Nikon Z 24-200 vs. 24-70
Feb 8, 2021 12:31:57 #
IDguy
Loc: Idaho
tcthome wrote:
I am guessing it is the f4 lens. Try getting a quote from MBP. They offered me over twice what B&H or Nikon offered me for my D810. You could also try selling it privately. Check & see what it is selling for & then go cheaper if you want to move it.
Thanks for recommendation. Sending to them today. They offered $350 vs Adorama estimate of $320.
Had on offer a couple days here. No interest. I don’t like to sell on ebay due to fees. I only use craigslist where they come to my house with cash. Not likely to get local bites on lens.
Feb 8, 2021 13:22:32 #
jbk224
Loc: Long Island, NY
All sounds right. Before I had the Z6, I took the 28-300 and 16-35 with me when traveling. Now, I will take the 14-30 (great lens) with whichever I fix on at that time.
Feb 8, 2021 14:43:22 #
IDguy
Loc: Idaho
BobHartung wrote:
One reason to keep the 24-70 is the larger aperture which will allow you to blur backgrounds in camera and not rely on the less appealing photoshop blur.
OBTW forgot to add one of my other keeper F mounts is the 105 f1.4. So if I ever want to blur backgrounds, including portraits, that will be the weapon of choice. With FTZ of course.
Feb 8, 2021 14:59:38 #
I own the 14-30 and th 24-200 lenses and are serving me well. If I had owned the 24-70 when the 24-200 arrived I would have sold the 24-70 lens. I don't think I would carry around two lenses , only to use one because the there is an f stop difference. That faster and shorter lens would permanently sit in my spare bag, never to be taken out; especially when the optic qualities of the images are the same for both. Why bother!
Feb 8, 2021 15:03:58 #
Bill_de wrote:
Where did you find a 24-200 F/2.8? I tried Google and came up dry.
--
--
No such lens as 24-200 f2.8. I think he was referring to the 70-200 f2.8 which is over $2,500
Feb 8, 2021 15:12:49 #
jbk224 wrote:
All sounds right. Before I had the Z6, I took the 28-300 and 16-35 with me when traveling. Now, I will take the 14-30 (great lens) with whichever I fix on at that time.
I had the 28-300 for many years and used it on the Z7 with the adaptor; it was a great combination and produced excellent results. But I found the 24-200 more compact and sold the 28-300 to shed some weight and gain some cash; no regrets. I also find that the wider angle of 24 mm to be more useful and also better overlaps my 14-30 lens; it was a win win situation for me. Now I hardly take the 24-200 off the body.
Just sharing my experiences with these lenses.
Feb 8, 2021 22:54:19 #
Bill_de wrote:
Where did you find a 24-200 F/2.8? I tried Google and came up dry.
--
--
That is because there is no 24-200mm ƒ/2.8 lens.
Feb 8, 2021 22:55:13 #
IDguy wrote:
The 24-70 came with my Z6. I bought the 24-200 for... (show quote)
I have both the 24mm-70mm and the 24mm-200mm and did a lot of research before buying the 24mm-200mm. The only difference reviewers found occurred when shooting straight into the sun (such as sunrises or sunsets). The 24mm-200mm showed sun flares/sunspots, and the 24mm-70mm did not, probably because the 24mm-70mm is an "S" lens and has more lens coatings. Aside from that, reviewers found very little if any difference in photo quality.
Feb 9, 2021 13:35:09 #
IDguy
Loc: Idaho
IDguy wrote:
OBTW forgot to add one of my other keeper F mounts is the 105 f1.4. So if I ever want to blur backgrounds, including portraits, that will be the weapon of choice. With FTZ of course.
Actually the 105 is f2.8. I bought it for my wife long ago because she expressed an interest in doing macro. She hardly used it and so far I haven’t either. She passed away three years ago. It is AFS so will work with Z6 and FTZ adapter. I can’t bring myself to part with it.
Feb 9, 2021 13:36:09 #
Feb 9, 2021 20:44:01 #
IDguy wrote:
PS: My 14-30 just arrived!
Enjoy that 14-30 lens. It is a great lens. I think for the size, it is one of Nikon’s best.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.