Nikon 24-200mm initial sharpness comparison

[George 68]

I ususally use the Z50/now z50ii for hiking and more adventurous stuff but I have two trips in particular this year I'd like to take the big camera without having too much weight. The first is hiking through the Dolomites in July, the second is around the world including 18 days hiking on New Zealand South Island in November.

My usual full frame "lighter" kit is 14-30, 24-120, Tamron 70-300 but I think even this will be too heavy so I've bought a used 24-200 to try out. I'm leaving for 3 days in Porto, Portugal tomorrow and will try it out in normal proper use then, but before I put all of my trust in it, I did a bit of brick wall photography today to check I wasn't being rash.

This was what I found. I have not posted any centre comparisons because all lenses were bitingly sharp in the centre: all shots below are 1:1 of the bottom right corner. All lenses seemed reasonbly well centred with no discernable difference between corners.









































My two conclusions were: that the 24-200 is inferior to the 24-120, as you would expect, but not by a huge margin; and that the 24-200 is superior to the 70-300, at least at this focal distance (around 10 feet).

For me, this means I'm prepared to take it with the 14-30 on my trip tomorrow and try it in real world testing. I hope this might be helpful to someone else. I'll probably post some pics on the weekly picture thread when I get back.

--
Put on a good pair of boots and walk out the door - H.W. "Bill" Tilman
There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept - A. Adams

George Muir

Explore George Muir’s 60 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Whois]

The 24-200mm does surprisingly well (all the way to 200mm) in real world conditions

 

[LightsAndTones]

It's so good I found this thread. I have the same kit except the 24-120mm I have the 24-70mm.

I've been using the Tamron 70-300mm for a while and I found that my photos were not really sharp. I just tested it yesterday for almost 2 hours, especially at the long end. I tested it on my Z7 so the pixel density was almost the same as your z50ii.

I tried handheld shot and also from tripod. With manual focus and with autofocus.

I found that the autofocus were not really reliable. At least 7-8 shots from 10 didn't nail it perfectly. I was doing very similar shots but I aimed at the neighbor's chimney.

But when the focus was nailed or I used manual focus the results were really sharp.

All I wanted to ask if these you took were used in AF or MF? If AF then could you try them with MF from a tripod? I'm really interested what you would find.

 

[George 68]

I've been using the Tamron 70-300mm for a while and I found that my photos were not really sharp. I just tested it yesterday for almost 2 hours, especially at the long end. I tested it on my Z7 so the pixel density was almost the same as your z50ii.

The test was done with my Z8 so the pixel density and field of view is identical to your Z7

 

[Rene Gr]

It's so good I found this thread. I have the same kit except the 24-120mm I have the 24-70mm.

I've been using the Tamron 70-300mm for a while and I found that my photos were not really sharp. I just tested it yesterday for almost 2 hours, especially at the long end. I tested it on my Z7 so the pixel density was almost the same as your z50ii.

I tried handheld shot and also from tripod. With manual focus and with autofocus.

I found that the autofocus were not really reliable. At least 7-8 shots from 10 didn't nail it perfectly. I was doing very similar shots but I aimed at the neighbor's chimney.

But when the focus was nailed or I used manual focus the results were really sharp.

All I wanted to ask if these you took were used in AF or MF? If AF then could you try them with MF from a tripod? I'm really interested what you would find.

I like the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 a lot more than the Tamron. Obviously, it is faster, but is also sharper. I would even say that cropping at the long end is better than the using the 300mm of the worse lens.

 

[George 68]

I like the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 a lot more than the Tamron. Obviously, it is faster, but is also sharper. I would even say that cropping at the long end is better than the using the 300mm of the worse lens.

It’s a brilliant lens but hardly a hiking lens. I may as well take my 100-400.

 

[monte12345]

I ask because I do own a printer and experimentation has led me to conclude that the ideal magnification for evaluating how much sharpness can be seen in a 36 x 54 inch prints is a 33% pixel peep on a 4K 27" monitor. BTW, being a cheapskate by nature I only printed 8 x 10 inch crops but the magnification level of those crops were equal to the magnification produced but the full frame printed at 36 x 54 inches.

