photos for "wildlife"



It is a lens of compromises of course. Fewer compromises than the 28-400, more compromises than the 24-120 or 24-70.

To me its most glaring weakness is a tendency to "purple fringe" at 24mm. Really this is more specifically "violet fringe" as it is uncorrectable violet lateral CA. It can show up on high contrast features in the corners of the image. You can use fringe tools to eliminate it usually but it can occasionally be an annoyance. To me having to occasionally deal with that in post processing is a worthwhile trade for just how convenient a single lens solution it is!

The corners are softer at 24 than the other zoom choices. Like most superzooms it is going to be a bit softer and lower contrast at 200mm than a dedicated telephoto zoom. It is still entirely serviceable at 200mm and better than many compromised superzooms.

If I've got the room in my luggage and I'm not going to hiking long distances then my go to these days is the 24-120/4S along with the Tamron 70-300. I like the extra reach to 300 and the better corner performance at 24mm. But that's a much heavier and bulkier setup than the 24-200.

If I'm trying to be very compact or lightweight and I expect to need long focal lengths then the 24-200 is what I bring. Perfect example would be hiking up a canyon where I need wide-angle to a ridge line where I'll probably want a telephoto.

I think a lot of people here often feel the 24-120/4S is more their speed as it has few image quality issues and in many situations folks don't need 200. Or perhaps I should say, in some cases don't think they need 200. Telephoto is often thought of being for sports or wildlife, but actually it is an excellent tool for landscape and city as well. So really it is down to how useful you think 120-200 will be to your photography and are you willing to trade a bit of corner image quality and slower apertures to get it.

Click to expand...

If I carry the 180-600 anyway, would it be better with 24-120? Could you share a few pics with the 24-120? is it a big step in quality compared with 24-200?



thank u

--