biff56
Leading Member
Looking to buy a z6ll w/24-70 f4s lens. At times I will need more reach. Looking at the two above mentioned lenses for that need. I like the idea of native mount, but the extra reach of the 28-300 is appealing. Thoughts...
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
z24-200 or f-mount 28-300 for z6ll
- Thread starter biff56
- Start date
PaulV
Senior Member
Unlike many on DPReview, I am not a fan of the 28-300 and sold my copy after a year. I do love the new Z 24-200, though, and it's maybe the best all-in-one lens I have ever owned.
It's nice to have "more reach," but I wouldn't get too greedy. An F-mount 70-300 is one way to go. Depends on what you're doing with it.
That being said, the 28-300 and FTZ will be much, much less compact than the Z mount 24-200.
biff56
Leading Member
Good point on the size issue! Perhaps Nikon will come out with a longer focal length in the future...
Ditto on the 70-300 as long as it’s the A-FP version. If you’re thinking of using F- Mount lenses see if you can get the FTZ at the $50 discounted price.
I have 28-300, and the lens performance has become much better on my Z6, than it was on my D800, due to better focus accuracy. The 28-300 lens is not perfect, but at f/8, I find its performance to be excellent, so I keep my f-stop fixed at f/8 for this lens to get the best out of it.
However, I am also thinking of buying the 24-200 lens. My initial scepticism was on its slow speed, topping at f/6.3 at 200mm. But as this lenses performance wide open in excellent, it will beat my 28-300 for the largest useful aperture (f/8).
The other main benefit I get from 24-200 is the silent operation for video, faster AF, and compact size. I think for a walk around lens, 24mm minimum focal length is more important than the 28mm. In my case, I have 200-500 lens, so the 200mm limit of z lens is not a concern for me. It may be different for you though..
However, I am also thinking of buying the 24-200 lens. My initial scepticism was on its slow speed, topping at f/6.3 at 200mm. But as this lenses performance wide open in excellent, it will beat my 28-300 for the largest useful aperture (f/8).
The other main benefit I get from 24-200 is the silent operation for video, faster AF, and compact size. I think for a walk around lens, 24mm minimum focal length is more important than the 28mm. In my case, I have 200-500 lens, so the 200mm limit of z lens is not a concern for me. It may be different for you though..
birdofthegalaxy
Forum Enthusiast
I have the 24-70 f/4 and bought the 24-200 S lens. I also had, from before, the 70-300 f mount. I bought the 24-200 to reduce the number of lenses I traveled with from 3 to 2 (I always travel with the 14-30 f/4). I have been mostly happy with the 24-200 but the autofocus is a little slow and less effective when zoomed, so action pictures can be a bit more challenging. If I am going to be on a train, in a balloon, whatever, I actually still travel with three lenses and bring the 24-70 along with the original 70-300 I owned which has a dedicated FTZ. I know in your post you did not ask about that option, but unless you are opposed to changing lenses (which I sometimes am) I recommend using the 24-70 you are buying anyway and adding a 70-300 f mount which you can pick up for $500 or less these days. The 70-300 AF-P is faster at all focal lengths than the 24-200, seems to focus pretty accurately, and gives you the 300 reach you find appealing.
R
rick in vegas
Guest
28-300 is a lot heavier and bigger and not even close in sharpness. Go to Ricci Talks on you tube he compares the two. I have a Z7 so when I need more reach I can go into DX mode and still have 20MP. Or just crop in post.
Ernie Misner
Forum Pro
A really old design compared to the new 24-200 as well. I think you would be happy with and future proof your investment with the new 24-200.
N
NCV
Guest
I bought a Z7 with a 24-70. I added a 24-200 to have a one lens hiking solution.
I am vert happy with this lens which seems to be on my camera most of the time now for travel and general local mooching around.
I believe it is always better to use native mount lenses on a camera from a practical point of view. The FTZ adaptor serves for those lenses that do not exist in Z mount.
I am vert happy with this lens which seems to be on my camera most of the time now for travel and general local mooching around.
