I took the 24-200 on vacation, and for the first time I left the 24-120 f4 and 70-200 f2.8 at home. The quality of the shots and the weight of the lens, have made the 24-200 now the best option for traveling.
I bought the 24-200 as the kit lens with my Z5. Shockingly good for a "kit lens". Reminds me of the f mount 24-120 f/4 I bought with my D800. These are my most used lenses on their respective cameras.
You know how much I deliberated about this lens. It’s been tough to take off! Some UA-camrs saying things about this lens that are just not right! So to see your images produced, says it all. But also the results I’ve seen already, some of my best photography already this year! I’ve noticed like you say 35mm up at f8 wow super sharp! So that rules out the variable aperture. The differences is marginal. Thanks for this Stuart, well put together
You know me mate I couldn’t be less excited about gear but yeah I’ve seen some pretty lazy commentary from people on this lens which is why I’ve done such a comprehensive review. Too many photographers spend way too much time worrying about microscopic increases in sharpness when it would be better spent improving skills and using kit that compliments the subjects they shoot. The hard truth is all of these mirrorless lenses now are so good that the only limitation photographers have is their ability and the space between their ears.
@@StuartMcGlennon Eye, nail on the head! Bloody so happy now with having this set up. 2 primes, kept my 24-70 f4 and I couldn't be happier with the 24-200. It's all about the imagination now and getting out as much as possible. Looking forward to some longer hikes as well.
Couldn’t agree more Stuart, it’s an absolutely smashing lens. Glad I took your advice last year and didn’t risk divorce by going for the 70-200. Best lens I’ve had for all the reasons you outlined
I used to use my 24-200mm with my Z6ii all the time for travel/landscape photography but when I tried it on my Z8 when I got that I was disappointed with the colour fringing in particular. I still use my Z6ii with the 24-200 but use my Z8 with the 24-120mm f4 as it has superior image quality overall. I use my 70-200mm (also have x2 teleconverter) f2.8 for the extra range.
I’m a beginner and just bought a Z6ii with this lens not knowing what I could really expect. Very good to know that I made a good decision. I don’t really know yet what kind of photography I will be interested in ultimately but I am interested in getting into landscape and it is good to know this lens is up to it. Thanks for your review!
Excellent comparison, thank you Stuart. IMHO the most useful YT vlog I've watched for ages. I got my Z6 back in August 2019 when the longest reach of any available Z series lens was 70mm. When the 70-200 f2.8 was released I scrimped and saved and bought one and have been delighted with it, the first pro quality lens I've owned. A year later I got the 24-200 and have been pleasantly surprised with just how sharp it can be, particularly away from the extreme ends of the focal lengths. One big minus point for me with the 24-200 is the lack of MF/AF switch on the lens, I really miss it compared to the S lenses (14-30 F4; 24-70 F4 and 70-200 F2.8). So basically for me it's the 70-200 for trips not involving too much distance from the car, and the 24-200 for long hikes. Next dilemma for me is do I go for the 100-400 or should I upgrade my much loved Z6 to a Z7ii.
Thanks Richard yes a good point about the lack of an AF/MF switch that can be a pain at times. If you don’t need the megapixels I’d get the 100-400 every time to be honest 👍
A refreshing review based on personal use and experience of the product in question. I personally appreciate your view of why spend more money than needed to achieve what it is that your are looking for in a lens, and this coming from an established professional landscape photographer, who earns his living from his work, provides even more value to the review in my opinion.
Appreciate the review. Just picked up this lenses up today for my Nikon Zf. Will be heading to Yosemite National Park in the next few weeks. Looking forward to give it a good workout.
Dear Stuart, Both you , (and my best friend) and Mr Nigel Danson recommended this lens on UA-cam ! I have saved all my pennies and looking forward to using it in a week or so on the Z7ii ! Thank you so so much for your knowledge and beautiful work !
So glad you did this Stuart, just proves you don’t need to remortgage for a 2.8 trinity as well as own every other piece of S line Z glass on the market…ahem. Anyway, I think the difference in contrast will just be the extra coatings on S glass. Nothing you can’t match in post. Another great video, cheers Stuart.
