Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

I’m a Nikon shooter and had tried out several “super zooms” over the years for my various F mount bodies and never satisfied enough with the sharpness and resolution especially at the long ends to buy one. Instead, I made do with carrying my 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. Fast forward to today where I own a Z8 and the same two lenses in Z mounts. Both of those lenses are sensational in image quality - better even than my beloved F mount versions. But I’m 76 and leaving for a 2 week vacation abroad and simply cannot haul my fast Z lenses. I tried a Sony 6700 with some Zeiss glass which is significantly lighter and smaller on a 2 week trip to Spain, but I just wasn’t consistently thrilled with results.

So, based on my extraordinary fast Z glass, I took the plunge and picked up a Z 24-200/6.3 lens on sale for $700. Glad I did. The lens on my Z8 is a surprisingly good performer. It is manageable on a Black Rapid sling strap, both from size and weight point of view, and while the images at 200mm will not cause me to give up my 2.8 version, the all in one lens is surprisingly good both in IQ, color and contrast. Yes it’s f6.3 at much past 50mm, but the excellent Z8 sensor together with the available, magical noise control software, I can live with the slow speed.

As I said, I’m using this rig for vacation pics and I’m happy to have a credible option for lighter weight travel.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The best super zoom on the planet is 24-600mm on the RX10m4. If you are serious about lighter weight travel, the RX10 should be your next camera.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

Thought it might be useful to post several examples of the lens I referred to in my original post. I unexpectedly found myself in a butterfly exhibit cage on Sunday without my macro gear. The photo ops were great and I was bemoaning the fact that all I had was my Z8 and 24-200/6.3. Fortunately, the lighting and backgrounds were good enabling me to hand hold some shots at high shutter speeds at 200mm stopped down pretty far. Noise reduction and sharpening was applied of course.

I was surprised at the results in terms of color, contrast and sharpness. Very pleased with this lens for times when I need to go small and lightweight (well....relatively small and lightweight)

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

I am always amused by people on web sites stating absolutes. As a matter of fact, I disagree with you. I have used the RX10v4 extensively (my non - pro buddy has one) and the weight of the Sony is 2.41lbs. The weight of my z8 and 24-200 is 3.24 lbs. Sony is only marginally lighter in weight, the same physical size (actually bulkier) than than the Nikon and while it will take an outstanding image if the light is good and the subject is stationery, the Sony is a 1" sensor compared to FF, not especially forgiving in poor light, has the tortuous Sony menu system (as opposed to the Nikon menu system that is baked into my muscle memory) making switching most setting far more time consuming , is SD card only and is far less competent at tracking moving subjects. Other than that, I guess the Sony is the "best superzoom on the planet."

This was taken with the Sony. Fabulous image - sharp as hell, great color and contrast. But shot in perfect light when cat was frozen in place. I'll take the Nikon rig for the more frequently common conditions I meet in the real worls. If that cat were running across the plain, nailing it with the Sony would have been pure luck, not skill on my part.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

You made a good choice with the 24-200mm lens i have it and use it a lot on my Z 6II. In case you haven’t seen it, here is a link to Ken Rockwell’s review of the 24-200mm lens. He is very complimentary of it. https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm Enjoy!

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Do you have an independent review that states that lens is the best super zoom lens on the planet? Or is your comment fan boy hyperbole?

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

I used to have a similar setup with 2 lenses, covering 18-200. Great for about 80% of the time. Unfortunately I find that there are times the 18mm can't get the framing I want and frustrating moments where the 200mm is lacking in zoom range. I ended up getting an 8mm fisheye, a wide that goes down to 11mm and another lens that can reach 600mm. Now everything is not a mobile as before LOL. The bazooka (as my wife calls the 600mm) means I now always need a car to lug stuffs around

I found the Tamron 18-270 superzoom a great alternative. It was was not a sharp but it did well most of the time.
With the 11mm, I'm back to 2 lenses hike again.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

I think you missed the point of my post. My goal was to reduce the weight I’m carrying on vacation, not equip myself for every focal length eventuality. I went that route for the past 55 years, but will not going forward when shooting for my own enjoyment . And the lenses you mention will do me no good on my FF Z8 and D850.

