24-200 vs 28-400

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone who owns both lenses has compared them image quality wise?

Why do I ask? I have owned the 24-200 previously but was not that happy with the sharpness and contrast of my copy.

If the 28-400 is any better, I would give it a shot. If it is worse or similar I would rather not.

Franz Weber said:

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone who owns both lenses has compared them image quality wise?

Why do I ask? I have owned the 24-200 previously but was not that happy with the sharpness and contrast of my copy.

If the 28-400 is any better, I would give it a shot. If it is worse or similar I would rather not.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Maybe, you should take a look at this page : Photography Life Z28-400 lens comparison

Thanks!

So it is a bit softer than the Z 24-200 lens

Franz Weber said:

Thanks!

So it is a bit softer than the Z 24-200 lens

Click to expand...

Likely it has pure sharpness at a lower level.

Though, beware, being more or less soft implies other characteristics in the end. (I bet you know)

And your copy was perhaps a bad one. I see you have Z6II in your gear list, so with 24Mp that could be.

Franz Weber said:

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone who owns both lenses has compared them image quality wise?

Why do I ask? I have owned the 24-200 previously but was not that happy with the sharpness and contrast of my copy.

If the 28-400 is any better, I would give it a shot. If it is worse or similar I would rather not.

Click to expand...

I have both. I use the 24-200 for hiking on my Z7 or Z8. My wife uses the 28-400 on her Z50ii.

For what they are, they are great. But you must accept that you will not get S-class sharpness or contrast from a super- zoom.

That's Walk Out Of Door - Shoot A Picture In a thread at https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68210318

This is the view at 24mm wit the 24-200mm



This is the 28-400mm at 190mm



This is the 24-200mm at 200



--
I'm a photographer, Jim, not a graphic artist!
WSSA#51 as BG5700
My photo blog: Birds n bugs's Blog
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611

Franz Weber said:

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone who owns both lenses has compared them image quality wise?

Why do I ask? I have owned the 24-200 previously but was not that happy with the sharpness and contrast of my copy.

Click to expand...

You always have to set your expectations with a superzoom, and a larger range is going to have more compromise. The major exception is the 24-120F4S out shooting the 24-70F4S.

You should post a few samples of the images you were not happy with. It may have to do with your settings, the scene, or expectations. Another option is to try another copy of the 24-200VR. I was able to shoot a backlit black dog with backlighting with a Z50II and 24-200VR.

It would cost a lot more money and weight to get significantly better results, and I do have a Z6III and 70-180f2.8 lens with TC1.4z.

Franz Weber said:

If the 28-400 is any better, I would give it a shot. If it is worse or similar I would rather not.

Click to expand...

It is better from 200-400mm, but that 4mm on the wide end is probably more useful to most shooters. I wish we had some more 20-xxx superzoom options.

Franz Weber said:

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone who owns both lenses has compared them image quality wise?

Why do I ask? I have owned the 24-200 previously but was not that happy with the sharpness and contrast of my copy.

If the 28-400 is any better, I would give it a shot. If it is worse or similar I would rather not.

Click to expand...

I don't own both but based on Christopher Frost's videos I think the 24-200 is sharper at least, despite having a shorter focal range (But you do gain 4mm on the wide end, which is somewhat "substantial" in my opinion).

If I had to choose between the two, I'd get the 24-200. It's also a bit cheaper. The 28-400 IMO is getting into the realm of "overpriced" at $1349 vs $900 for the 24-200. The 24-200 is also in that range but I'd at least be saving the $450 and getting a sharper lens throughout the shared range (differences are noticeable in the corners).

I have both lens, on z7, z24-200 is a much better lens, especially the corner sharpness. However on z5, they are pretty close.

Appreciate the test; but it's hard to understand the implications here. (I'd normally expect any zoom to show weaker performance at the maximum of its range.)

is it possible to see a comparison at other overlapping focal lengths? (e.g. 35, 50, 85, 105, 135, 150, 180, etc.)

Well it was labelled a quick evaluation I see a little more sharpness in the 24-200 mast top image. The brand name on the weather vane is more readable on the 24-200 image. Both pretty impressive for a do it all super zoom. Photography Life compares them at different focal lengths Photography Life Z28-400 lens comparison Cheers.

Franz Weber said:

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone who owns both lenses has compared them image quality wise?

Why do I ask? I have owned the 24-200 previously but was not that happy with the sharpness and contrast of my copy.

If the 28-400 is any better, I would give it a shot. If it is worse or similar I would rather not.

Click to expand...

