Nikon Z 24-200 vs. 24-70 (Page 2): Where did you buy your 24 -200? Thx...

crbuckjr Loc: Naples FL

Where did you buy your 24 -200? Thx

Bill_de Loc: US

billnikon wrote:

The decision to sell or keep is really up to you. BUT, this is what they are selling for currently on ebay, you can compare these selling prices to what B&H was going to give you. You must also subtract 10% ebay charge and 3% paypal charge. I bet you would make a lot more selling it yourself.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=nikon+z+24-70+f2.8&_sacat=0&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1

I think you linked to a more expensive lens than the 24-70 that initially was bundled with the Z6.

---

crbuckjr Loc: Naples FL

Ok. Thx. Should have replied to a participant talking about his 24-200

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

I too have evaluated buying the 24-200 and then selling off my 24-70, 28-300, and possibly my 70-200 f/4. It turns out that my 28-300, if handled properly, is spot on and more than adequate at 150-300mm. And, I enjoy using the 24-70 as my 'portrait' lens-- with the f/4 meaningful.
So, I stopped going crazy and figured when I plan my next big trip (who knows when?); I'll fixate again and maybe the supply and pricing will be better.

jeffhacker Loc: Dallas, Texas

sippyjug104 wrote:

The 24-70 f/4 is capable of f/4 throughout its focal range. The 24-200 is f/4-f/6.3 through its focal range so it's possible that the 24-70 would be better in low light at its 70mm range than the 24-200 at its 70mm length.

I believe that an aperture of f/6.3 is more of a daylight use lens.

I actually have both. I was interested in the f/2.8 24-200 but at over $2,000 it wasn't cost effective, and I ended up buying the 24-200 variable aperture lens. But I'm finding that I rarely use the 24-200 so far (and I agree that for daylight (outside) shooting that the longer lens would be fine. Considering what kind of trade in you can get for the f/4 24-70, I think you could go either way. Size is pretty close to the same, as is weight. Picture qualify is also decent on both lenses. I'd suggest that you "play" with both lenses and compare your results, which might answer your question.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

IDguy wrote:

The 24-70 came with my Z6. I bought the 24-200 for... (show quote)

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.

Bill_de Loc: US

jeffhacker wrote:

I actually have both. I was interested in the f/2... (show quote)

Where did you find a 24-200 F/2.8? I tried Google and came up dry.

--

IDguy Loc: Idaho

crbuckjr wrote:

Where did you buy your 24 -200? Thx

Adorama. Ordered it in September and it came late October.

Nikon seems to have production issues. Spare battery for Z50 on backorder six weeks so far.

On a positive note 14-30 arriving tomorrow.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Bill_de wrote:

Where did you find a 24-200 F/2.8? I tried Google and came up dry.

--

Mine is not the 2.8. 4-6.3.

I don’t need f2.8 and don’t want the weight.

Vince68 Loc: Wappingers Falls, NY

IDguy wrote:

Link share didn’t work anyway. If interested in the details you can search it on youtube.

Not sure if this is the video you referred to, but this one seems to be a thorough comparison, and his conclusion is that the 24-200mm is a pretty decent lens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7AkjAP1IMM

IDguy Loc: Idaho

jbk224 wrote:

I too have evaluated buying the 24-200 and then selling off my 24-70, 28-300, and possibly my 70-200 f/4. It turns out that my 28-300, if handled properly, is spot on and more than adequate at 150-300mm. And, I enjoy using the 24-70 as my 'portrait' lens-- with the f/4 meaningful.
So, I stopped going crazy and figured when I plan my next big trip (who knows when?); I'll fixate again and maybe the supply and pricing will be better.

My next big trip is scheduled for June, thus my actions now. Only taking the Z6 on it. The 24-200 will be fine for 80% of images I’ll be taking. But for museums (St. Petersburg Russia) and some landscapes Z 14-30 arriving tomorrow. Keep things as light and simple as possible on trips like that so only those lenses.

My 28-300 went down the road last year after I got FX 70-300. It has significantly better image quality.

16-35 shipped off to Adorama last week. Probably sending 24-70 off to them today.

Still contemplating my two AFS F mount 70-300s. The DX Z mount 50-250 that came with Z50 is pretty good but not quite there on image quality. Plus the DX 70-300 is gray market so low resale. The FX one adds pretty good reach over the 24-200 and has very good image quality. But for wildlife I lug out the 200-500. The FX 70-300 is heavy and requires fussing with FTZ. So don’t know if I’ll ever use it again. Decisions, decisions. 🤔

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Vince68 wrote:

Not sure if this is the video you referred to, but this one seems to be a thorough comparison, and his conclusion is that the 24-200mm is a pretty decent lens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7AkjAP1IMM

Yes, that is it. I wasn’t able to copy link. Thanks for posting.

He doesn’t address utility of having f4 min aperture over the full range for 24-70, which some have mentioned. It does not concern me much because of the awesome high ISO performance of the Z6. I suppose if you did portraits the f4 at 70mm would be a better choice. But I don’t do portraits.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

IDguy wrote:

The 24-70 came with my Z6. I bought the 24-200 for... (show quote)

Actually, Nigel Danson just did a comparison yesterday on YouTube of shooting with the 24-200 vs. the 24-70 out in the field. He’s an excellent landscape photographer. You may want to check out his video.

Vince68 Loc: Wappingers Falls, NY

IDguy wrote:

Yes, that is it. I wasn’t able to copy link. Thanks for posting.

He doesn’t address utility of having f4 min aperture over the full range for 24-70, which some have mentioned. It does not concern me much because of the awesome high ISO performance of the Z6. I suppose if you did portraits the f4 at 70mm would be a better choice. But I don’t do portraits.

At the 23 minute mark he is out in the field and talking about the two lenses, and at about 24 minutes, 30 seconds into the video he mentions the fact that it doesn't have a constant aperture, and if you are shooting in low light situations, it might not be as desirable a choice, but he does not go into great detail about it.

He does say though he would have no problem taking the 24-70mm out of his bag and replacing it with the 24-200mm, as he seemed to be impressed with the quality of images using it.

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

IDguy wrote:

The 24-70 came with my Z6. I bought the 24-200 for... (show quote)

If focal range is your priority, go for the big gun. If you care about aperture, well, the little guy is your choice. Maybe keep both if you intend to shoot in lower light or make a video movie? The constant aperture is very good for movie-making and zooming in lower light.

Cheers!