I will also note that Monitors do matter when judging sharpness. When I built my new workstation it was to replace one that I had built back in 2018. That old system had what was a top rated 2K monitor made by Phillips and it was a special order. Comparing the two monitors side by side was revealing. What I had been perceiving as lens softness in the 2K monitor was actually the resolution limit for that 2K monitor. As a result mush seen at 200% or higher was not a lens issue, it was just an illustration of the poor resolution of that 2 K monitor. With my new system with it's 4K monitor what I see at 100, 200, & 300% is the resolving power of the lenses at that level. As for 400%, that is when I start to see Stair Stepping in the image files of my 46 mp Z7 II. Specifically you can see the individual pixels in the image file.

The point here is that Pixel Peeping at higher magnifications is pretty much useless. Because it can result in rejecting images or lenses that will make wonderful prints. I will also note that the purpose of Photography is to produce images for Display and currently the highest resolution display media is the Print. Canon's best printers can be set to produce 2400 dpi across the carriage width and if you compare that number to the dps for an electronic display you'll find they are vastly inferior to a print.

If you have a printer I would suggest you take your image files for the 24-200 and the 70-300 and crop one of the corners to 1/4 the height of the full image frame for each image file. Then print the images to an 8 inch height on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. Take your prints and lay them down side by side and then see if there is any difference in sharpness. I suspect you won't be able to tell them apart. What this means is the lens you take on your trip is entirely up to what will be most useful for you on your trip. Personally I would take the 70-300 simply because I suspect you'll find setting in New Zealand where you will want the reach of a 300mm lens and may use it in the DX mode for just a bit more reach. However never having been to New Zealand that is simply a guess.

 

[George 68]

I ask because I do own a printer and experimentation has led me to conclude that the ideal magnification for evaluating how much sharpness can be seen in a 36 x 54 inch prints is a 33% pixel peep on a 4K 27" monitor. BTW, being a cheapskate by nature I only printed 8 x 10 inch crops but the magnification level of those crops were equal to the magnification produced but the full frame printed at 36 x 54 inches.

I do own a printer but the purpose of this exercise is a comparative evaluation, not an absolute one. The evaluation was done at 100% where a single image pixel was represented as a single monitor pixel.

I will also note that Monitors do matter when judging sharpness. When I built my new workstation it was to replace one that I had built back in 2018. That old system had what was a top rated 2K monitor made by Phillips and it was a special order. Comparing the two monitors side by side was revealing. What I had been perceiving as lens softness in the 2K monitor was actually the resolution limit for that 2K monitor. As a result mush seen at 200% or higher was not a lens issue, it was just an illustration of the poor resolution of that 2 K monitor. With my new system with it's 4K monitor what I see at 100, 200, & 300% is the resolving power of the lenses at that level. As for 400%, that is when I start to see Stair Stepping in the image files of my 46 mp Z7 II. Specifically you can see the individual pixels in the image file.

I provided the crops so you can review on your monitor. Are your conclusions different to mine?

The point here is that Pixel Peeping at higher magnifications is pretty much useless. Because it can result in rejecting images or lenses that will make wonderful prints. I will also note that the purpose of Photography is to produce images for Display and currently the highest resolution display media is the Print. Canon's best printers can be set to produce 2400 dpi across the carriage width and if you compare that number to the dps for an electronic display you'll find they are vastly inferior to a print.

The point of this exercise isn’t achieving better sharpness, it’s to ascertain whether the loss of IQ in switching to a super zoom will acceptable. The motivation being reduction in size and weight for hiking.

If you have a printer I would suggest you take your image files for the 24-200 and the 70-300 and crop one of the corners to 1/4 the height of the full image frame for each image file. Then print the images to an 8 inch height on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. Take your prints and lay them down side by side and then see if there is any difference in sharpness. I suspect you won't be able to tell them apart. What this means is the lens you take on your trip is entirely up to what will be most useful for you on your trip.

The most useful for the trip would be my 14-30, 24-70 f/2.8 and 100-400 but I wouldn’t make it to any summits carrying them and they’re of no help to me left in the hotel.

Personally I would take the 70-300 simply because I suspect you'll find setting in New Zealand where you will want the reach of a 300mm lens and may use it in the DX mode for just a bit more reach. However never having been to New Zealand that is simply a guess.

 

[AlainCh2]

George 68 wrote:
...
The point of this exercise isn’t achieving better sharpness, it’s to ascertain whether the loss of IQ in switching to a super zoom will acceptable. The motivation being reduction in size and weight for hiking.
...
Personally I would take the 70-300 simply because I suspect you'll find setting in New Zealand where you will want the reach of a 300mm lens and may use it in the DX mode for just a bit more reach. However never having been to New Zealand that is simply a guess.

I do use 2 bodies with 4 Zooms ranges, that depends on the shooting activity.

The basic range is the 18-140Z = 24-200Z > @24-210mmE

The wider reach can be AF-P 10-20DX on the Z30 and the 24-200Z on Zf.

The short tele is the AF-P 70-300E [+KTC1.4].
When hosted by the Z30, it can offer a range of 110-610mmE, but it's usually hosted by the Zf, while on the Z30 the 18-140Z

The Tamron 70-300Z was already released when I took the decision to buy that range.

Nobody was convincing me that missing the VR on the Z30 was a good thing, but more importantly, the Tamron was winning only on the weight scale, and never reached 70-300E sharpness and image capability in any comparison.

I suppose you already have the Tamron, so I feel that I cannot help you with your decision.

I dreamt of the expensive 24-120Z for a long time...
but
me being used to the 18-140Z ...
as soon I discovered that the range was too short, I bought the 24-200Z.
Yes, it's a less spectacular lens, but more apt to my shootings.

In my range comparisons I posted last year in DPR:
the Zf+70-300E is sharper than the 24-200 on the Z30 <@36-300mmE>,
the Z30+70-300E <@110-450mmE> is sharper than the 180-600Z on the Zf

( maybe I have a really good copy)

--

___.............................!............................ ___
-------- Mid of French/Italian Alps --------- I Love my Carnivores. >https://eu.zonerama.com/AlainCH2/1191151
.
Photography ... It is about how that thing looks when photographed..
( Avoid boring shots )

 

[Fabian Joya]

Next to cats, brick walls seem to be a favorite with photographers.

I was thinking actually of doing a photography project around brick walls...

It's a fascinating subject. ;-)

On a more serious note, before deciding on the lens, I think it's worth evaluating how frequently you will use the 120-200 range, and what for. And also whether you need the extra stop the 24-120 provides.

If you only plan to shoot at f/8, the 24-200 will likely do fine. The utility of the 24-120 comes more into play if you need and use f/4, and care about other lens characteristics like contrast, bokeh, rendering, etc.

But of course, you can always pocket a 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 for additional options. Even f/4 is quite slow after all.

 

[fireplace33]

I ususally use the Z50/now z50ii for hiking and more adventurous stuff but I have two trips in particular this year I'd like to take the big camera without having too much weight. The first is hiking through the Dolomites in July, the second is around the world including 18 days hiking on New Zealand South Island in November.

My usual full frame "lighter" kit is 14-30, 24-120, Tamron 70-300 but I think even this will be too heavy so I've bought a used 24-200 to try out. I'm leaving for 3 days in Porto, Portugal tomorrow and will try it out in normal proper use then, but before I put all of my trust in it, I did a bit of brick wall photography today to check I wasn't being rash.

This was what I found. I have not posted any centre comparisons because all lenses were bitingly sharp in the centre: all shots below are 1:1 of the bottom right corner. All lenses seemed reasonbly well centred with no discernable difference between corners.

My two conclusions were: that the 24-200 is inferior to the 24-120, as you would expect, but not by a huge margin; and that the 24-200 is superior to the 70-300, at least at this focal distance (around 10 feet).

For me, this means I'm prepared to take it with the 14-30 on my trip tomorrow and try it in real world testing. I hope this might be helpful to someone else. I'll probably post some pics on the weekly picture thread when I get back.

For hiking I want a reasonably light weight kit.
On my Z7 I originally had the 24-70/F4 but wanted something longer and got the 24-200

I was quite pleased with that as a one lens solution for hiking but then wanted something wider and got the 14-30 also very pleased.
Then I wanted something a bit longer still and, after reading the good reviews, tried the Tamron Z 70-300 but was unhappy with the sharpness at the long end which was the whole point for me for getting that lens, so I sent it back.

In the mean time I also bought the 24-120 and it is now nearly always on my camera when hiking. It is very sharp and covers a good range for my type of photography. I guess I’ve just learned to do without the longer FL lenses for the moment, but would still like to get something longer at some time.

The jump in FL from 120 to 200, if I were to take the 24-200 as well, doesn’t seem to be worth the extra weight for me. And taking only the 24-200 would mean giving up the overall quality improvement I have with the 24-120 over most of the FL range.

Looks like your photos here of the corner sharpness confirm what I found too.

I also have some primes for other specific purposes.

But, I’m still looking for an additional telephoto lens that has a longer FL.
The Z100-400 looks very good, but is really quite heavy for hiking (and expensive too) Maybe, I’ll just wait a bit longer and see what else comes up now that more new 3rd party Z lenses are coming along

 

[AlainCh2]

....
Looks like your photos here of the corner sharpness confirm what I found too.

I also have some primes for other specific purposes.

But, I’m still looking for an additional telephoto lens that has a longer FL.
The Z100-400 looks very good, but is really quite heavy for hiking (and expensive too) Maybe, I’ll just wait a bit longer and see what else comes up now that more new 3rd party Z lenses are coming along

I bought the AF-P 70-300E instead of Tamron, as I specified in this thread.

I may suggest you that lens, as a cheaper and a little weight alternative to 100-400Z.

Sharp and beautiful pics with a total weight with filter and FTZII is around 950gr.
Used you may find both for a total of 550$.

It will work perfectly with a Kenko 300 PRO DGX KTC1.4,
bought for 80€ to get @460mmE.

( I bought refurb FTZII + 70-300E for around 700€)




in both pics, the last column is Weight in metrical Grams

--
___.............................!............................ ___
-------- Mid of French/Italian Alps --------- I Love my Carnivores. >https://eu.zonerama.com/AlainCH2/1191151
.
Photography ... It is about how that thing looks when photographed..
( Avoid boring shots )

 

[Berend Botje]

If I were in your shoes I would find these results reassuring with regards to the sharpness that is possible with the 24-200mm. But I would also like to know how these lenses compare wide open.

 

[zachdog]

The 24-200mm is pretty fantastic for outdoor photography, especially (as you have noticed) when stopped down to f/8. I’ve been very happy with my copy over the last four years. The 24-120mm is heavier and obviously has a shorter zoom range, but it is both brighter and sharper at those wider apertures. Again, these are obvious differences.

However, I happily bring one or the other, depending on location. We are very fortunate to have choices from Nikon! For reference, I shoot 24mp cameras, so a conversation about sharpness in my context differs from the 45mp crowd. These are great lenses!

 

[LightsAndTones]

Then I wanted something a bit longer still and, after reading the good reviews, tried the Tamron Z 70-300 but was unhappy with the sharpness at the long end which was the whole point for me for getting that lens, so I sent it back.

That's my problem too, I'm unhappy with the results at the long end but I'm not 100% sure if it's the sharpness of the lens or its autofocus is crap and I got lots of misfocused images

That's what I'd like to know what other people experience are regarding focus accuracy of the Tamron 70-300mm RXD.

--
My Website: https://lightsandtones.com
My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@lightsandtones

 

[xiao_xiang]

Interesting comparison. I have found the 24-120 z to be considerably sharper, more contrast and better color than the 24-200mm when both used at their widest aperture - center to edge.

Apart from landscapes, the f8 is not likely to be used, I would imagine.

When I go hiking, I ditch the Z8 and go for the Z6 with the 40mm f2. It's compact, light and super capable. It can do everything I need to enjoy some photography while hiking, including evening events.

So, it depends if it's photography while hiking, or hiking for photography. If the later, honestly these two z zooms are both excellent.

Enjoy! And share some pics afterwards.

 

[George 68]

Apart from landscapes, the f8 is not likely to be used, I would imagine.

Landscapes are what I shoot when hiking so it’s almost always f/8 or f/11.

So, it depends if it's photography while hiking, or hiking for photography. If the later, honestly these two z zooms are both excellent.

It’s photography while hiking but I still want to have wide to telephoto options.

Enjoy! And share some pics afterwards.

Of course. I usually post in the weekly Z camera and the Landcsape and Travel forum.

 

[Rene Gr]

I like to add a bit more, because I was pondering a lot about buying the 24-120 f/4. What finally kept me from going was not the sharpness. I think most lenses are good enough nowadays. The Nikon lenses are all excellent in the center, and the corners are very usable too when stopped down.

But there is more to a lens for me. I use the long end of these travel zooms also for portraits or isolating objects, not only for compressed landscapes. And then the Bokeh quality becomes important. And if you look at the sample images, you find that the 24-120 is a bad choice in that respect. That is the main reason why I gave up on long travel zooms, and simply take my 24-70 and 70-180 combo. The latter also has f/2.8. But even at f/5.6, the Bokeh looks better.

 

[24Peter]

Apart from landscapes, the f8 is not likely to be used, I would imagine.

Landscapes are what I shoot when hiking so it’s almost always f/8 or f/11.

So, it depends if it's photography while hiking, or hiking for photography. If the later, honestly these two z zooms are both excellent.

It’s photography while hiking but I still want to have wide to telephoto options.

Enjoy! And share some pics afterwards.

Of course. I usually post in the weekly Z camera and the Landcsape and Travel forum.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

I ususally use the Z50/now z50ii for hiking and more adventurous stuff but I have two trips in particular this year I'd like to take the big camera without having too much weight. The first is hiking through the Dolomites in July, the second is around the world including 18 days hiking on New Zealand South Island in November.

My usual full frame "lighter" kit is 14-30, 24-120, Tamron 70-300 but I think even this will be too heavy so I've bought a used 24-200 to try out. I'm leaving for 3 days in Porto, Portugal tomorrow and will try it out in normal proper use then, but before I put all of my trust in it, I did a bit of brick wall photography today to check I wasn't being rash.

This was what I found. I have not posted any centre comparisons because all lenses were bitingly sharp in the centre: all shots are 1:1 of the bottom right corner. All lenses seemed reasonbly well centred with no discernable difference between corners.





















My two conclusions were: that the 24-200 is inferior to the 24-120, as you would expect, but not by a huge margin; and that the 24-200 is superior to the 70-300, at least at this focal distance (around 10 feet).

For me, this means I'm prepared to take it with the 14-30 on my trip tomorrow and try it in real world testing. I hope this might be helpful to someone else. I'll probably post some pics on the weekly picture thread when I get back.

My impression when I compared both was that the 24-200 is good up to about 135mm (a place the 24-120 doesn't even go) and that in that range, either one is fine, although the 24-120 has the advantage of the fixed aperture which is nice in low-light, but the 24-200 has the VR....

It's when you get above 135mm that things tend to soften up on the 24-200. So really I feel it's more do you value the constant aperture and sharpness from about 28-120mm versus a longer zoom range and VR but at the cost of variable aperture.

I've honestly thought about picking up a 24-200 again (still keeping my 24-120) so I have both options available, but given the price of the 24-200 even on sale, I'm not sure if it's the best value or not. But I do have some times when I feel that 120mm isn't long enough and have also considered a 70-300 but that means carrying around two lenses versus just one (the 24-200).

--
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.