Nikon Z 24-200 and Z 24-70S- Part I: 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...

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

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.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Still waiting on my 24-200 for the Z6. So I bought the Z50 kit to keep me busy meanwhile.

The 24-70S is an excellent lens...and I can use it directly on the Z50. But it doesn’t have VR and the Z50 doesn’t have IBIS so unlikely I’ll use it there except maybe tripod mounted portraits...which I never do...but who knows?

The 24-50 in the Z50 kit is much lighter and has VR. I could use it on Z6 but it would lock me into DX image area.

Unlikely I’ll dump the 24-70 when the 24-200 comes.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

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.

You are trying to compare a 2.8 vs. a 6.3 lens. Also you trying to compare a 3X zoom to a 8x zoom. Really, there are not comparable. Just these two factors alone tell me which one I would mount on my Z camera, if I owned a Z camera.

Eric Bornstein Loc: Toronto Canada

The 24-200 has the focal lengths of the 24-$70 but it is an entirely different lens. The 24-70that own is the f/4 throughout its focal lengths.Its a terrific lens. The 24-200 is a slower lens. I believe at maximum extension it is f/6 .3

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Sorry..24-70 f/4

Leinik Loc: Rochester NY

billnikon wrote:

You are trying to compare a 2.8 vs. a 6.3 lens. Also you trying to compare a 3X zoom to a 8x zoom. Really, there are not comparable. Just these two factors alone tell me which one I would mount on my Z camera, if I owned a Z camera.

Hmmm, everything is comparable as long as they have differences ;o) otherwise what is the point. There are also two flawed arguments here 1-first you assume that the 24-70 mm evoked is the f. 2.8 version... it could be the f. 4 (whose cost is closer to the 24-200 mm); 2-presenting the 24-200 mm as a f. 6.3 max aperture lens is not exactly fair as the lens starts at f. 4 at 24 mm thence totally comparable (as sharing some common ground and differences) with the f. 4 24-70 mm. ;o) ... having used a Nikon Z and both lenses may also help the relevance of any comment. ;o)

Leinik Loc: Rochester NY

Obviously no-one so far has used both lenses, so let us wait. Personally having used a Z7 and 24-70 mm f4 for over two years I do not see the use of the 24-200 mm (max aperture at 200 mm is too high), it is more cumbersome and I rarely use anything beyond 70 mm; most of my images are in the 28-50 mm range, the majority being at 35 mm. I understand anyone travelling and wanting an all-around lens would be interested by the idea of a 24-200 however I do travel and still stick to my 24-70 mm for its compactness, its affordability, its optical qualities and versatility (meaning I am more likely to bring it everywhere with me because of its compactness).

ksue Loc: Ohio

Took my new Z24-200 to the zoo and it performed very well and was marvelously lite with a Z50. It is obviously not the quality sharpness or build of the S versions of the Z24-70 (f4 or f2.8 - my husband has one and I have the other), but will make a nice travel lens when I don’t want to mess with weight and changing. I, personally, would not get rid of either 24-70 for this lens. The Z24-200 has it’s uses, but not the abilities of the others.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

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 can only reply from experience, not a stat sheet. It depends a bit on your type of photography. I just returned from a week in the Black Hills. I packed a 14-30 f4, a 24-70 f4 S and the new 24-200 along with my Z6 and Z7.
I shot in all types of light, down to sunset...landscapes, people and animals. The 24-200 was my primary lens. The 24-70 never got mounted. And I don't feel I missed a shot (look for my posts with pics later today). When needed, I just floated the ISO a little on the Z6. I'm now covered 14-200, and may trade the 24-70 for an 85 1.8 to use for portraits.
I doubted I would like the 24-200 so well, but it is a terrific walk around lens. It is possible I will keep the 24-70, because I'm a lens hoarder, but I'm now looking forward to the Z mount 100-400!

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

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 am waiting on my 24-200 S series lens. I will be using it as a general walkabout lens on my Z7 when lightweight kit is necessary. I will always have a second lens 24-70 f/2.8 on the second Z7 for those occasions when I need a larger aperture to control DOF. I expect that this lens will replace the F-mount 24-120 f/4 in my kit.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Op asked for those with experience with both lenses. So far only 2 replies have complied with that request.

harry-j

Bob Hartung, the Z 24-200 isn't a S Series lens...I'm hoping it was a typo on your part. The constant f/4 aperture over the full focal range along with edge sharpness are advantages, especially in low light. I have the 24-200 on order, be it will continue to use the 24-70S for night image capture.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

mikeroetex wrote:

I can only reply from experience, not a stat sheet... (show quote)

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?

harry-j

Sure!
I'm currently using my 70-200 f/2.8 vrII with the FTZ adapter, but would rather reserve that lens for its dedicated body and reduce the weight on my Z6. I'm also not big on changing glass in the field.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Leinik wrote:

Obviously no-one so far has used both lenses, so l... (show quote)

The 24-200 is just as compact when retracted, at 24mm and thru about 70mm, not much different than my 24-70. it was nice to have that extra 70-200 when needed. I am also looking forward to the 24-105 and 100-400 lenses, which fall perfectly in most of my shooting ranges!