As for needing wider than 24 or longer than 200 - sure there might be a few times when I’d prefer my 14-24/2.8 or my long “bazooka” fast glass, but once again, on vacation shooting for personal reasons, I’m not carrying my full kit. My guess is that during my 2 week holiday in France, other than if I happen to spot Yeti swimming a couple of hundred yards away down the Sienne with the Loch Ness monster under his arm, I’ll wager that I’ll never feel cheated at being restricted to only 200mm.

Apples and oranges I’m afraid.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

It seems you did not read my post to the end, where I stated why I have the Tamron 18-270.
I was telling how I went full circle from a 2 lens 18-200 range, to a 5 lens 8-600mm
and back to a 2 lens 11-270mm, with a Tamron 18-270 & 11-20mm.

By the way, I sometimes carry 2 bodies, an APS-C and A full frame. So I get the full focal range ready to shoot without being to heavy. On the APS-C, the 270mm becomes a 400mm. 11-400mm is not too shabby as an alternative.


The Tamron 18-270 is not tack sharp but good enough.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

Appreciate the link to KR review. I confess the I’m not usually a fan of his reviews and often disagree with many of his conclusions/recommendations, but as I read his review of this lens, I found myself nodding in agreement often. Especially by his rave about the len’s macro capabilities. The sample butterfly shots I posted were all “macro” shots.

He’s more gushingly positive about the lens than I am. His numerous and impressive sample photos do indeed show of the capability of the lens when shooting stationery objects, but as I mentioned, I won’t be using that lens for sports or critter gigs. He alludes to not needing 2.8 glass which strikes me as hyperbole. While I do find the lens to be a very capable option when I can’t carry my 2.8 gear, for me, the 24-200 is never going to my first choice for gigs that count. It was satisfying to read that another respected photographer found the lens to be a keeper.

And the sale price of $700 (200 off of 900) made it downright inexpensive compared to the other glass on my shelves.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Rick from NY said: "I’m 76 and leaving for a 2 week vacation abroad and simply cannot haul my fast Z lenses." "I’m a Nikon shooter and had tried out several “super zooms” over the years "

Nikon shooter... well your index finger will actually work on other brands!! Amazingly!!!
"several “super zooms” over the years" Guess what... they have improved... While I have a Panasonic, Canon, Sony, and the rest also have fantastic 1" sensor Superzoom pocket cameras.

A major item in today's world is the effectiveness of AI post-processing... noise and sharpness and resolution; a 1" 20 mp sensor, 10x zoom, macro, and in-camera 3 ring circus of both burst and video abilities is for an excessively mature [76 y old] person on vacation is quite adequate [understatement]. Also as backup, a modern high-resolution cellphone is great. Both do not use swap lenses and fit in one's pocket.

Compact Superzoom pocket cameras spell freedom and capture when on auto the fleeting moment of photo opportunity.

I have a Panasonic TZ100 equipped to take add-on lenses and filters. [attachment for 52mm about $25] I am using it as a go-to camera, and my heavy Sony A65 and those 5 lenses stay at home collecting dust.

Most of the recommendations in this post will by the end of carrying the camera and lenses around for two weeks will feel like they weigh over a ton!!

Enjoy your vacation, and do not be burdened by heavy cameras... Caution: big equipment paints a target on your back for those wanting to steal your equipment that costs as much as they make in a year working.

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

Sorry Charlie, the RX10 is not the only camera in town, the Sony HX-99 has a very sharp and larger super zoom than the RX10, at 24-750mm. Zeiss all the way, weighs less than the RX10, can travel in a belt pouch, shoots RAW, and can produce excellent 20X30 prints. Has a pop up viewfinder, shoots auto fill flash and 4 way panoramic. Rear screen folds down for LOW LEVE shooting. And costs a lot less.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

Terrific photos!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I guess for YOU it is hyperbole - for everyone else it is my educated/experienced OPINION - and, not only is it the best superzoom, it is also the best zoom period. In fact, it is the sharpest lens I have used other than the Canon 300 2.8 - sharper than all my other primes ! ......read Ken Rockwell's review .....yes, I know, most Nikon people hate Ken Rockwell
.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I am sure it is quite good - if you post images with "download" I might be more impressed - just sayin' ....