I believe it is always better to use native mount lenses on a camera from a practical point of view. The FTZ adaptor serves for those lenses that do not exist in Z mount.
stevedigiphoto
Leading Member
I owned the 28-300 and although its a nice lens it has several issues compared Ito the 24-200. The 300mm end is not really 300mm at any distance but especially so when you focus closer as the effective focal length drops considerably so by the time you are at portrait distance with 300mm set its effectively around 200mm. I bought the 24-200Z on launch and it is a fantastic lens. Sharp throughout the range, no focus breathing and much lighter so I would definitely go for that option. By the time you add the FTZ to the 28-300 you have quite a large combination too.
dtc25
Senior Member
If you're looking for a single lens solution, then I'll repeat what others have said. I've owned the 28-300 in the past and it's an OK lens as far as superzooms go. I now have the 24-200 and it's a better lens. I'd pick it every time, even without the added advantage that it's a native Z lens and you don't need to use the FTZ.
If you really need 300mm, then a 2 lens solution is the way to go, so your 24-70 plus the 70-300 AF-P + FTZ. I don't know where you are, but here in the UK you can pick up the 70-300 AF-P for less than £500, and I think this is great value.
If you really need 300mm, then a 2 lens solution is the way to go, so your 24-70 plus the 70-300 AF-P + FTZ. I don't know where you are, but here in the UK you can pick up the 70-300 AF-P for less than £500, and I think this is great value.
Peter3579
Leading Member
There are several threads on this already. A search will reveal.
Consensus is that the 24-200 is the better option on a Z body.
Unless it is something specialist that is not offered (or about to be offered on the Z mount), I can't see the point in buying F mount lenses for Z bodies.
Edit, this was in reply to the OP. Got the sub thread mixed with the thread.
Consensus is that the 24-200 is the better option on a Z body.
Unless it is something specialist that is not offered (or about to be offered on the Z mount), I can't see the point in buying F mount lenses for Z bodies.
Edit, this was in reply to the OP. Got the sub thread mixed with the thread.
Last edited:
plumberdp69
Leading Member
- Messages
- 971
- Reaction score
- 240
With Z6ii in mind, still trying to decide on either 24-200 mm Z or 28-300 mm Z. I think I saw 28-300 mm Z in the yet to come chart, think in 2021. Now I cannot find that chart any more as I want to confirm.
Without the actual 28-300 mm Z available, I know it is hard to compare the 24-200 Z and 28-300 Z, appreciate your view on which one to grab and why. Thanks.
Without the actual 28-300 mm Z available, I know it is hard to compare the 24-200 Z and 28-300 Z, appreciate your view on which one to grab and why. Thanks.
briantilley
Veteran Member
No, there is no 28-300mm lens on Nikon's latest Z Roadmap:
There was a faked roadmap that mentioned a 28-280mm Z, I believe.
Last edited:
plumberdp69
Leading Member
- Messages
- 971
- Reaction score
- 240
I thought I saw one and could not find it later. Maybe it was just wishful thinking on my part. Ha. Guess I better pick 24-200 mm Z then. Looking forward to the set.
The AF-S 28-300mm is a 10.7x superzoom from 2003 while the Z 24-200mm is an up to date 8.3X superzoom design that is native to the Nikon Z system cameras. I would not waste my time with an old lens design that also requires the FTZ adapter - this will be bulky and its handling may be poor. It is probably better to use the 24-200 and do some mild cropping, if additional reach is required.
Franks38
Forum Enthusiast
I traded my 28-300 for the AF-P-70-300 FX because the AF-P was much lighter and I did not find my 28-300 all that sharp. I use the AF-P lens for grandkid sports--Ultimate Frisbee over a long and wide field; also for water polo where I am back from the pool and working it from about the middle on the side. The AF-P is really excellent in terms of accurate focus and sharpness for what I do. Even with the FTZ , it is "light" on my Z6. I now have the 24-200 but have no opportunities to try it out due to Covid....Frank
thisisbenji
Leading Member
- Messages
- 842
- Reaction score
- 1,495
I thought the 28-300 came out in 2010, not 2003?
That being said, I own the 28-300 and it's a very useful lens. However, I do notice that it doesn't really "feel" like it's 300mm. I don't notice a huge difference in framing when it's zoomed to 200mm vs 300mm. Also, the image quality is not great.
However, it filled an important roll for me on my D610 and I use it lots. If I was going to buy it today for a Z6II, I would certainly get the 24-200 as it's more compact and seems to have vastly superior IQ.
briantilley
Veteran Member
That is correct, the AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR did come out in 2010.
FWIW, the AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G came out in 2003.
What Me Worry
Well-known member
- Messages
- 151
- Reaction score
- 129
Would you buy a 2003 car or a 2020 car? I chose the Z24-200 (for my Z6) and I have no regrets. Stay native. You won’t be sorry.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum