One last thing, and I’m in the minority here on this, size is inconsequential to me if it can do what I need and do it with the IQ I want at a reasonable cost. Sony, Fuji, Canon, Nikon have nothing of interest for me as a APSC system - they might have one or two good lenses here or there, but nothing I would build a system on. FF and M43 are the only two formats I would consider if I had to completely start from scratch.
I am happy with my m43 and FF combo , APS does not have a lot of appeal for me either. Fuji has quite a comprehensive selection of lenses for APS
They have a few lenses I like, but maybe only 1 or two I would consider using, and not enough for me to build a system on. And if I picked out the best lenses I could I would be annoyed using the system. It’s totally not for me.
, and there are some interesting third party options for Sony especially the Sigma 10-18mm F/2.8 for example
Meh, it’s fine. I won’t knock it’s IQ, but, I would always choose my 8-25/4 over it - regardless of the lighting or situation. The Nikon Z DX 12-28/4 PZ gets good marks too, but again, it’s an easy, easy pass, for me. OMMV.
As I said I am not really tempted by APS , though the new Z50 II does move things on a good bit .
eh.
The lack of IBIS alone means the Z50 II is an automatic hell no. The abysmal battery life that can't even match my EM10 from 11 years ago is a frustrating joke. There a bunch of other changes I'd make to it if I was in charge over there... but it doesn't matter, Nikon doesn't care about enthusiasts. They use dumb, slow, unimaginative, lenses and hope people will just move up quickly to their FF system that actually has some useful glass.
If I had to describe Nikon's (and Canon's) APSC system in a few words it would be:
"The practice pancake"
As I use Z FF i already have a selection of lenses but m43 will do just fine . The 12-28 seems to get good reviews . I would mostly use such lens in daylight so in lens VR would suffice
But the IBIS in my EM1.3 is far better, the IQ of my 8-25 is far better (minus lens in some situations - it's a great lens and very close to but not quite perfect - More than good enough for me.
Since you’re here…
Regarding the 12-100/4 vs the 24-200/4-6.3, as much as I like Nikon’s cameras, and also given that the 24-200 is the best of these FF 2x-2xx lenses, I’d still choose the 12-100/4 over it. This, is definitely a for me only situation. My 12-100 lets me leave my tripod/monopod at home. I also love the consistent IQ even at the corners on it. That and my 8-25/4 are a dream combo. I was in Canyon Lands National Park earlier today and at the Moab Easter Jeep Safari days prior, and having those two lenses meant I never missed a shot, and I changed lenses less often than I would have with any other two lens combo.
The 8-25mm does tempt. I only used the 24-200mm to match focal lengths and of course it us doing the same job as m43 12-100mm F/2-3.2.
Only on DoF, which is the last thing of consideration to me on such a lens. Truthfully it's of no consideration since being a landscape shooter, larger DoF is what I actually want. For me it works out well that the 12-100/4 does 3 things, 1) give me a FF DoF of F8 while 2) simultaneously giving me shutter speeds of an F4 lens, 3) coupled with and EM1/OM1 series lets me shoot at sub 2sec shutter speeds as needed. Its a win-win-win. All my regular landscape shots have enough dof while letting me use the lens at it's optimal settings at every focal length. I can also keep my ISO at base even when the light get lower because the stabilization has no equal and may not have for years.
It gets some decent reviews and on my Z7II or Z9 would comfortably out resolve the 12-100mm.
For me the out resolving is not the issue, I have no doubt Z7 - Z9 would "out resolve" it. It the inconsistent performance - especially at the wide end that would be the deal breaker. The best thing about the Z24-200 is that it's center performance is great at both ends of the range, but edges/corners at the wide end can't even get close to the center where as the 24-120/4 can. And If I was forking out the cash for a Z9, I would never use the 24-200 on it. Especially since the 24-120/4 doesn't cost that much more. Toss in a 70-180/2.8 (since Nikon can't pull their heads out their @$$ and make a 70-200/4 since 2012) and you've got the range and far better IQ with the trade offs being weight and swapping; cost too to a lesser degree for anyone able to buy a Z9.
It is system results that matter , technically the 12-100mm may be a better optic but when on a m43 camera compared to the 24-200mm on FF my money would be on the FF lens
Maybe on the Z7II (unless you need better AF performance - I don't), Z8, and Z9, but since the 24-12/4 came out I see no reason to buy the 24-200 for the higher end bodies. That's just me, I've seen people but worse glass on great cameras. (I saw someone shooting a Sony 28-70 yesterday and that made me laugh)
https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount...t-lens-reviews/nikon-24-200mm-f4-63-lens.html
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-200mm-f4-6-3-vr
I think Nikon did well with the 24-200, it’s not perfect (and the Z24-120/4 is better and more of interest to me) but it will be good enough for many. I’m just not included in that group.
I have the 24-120mm it is a very good performer . And covers a good chunk of my shooting . I have the 14-30mm and they make a good pair. I did have the 14-24mm F/2.8 s and though it was an excellent lens I found that most of my shooting with it was done stopped down so the 14-30mm won out for size and weight .
With the advantages that mirrorless cameras allow for the lenses we have now are pretty much better than everything that came before it . Plus there are focal length and aperture combos that would have been impossible on DSLR's. I think it is hard to find a genuinely useless lens
Sony Zeiss E16-70/4 (Thankfully now discontinued - God be praised)
Fuji 16-80/4 (the 16-50/2.8-4 - with it's shorter range is night and day better)
Sony FE28-70/3.5-5.6
Canon RF24-240mm (because of corrections needed)
Sony FE24-240 (because of IQ or lack thereof)
Tamron 11-2mm (There are better lenses with better range)
Tamron 20-40mm (No reason to buy it as a better range Sony exists)
Tamron 17-50/4 (not good enough and the Sony 20-70/4 exists)
Olympus 12-50 (the old one)
Sigma 16-28/2.8
and this one will upset people...
Sigma 18-50/2.8 (They took my least favorite range and made it worse)
Panasonic 25/1.7 (sucks until F4)
...
I can go on, there's a lot of meh out there.
--
NHT
