NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR (Page 3): Important to note that FX or DX the focal length is the same just the image circle on the FX lens is larger enough to cover the FX sensor...

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

RightOnPhotography wrote:

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.

Important to note that FX or DX the focal length is the same just the image circle on the FX lens is larger enough to cover the FX sensor, whereas the DX equivalent, if it existed, would just output a circle large enough to cover the DX Z50 sensor only. What makes it it a "36-300" is the crop of the DX sensor, in terms of view angle only. DX lenses tend to be a bit smaller and lighter than FX versions of the same FL coverage. Just wanted to avoid confusing new folks. When I had the DX 7200 I used to always get FX lenses thinking I would "upgrade" to an FX body...well I wound up selling the F mount stuff and going to Z or another system. I am looking at the Z6ii with the 24-200 combo for a starter kit, as one of my choices.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

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.

When going out to shoot with a z6ii and z7ii this lens is always on one body and the 24-120 on the other. One only comes off if I need a really wide shot and I will exchange one of those for the 14-30. If you get that lens and later add the 14-30 you will have a great range of 21-300 on the crop mount sensor. Unless you get into serious bird or wildlife photography, you will find that range is about all you will ever need. I think you are wise adding FF lenses to your z50 because if you ever want to move up to FF, your lenses are in place for you to make the transition.

Manny Myers

I use this lens with the Z6ii body and amongst our local Nikon Group, it is our go-to, basic travel lens and has not disappointed any of us. I just used it as a primary lens for everything urban, in Southern Africa with lots of success, from wide open to nearly all the way out. Great price and wonderful basic lens.

Tom Shelburne Loc: Roaring Gap NC

Have used extensively - worked well in Africa 9/22- light weight - great range - no complaints!

Charles Loy Loc: Wichita Kansas USA

I own this lens and use it on a Z9. It's a super lens, very fast focus, super sharpness, solid contrast. Winner in my opinion. F4 to 6.3 is the only concern. I used this to photo the Sturgis Bike Rally last August. Satisfied. I will recommend it.
Saying this, I have not used it since, I now use this 24-120 f4 lens.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

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.

It’s a very nice lens. It’s the lens I use most on my Z7. That’s a good buy.

TonyBrown

The worst lens I own. Just not sharp. I much prefer using my 24-70 f2.8. Heavy lens, but super sharp.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

TonyBrown wrote:

The worst lens I own. Just not sharp. I much prefer using my 24-70 f2.8. Heavy lens, but super sharp.

Are you referring to the Z mount lenses or the F mount?

Vince68 Loc: Wappingers Falls, 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.

Here is a review by Spencer Cox from "Photography Life" website of the Nikon Z 24-200mmf/4=6.3 VR lens you might also find helpful in determining if that lens is what you are looking for.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-200mm-f4-6-3-vr

KenProspero

I use the 24-200 with my Z-5. Basically, it does the Job. I've considered (and still am considering) switching to the 24-120 for all the reasons others have mentioned -- maybe when I have some extra $.

Back to OP's question, though -- If I were shooting with a z-50 and had no plans to move up to a full-frame camera, I'd probably consider the Nikon Z 18-140 dx lens instead. Similar to the 24-200, it's an f3,5-6.3. It's a bit faster than the 24-200 (though not a fast lens by any means). Also, you can find used copies from the usual suspects of reputable dealers for a bit less $ than the 24-200.

Given the crop factor on the z-50, the 18-140 would have a FOV that is reasonably close to the 24-200 on a full-frame camera. So, the trade off, is do you want a wide angle lens at the cost of some extra zoom. I'd want the wide angle if it were my main walk-around lens.

ELNikkor

Right

Gourmand Loc: Dallas

I have the 24-200 and also switched to the 24-120. Liked the first, love the second. Private message me with a reasonable offer for the 24-200 (which is in fine condition, along with the original box and packaging) and its yours.

TonyBrown

F mount. Forgive me if I got the wrong idea. I am definitely going to get the 24-120 Z mount. It’s the F mount that I am not happy with.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

PaulW128 wrote:

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

I wonder if it was as long ago as I did...

neillaubenthal

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.

Good but not excellent lens…and better than the old DX 18-300 was. I have one and for walking around, street photo, or traveling where photography is not the prime reason for the trip it’s a very handy all in one lens. It will be a 36-300 equivalent on your Z50…which will cover you for everything that doesn’t need a wide angle. If you’re taking it as your one lens all in one kit…stick the 16-50 kit lens in your pocket as well…it’s small and light and 36 is really not very wide. The 24-200 is also a full frame lens…hence you get the crop factor change for equivalent focal length.