I don't own the 24-200 but do have the Z 28-400mm f/4-8 VR which I was fortunate to get on sale for less than $1,000 from Amazon. All the bar charts are helpful but at the end of the day, the quality of actual photos is what counts. Here are a few examples from my experience with the lens on both my Z50ii and Z6iii. I'm quite happy with its performance.


Double-crested Cormorant


Mockingbird


Bumblebee Moth


Mallard


Magnolia Blossom


Canada Goose


Great-tailed Grackle

obscura references said:

Appreciate the test; but it's hard to understand the implications here. (I'd normally expect any zoom to show weaker performance at the maximum of its range.)

is it possible to see a comparison at other overlapping focal lengths? (e.g. 35, 50, 85, 105, 135, 150, 180, etc.)

Click to expand...

But I am not inclined to do so. There are plenty of reputable sources for detailed testing of lenses and camera systems.

Jim Kasson and Horshack have done some really detailed studies documented here at DPReview. There are many others and I enjoy looking at them and respect the amount of effort it takes.

In my case I just want to get a comparative feel for how lenses work for me and how I shoot. This comparison was done to see which lens I wanted to take on a trip with my Z50 and Z50ii.

I already knew that I wouldn't be taking My heavy 70-200mm. But just for the sake of completeness I decided to add another image to the 200mm set.


70-200mm at 200mm



--
I'm a photographer, Jim, not a graphic artist!
WSSA#51 as BG5700
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611

I do not have or never have had the 24-200, so I don't have any hands on comparison but do have several thousand photos from the 28-400 without a single photo that gives me reason to question the sharpness or image quality from it. If I get a unsharp image from it, it is always my fault, not the lens. It may make a difference that I only shoot DX sensor Nikon mirrorless, and do not post process raw photos, so I use only the sharpest part of the image, and don't have the processing software variables that could change the comparison results. I can take the same photo with any of my Nikon DX or FX lenses and the 28-400 side by side of the same subject, at the same focal length and aperture, compare them full screen on a 267 ppi monitor with no visible difference that anyone will ever see. Shooting DX gives an advantage by using only the sweet center of lens, and when compared with 24mp FF it has to deal with higher pixel density so I'm not sure what that means to how it performs on a FX 24mp Nikon, but should be close to the same as when used on a 45mp Nikon and cropped to DX dimensions.

But I do not get out the magnifying glass to compare images. If it looks sharp full screen on a 276 ppi 16" monitor, I'm fine, but if it doesn't look sharp on the monitor at full screen I'm not very happy camper.

I have tried both, returned one and kept the other. I am a DX (Z50) shooter and extensively took boring shots using both to compare a while ago when trying to make my choice. I have several other "fast" prime lenses for my system, so it was more of a test for the zoom quality for me.

I have not compared FX systems for either lenses. Nor have I ever owned "S" lenses.

For my usage/system the 28-400 won hands down for me. It's really a 42-600mm lens (vs 36-300mm for the 24-200) on DX.

It's the perfect daily walk around/birding/animal/street lens for me. The 24-200 was a bit smaller/lighter, but not by much. The 24-200 on DX was a bit wider, but I really thought the IQ of the 28mm vs 24mm shots were MUCH sharper on the 28-400mm. The test results of 200mm between both lenses IMO were that the 28-400 was much sharper, and easier to get correct/sharper focus. I believe the VR is quicker, more stable and more accurate on the newer 28-400 vs the 24-200. Getting sharp "keepers" at 400mm (600mm DX) is easy and with the VR extremely successful. The "slower" f/8 on max zoom was never an issue for me, since I have faster lenses for those shots that require that. My need for zooming are mostly outdoors in daylight and/or well lit areas.

The fact that the 28-400 gives much more zoom range (600mm on DX) sold it for me. Since I own a couple faster wider angle and medium angle primes, I preferred the range of the 28-400 on my DX system for when I want the most lightweight versatile zoom out there.

I own both these lenses, and they have slightly different usage for me.

When I just want a one lens solution I stick the 24-200 on a Z7. This is a nice lightweight solution for hiking in the mountains, and the weight is little more than some other combinations touted as "travel camera". It is also a solution I can shove in my briefcase if I am travelling by plane.

I tend to use the 28-400 when I carry two cameras. A Z8 with the excellent 14-35and the 28-400 on my Z7. With two lenses I have an enormous range. I use a small mountain rucksack.

I use the 28-400 as a "details" lens for my Architectural photography. The improved VR IBIS with my Z8 has made the tripod redundant for ISO up to 3200 most of the time.

