Nikon Z 24-200 and Z 24-70S- Part I (Page 2): I'll be happy to. I will say, my biggest problem was holding steady at 200mm, because the rig is very light. However, I use my tripod...

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

jbk224 wrote:

Mike,
Thanks for your great field review. While still waiting to hear more hands on comparisons; the tech reviews have said that the 24-200 realistically (important observation) matches up to the 24-70 f/4, without any loss of quality. This is why your observations are so important. As you use this lens more, can you please share your conclusions?

I'll be happy to. I will say, my biggest problem was holding steady at 200mm, because the rig is very light. However, I use my tripod frequently. You may finds the youtube video of Ricci Talks helpful, as he makes direct comparisons of photos at various focal lengths and helped convince me to buy the 24-200.
I've got some noise to clean up, but here is a quick and dirty jpg of a prairie dog, handheld from 50 yds away at 170mm at 6:53pm. And cropped very heavy.

(Download)

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

mikeroetex wrote:

I'll be happy to. I will say, my biggest problem was holding steady at 200mm, because the rig is very light. However, I use my tripod frequently. You may finds the youtube video of Ricci Talks helpful, as he makes direct comparisons of photos at various focal lengths and helped convince me to buy the 24-200.
I've got some noise to clean up, but here is a quick and dirty jpg of a prairie dog, handheld from 50 yds away at 170mm at 6:53pm. And cropped very heavy.

Thanks again. Wondering (will be Part II) how this picture would compare using the 70-200 f/4 (you have this I see).

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

jbk224 wrote:

Thanks again. Wondering (will be Part II) how this picture would compare using the 70-200 f/4 (you have this I see).

Unfortunately, I saved weight and left the 70-200 home. i was all in on the new lens! I will say, definitely wished I had my 300mm prime, my favorite wildlife lens, but it is stuck in Nikon service for last 3 weeks. That's why the 100-400 Z lens will be a must have for me!

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I find that the new z line is a bit confusing S vs no S etc what does it mean? I found a good article explaining the Z line and the nomenclature and some comparison tests as well.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/photographylife.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-nikon-z-lenses/amp

rangel28

jbk224 wrote:

Now that some of you have the new Z24-700, and only if you also have the Z24-70S; I would like your opinion if the 24-200 is a replacement for the 24-70. I have seen and read just about all the technical comparisons. I am interested only in your practical day to day use.
Thank you all in advance.

I have both lenses and don't look at the 24mm-200mm as a replacement. I like the f4 aperture throughout the range and also the low light performance of the 24mm-70mm. I also use that lens on the Z50 (lack of VR doesn't bother me; I generally try to use higher shutter speeds and if I am using a slow shutter speed I find a way to keep the camera steady) since there are only two DX lenses for the Z50.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

rangel28 wrote:

I have both lenses and don't look at the 24mm-200mm as a replacement. I like the f4 aperture throughout the range and also the low light performance of the 24mm-70mm. I also use that lens on the Z50 (lack of VR doesn't bother me; I generally try to use higher shutter speeds and if I am using a slow shutter speed I find a way to keep the camera steady) since there are only two DX lenses for the Z50.

Thanks for your feedback.

waite-s Loc: Greendale, WI

Received my Z24-200 several weeks ago and have been I impressed with its performance. I currently have a Z6 and was usint the Z24-70. There isn't a great difference between the two lenses as far as weight and size. I shoot mostly landscapes, and tend to use the extra reach as a cropping tool.
The Z24-200 is now my go to lens and i havent used the Z24-70 since.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

waite-s wrote:

Received my Z24-200 several weeks ago and have been I impressed with its performance. I currently have a Z6 and was usint the Z24-70. There isn't a great difference between the two lenses as far as weight and size. I shoot mostly landscapes, and tend to use the extra reach as a cropping tool.
The Z24-200 is now my go to lens and i havent used the Z24-70 since.

Thanks for your comments. I've heard the same from a few others as well.

baron_silverton Loc: Los Angeles, CA

jbk224 wrote:

Now that some of you have the new Z24-700, and only if you also have the Z24-70S; I would like your opinion if the 24-200 is a replacement for the 24-70. I have seen and read just about all the technical comparisons. I am interested only in your practical day to day use.
Thank you all in advance.

If low light and bokeh does not matter to you then the 24-200 is a replacement for a walking around lens (meaning sharpness is not of the utmost concern) although the 24-200 is sharp enough - if on the other hand either of those two things do matter then you cannot replace the constant f/4.

Hope this helps.
-B

sscnxy

Leinik wrote:

Hmmm, everything is comparable as long as they hav... (show quote)

I think what the prior UHH'er meant when he used the term "not comparable" is that these 2 lenses would not be of the same caliber for the 2 specific reasons that he brought up. While his use of 2.8 instead of 4 was just an error in awareness of the max lens aperture of the particular lens, his point that the faster zoom at constant aperture, whether 2.8 or 4, was superior to the variable aperture longer zoom which maxed out at f6.3. That is generally true.
His second point that a lens with 3X zoom range is superior to a 10X zoom range is also unmistakeable with regard to image quality. The only advantage of the longer lens, whose aperture would shift to f6.3 at the long end, was the of convenience of this wide range within one lens. This advantage is may be vital to a traveler and the like, but I think his point was that image quality would be sacrificed, and so from the standpoint of a discerning shooter, these two lenses would not be "comparable." So I agree with billnikon.

NMY

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

baron_silverton wrote:

If low light and bokeh does not matter to you then the 24-200 is a replacement for a walking around lens (meaning sharpness is not of the utmost concern) although the 24-200 is sharp enough - if on the other hand either of those two things do matter then you cannot replace the constant f/4.

Hope this helps.
-B

B..do you have this lens?
Thanks.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Thanks to all who have responded so far. Those who have both lenses...please provide your feedback.
While those referring to technical specs are correct-- it appears that the Z technology is a game changer. What holds true with DSLR lens evaluation is not set in stone when evaluating Z lenses. The protocols may be the same, but the results are different. Ricci may be the most thorough, but there are some others as well who have evaluated the performance of the lens (lenses). If you watch Ricci's video you will see that the 24-200 measures up to the 24-70 f/4 in such a way that most of us would not see any measurable differences in quality. Minor nuances, not usually noticeable. And the Z camera can easily handle the 'stop' differences. If I were to just listen to Ricci and others, I would sell the 24-70 f/4. But those who have the Z system with both lenses, and can compare them based on their style; are really the ones from whom I am hoping to hear.

rangel28

jbk224 wrote:

Thanks to all who have responded so far. Those who... (show quote)

They are indeed two different lenses. The 24mm-70mm f4 is a "S" lens so there are differences in the build and feel of the lenses. That being said, it's not easy to see the differences in images when comparing one lens to another. You might find this video, from a landscape photographer, interesting. The only major thing he noticed is lens flare from the 24mm-200mm when shooting directly into the sun (such as for a sunrise or sunset). He added that he is still keeping his 24mm-70mm f4 lens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXOTpJf_tXU

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Yes, Julian Baird's review was one of the most objective real use comparisons. The lens flare was his only concern--and not yet an issue for me. I fully expect that most reviewers like Julian would keep their lenses.
Thanks.

Eric Bornstein Loc: Toronto Canada

Mikeroetex - I agree with your post until you seemed to be saying that you would acquire the anticipated Z lenses of 24-105 and 100-400. If the lenses are sharp throughout their focal lengths, why would you need the 24-105? I use the 24-70 as my walk around lens. Since it does not extend past 70mm, I have to use my feet to get closer to the subject. The lens is so sharp. Cropping needs to be done in certain situations but since ai shoot raw, I’m able to keep the sharpness generally.