NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR: Has anyone used this lens? I'm 80 years old and my newest camera is the Nikon z50...trying to keep everything lightweight. I have both kit lenses which...

Texas1833 Loc: Houston, Texas

Has anyone used this lens? I'm 80 years old and my newest camera is the Nikon z50...trying to keep everything lightweight. I have both kit lenses which comes with this camera, but I really prefer an all-in-one lens. I take photos of family and travel. This looks like a good buy on Nikon's refurbished sale. It was $899.95 and is now $599.95.... but I don't know anything about it. I would appreciate any advice.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Texas1833 wrote:

Has anyone used this lens? I'm 80 years old and my newest camera is the Nikon z50...trying to keep everything lightweight. I have both kit lenses which comes with this camera, but I really prefer an all-in-one lens. I take photos of family and travel. This looks like a good buy on Nikon's refurbished sale. It was $899.95 and is now $599.95.... but I don't know anything about it. I would appreciate any advice.

Great question. I also look forward to the replies. Cheers to your youth! I hope to be above ground at 80. Never give up!

Best to ya'll.

Jim

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Hopefully, community members will mirror Rockwell's glowing review:

The Z 24-200mm VR is small, light and inexpensive, and makes AWESOME photos. It's not the old days of the 1990s when we needed big f/2.8 zooms to get great shots; today, my 24-200mm is all I need for just about anything in any light. Just look at these images; my Z 24-200mm does it all!

Entire review, with several of his 'great shots': https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I am just reading through this article by Ken Rockwell.

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon//z/24-200mm.htm

RightOnPhotography Loc: Quebec,QC

This is an excellent lens but it is a full-frame lens and it will become a 36-300mm on DX body such as Z50. If this suits your need, then don't hesitate to buy it.

rangel28

Yes, it's a very good lens, especially for one with such a wide telephoto range. The build is not as good as a Nikon Z "S" lens, which is the Z mount's premium line, and it doesn't have all of the coatings and weatherproofing of a S lens. That being said, it's a great walk around lens and is pretty sharp throughout the range.

The biggest complaint I have heard from others is that it jumps from f4 to f6.3 pretty quickly (I think around 70mm) but Z mount cameras handle higher ISO really well, so for me this is not an issue. You will get outstanding results with a Z50. Note also that this is a full frame (FX) lens, so the field of view will be similar to 36mm-300mm.
If 36mm is not wide enough, the Z 18mm-140mm is also a very good lens (and a crop sensor (DX) lens). I have both of the kit lenses for the Z50 and I wasn't planning to buy this lens, but Amazon had it on sale a few months back (for about 30 percent off the regular price) so I bought one. I like it quite a bit and to me it's a big improvement over the F mount 18mm-140mm lens.

PaulW128 Loc: Long Island, NY

Texas1833 wrote:

Has anyone used this lens? I'm 80 years old and my newest camera is the Nikon z50...trying to keep everything lightweight. I have both kit lenses which comes with this camera, but I really prefer an all-in-one lens. I take photos of family and travel. This looks like a good buy on Nikon's refurbished sale. It was $899.95 and is now $599.95.... but I don't know anything about it. I would appreciate any advice.

I don't own this lens but here's a link to Thom Hogan's review;

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nikon-z-mount-lens-reviews/nikon-24-200mm-f4-63-lens.html

I do have the Z50 and both kit lenses. Great little camera. I realize that I'm in the minority here but I stopped visiting Ken Rockwell's website a long time ago!

Good luck with your decision

Paul

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

CHG_CANON wrote:

Hopefully, community members will mirror Rockwell's glowing review:

The Z 24-200mm VR is small, light and inexpensive, and makes AWESOME photos. It's not the old days of the 1990s when we needed big f/2.8 zooms to get great shots; today, my 24-200mm is all I need for just about anything in any light. Just look at these images; my Z 24-200mm does it all!

Entire review, with several of his 'great shots': https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm

It appears to be very highly rated and is a must have for those looking for an all in one amazing package with the Z50.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Architect1776 wrote:

It appears to be very highly rated and is a must have for those looking for an all in one amazing package with the Z50.

I agree with the assessments. But, our OP should note the comment about this being a full-frame lens, and the 'less than wide' effective 36mm minimum focal length when mounted to a cropped-sensor mirrorless body.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I use zooms starting at 24mm extensively on DX camera bodies and find it to rately be a problem. On the rare occasion that it is not wide enough, it is trivially simple to rotate the camera to portrait orientation and fire off a quick three shot panorama. The big payback is at the other end...200mm is quite a long telephoto on a crop sensor camera.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

PaulW128 wrote:

I don't own this lens but here's a link to Thom Hogan's review;

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nikon-z-mount-lens-reviews/nikon-24-200mm-f4-63-lens.html

I do have the Z50 and both kit lenses. Great little camera. I realize that I'm in the minority here but I stopped visiting Ken Rockwell's website a long time ago!

Good luck with your decision

Paul

Sorry to hear you stopped following Ken. He is a great guy. I have been following him for 20 years. In person he is a super gentleman. What you see is what you get.

Texas1833 Loc: Houston, Texas

Thank you all for your information. I did just read Ken Rockwell's article on the lens which was very comprehensive. He does seem to like the lens. However, I was already worried that the 24mm might not be wide enough and now I know that it is really 36mm on the Nikon Z50. However, the kit lens 16-50mm is so small that it is easy to carry around if needed. (I have a Nikon 18-300mm on my D7100 that I really like.) I'll have to think about Z 24-200. Thanks again. You gave me the information that I needed.

noall Loc: Riverside, CA USA

It’s a steal at $599. I have 6-7 Z lenses. Most are S lenses, but I use this lens frequently because it is so versatile.
You can’t go wrong with it, I agree with the other positive comments I’ve read here.

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

The Z 24-200 is a great all-around lens and would do well on a Z50. What I have been playing with on my Z50, however, is using an AF-S DX 18-300 with an FTZ adapter. Only slightly heavier than the Z 24-200, and a much broader range. This lens, like all “all-in-one” lenses, has compromises, but it really does do everything. Probably priced very reasonably used.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

CHG_CANON wrote:

I agree with the assessments. But, our OP should note the comment about this being a full-frame lens, and the 'less than wide' effective 36mm minimum focal length when mounted to a cropped-sensor mirrorless body.

True, I use a 24-105mm on a crop body as a GP lens and find it pretty good for most GP photos.
But as you say if WA shots are critical it fails there. But a generally small WA lens could be carried. I do this generally with a 10-18mm.