I am very happy with these lenses and many of the minor optical issues can be resolved very quickly in post. The 24-200 can suffer from CA problems in certain extreme situations. People, we need to get away from test charts, and look at pictures made with lenses at normal sizes. How many of us make mural sized prints?

On a large monitor the photo's taken with these two lenses look great. It takes a lot of needless nit-picking pixel peeping to see any problems. The pictures made with these lenses, sit well with my expensive Architectural shift lenses.

I would never have carried a bag full of lenses to capture the pictures below. With just one camera and lens I was able to make pictures of a wide range of subjects. that I would not of made in the past.

These are 28-400 shots from my last holiday.















.

--
“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.”
- Niccolo` Machiavelli.
https://nigelvoak.blogspot.com/

Franz Weber said:

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone who owns both lenses has compared them image quality wise?

Why do I ask? I have owned the 24-200 previously but was not that happy with the sharpness and contrast of my copy.

If the 28-400 is any better, I would give it a shot. If it is worse or similar I would rather not.

Click to expand...

You must have had a bad copy, or have impossible expectations. My 24-200 is excellent. I also have the 100-400, which is of course better, but only from 100 mm, of course. And while I also have the 24-70/4, which is also better than the 24-200, but of course, only up to 70 mm. So which is better, the 24-200 or the 28-400 depends on what you need. If you need the 200+ range more often then buy it, but if you expect the 28-200 mm range to be better also, then don't buy it, because I seriously doubt it is better in that range.

Franz Weber said:

I have owned the 24-200 previously but was not that happy with the sharpness and contrast of my copy.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to update your current gear list.

Your list shows you as having the 24–120 which you rate higher than the 24–200 that you still list. You also list the 50 mm F1 .8 that you have not rated.

I consider the 24–200 is easily good enough for an A3 or 16x12 inch print using a 45MP camera rather than your 24MP camera.

I agree the 24-120 has more in reserve for image cropping than the 24-200.

The 24-200 is one of the few Nikon lenses to benefit from the relatively recent Arneo coating.

I use the 24-200 together with a Nikon 6T (for close up work) when I want to travel light and prioritise a compact system over the highest possible image quality that I can achieve.

As I own the high performing 100–400 and 400 f 4.5 Z lenses I have not considered buying the likely lower performing and relatively heavy 28-400.

I expect the 28-400 image quality is in the same league as the 24–200.

I cannot help you decide what compromises you are prepared to accept when using a super zoom lens rather than a higher quality prime or perhaps a big with higher optical quality zoom such as the 180-400 f4.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.

Leonard Shepherd said:

Franz Weber said:

I have owned the 24-200 previously but was not that happy with the sharpness and contrast of my copy.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to update your current gear list.

Your list shows you as having the 24–120 which you rate higher than the 24–200 that you still list. You also list the 50 mm F1 .8 that you have not rated.

I consider the 24–200 is easily good enough for an A3 or 16x12 inch print using a 45MP camera rather than your 24MP camera.

I agree the 24-120 has more in reserve for image cropping than the 24-200.

The 24-200 is one of the few Nikon lenses to benefit from the relatively recent Arneo coating.

I use the 24-200 together with a Nikon 6T (for close up work) when I want to travel light and prioritise a compact system over the highest possible image quality that I can achieve.

As I own the high performing 100–400 and 400 f 4.5 Z lenses I have not considered buying the likely lower performing and relatively heavy 28-400.

I expect the 28-400 image quality is in the same league as the 24–200.

Click to expand...

It's similar, but the corners suffer a bit more. If you look at Christophe Frost's reviews of both, you probably will come to the same conclusion. You're trading off sharpness ans speed (which the 24-200 has more of in the corners and is faster at 200mm) for focal range (which the 28-400 has although it's a bit narrower on the short end).

My personal take having shot with all three now to some degree (own the 24-120, had the 24-200, and borrowed the 28-400 for a bit) is:

1.) 24-120

2.) 24-200

3.) 28-400

They all have their place, but the OP just needs to decide what is most important to them: sharpness, focal range, or speed (if they are gonig to go with an all-in-one zoom that is). Of course the 24-120 wins at speed and sharpness but falls short on focal range (although still a decent range for travel). The 24-200 is a good compromise between the 24-120 and 28-400, and the 28-400 is obviously if you value focal range/length above all else.

Leonard Shepherd said:

I cannot help you decide what compromises you are prepared to accept when using a super zoom lens rather than a higher quality prime or perhaps a big with higher optical quality zoom such as the 180-400 f4.

Click to expand...

--
* PLEASE NOTE: I generally unsubscribe from forums/comments after a period of time has passed, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. *