Thanks Karl yeah sharpness is one thing but a slight difference in contrast is a 2 second job in post and for me anyway certainly not worth paying 3 times cost for.
Excellent review, I got the z7 with the 24-200 and the 14-30 from the start and always thought they were both great, especially like the light weight and compact nature of the 24-200. Occasionally miss having a m/af button on the 24-200 but that is probably about my technique not the lens. 👍🙂
I own both the 24-200 and the 24-120 s lens. I seem to take both with me on trips. I have them with me now in the bad lands South Dakota. I can’t decide which to use, they are both good. I generally use the 24-120 but add the long range of the 24-200 when subjects are off in the distance, nice video.
I use the 24-200 for long hikes and in the mountains and it makes a great job. But for the rest i prefer my holy trinity ( 14-30, 24-120 and the 100-400) on the Z7, because i shot a lot on the shorter and longer end. Many greets from Germany.
Yep I’m similar i use my 14-30 for wide stuff and if I’m at ground level I’ve got my 100-400 with me, it’s the 24-120 I can’t really justify at the moment though as I said in the video I may have bought it if it was available in 2020
Interesting comparison. I first bought the Z 24-200mm f4-6.3 in about 2020 when I bought a Nikon Z6ii. Quite honestly, the lens has sat on my shelf the last couple of years, especially when I bought the Nikkor Z 24-120mm f4 S lens. My use case is primarily shooting movement, often in low light where I use the Nikkor Z 70-200mm f2.8 S lens because I'm shooting often movement indoors in really lousy florescent lighting and the f2.8 allows the high shutter speed I need. But watching your video has convinced me to take the 24-200mm back off the shelf. I do quite a bit of landscape when I'm not shooting thousands of frames of movement, and truthfully, I took some wonderful landscape and walk around photos 2 and 3 years ago with the 24-200mm.
Thanks John yep use case is key, for static subjects shot mostly around F8 pretty much any modern lens will get the job done (certainly in the Z range) and it’s splitting hairs over marginal IQ.
@@StuartMcGlennon that Holme Fen is the deal sealer for me, stunning photograph mate. I photograph a lot of woodland as I try to stay local now and this will really help, also £600 from MPB 🤯
@@richdoak9349 cheers mate it’s not taken at Holme Fen it’s from the Eden valley here in cumbria (looks similar though), I will visit Holme Fen at some point it looks lovely.
A good watch. My copy continues to amaze me. It stands up against my Zeiss 100mm f2 far better than it has any right to. Photographers lose much more quality by poor technique than by switching to 'budget' lenses like this. My lightroom catalogue is swamped by this lens since purchasing last year.
Cheers mate yeah was saying to Mali yesterday that the mirrorless lenses are so good now that you can’t really buy a bad one, especially not Nikon ones. I’ve since tested that 24-120 and while obviously very good it’s another case of very marginal quality vs having 80mm extra which is an easy choice for me.
Excellent video Stuart. Thank you. One suggestion. Try running a few raw files through DXO PureRaw 2 (and now 3) and be amazed at how that plug-in increases resolution and brings out even more detail as well as differentially sharpens the file (more sharpening applied as you get toward the edges and corners) by use of their proprietary modules that are engineered for specific combinations of cameras and lenses and also eliminates noise, chromatic aberrations, vignetting and distortion. Makes this lens even better. I have no ties to DXO but last year I took only my Z7II and this lens on a 7300 mile (11,700 km) coast-to-coast and back road trip across the United States. After all was said and done, this lens served all of my needs very well. No regrets in not taking additional lenses. I believe DXO offers a 30-day free trial. I believe it does a much better job than Lightroom in converting raw files. Again, your content is very well thought out and professionally presented. Thank you.
Hi Dennis glad you enjoyed the video - I actually already use pure raw already, yep great programme! Their global sharpening option is a bit aggressive so I tend to just use the base level sharpening.
Based on this review I did actually purchase the 24-200 Z mount lens and I did pair it with the Z5 body and as you mentioned it works very well. I tend to shoot at F9 which gives me sharp and adequate images. Thank you for the review it is well done. Cheers.
Thank you, a very useful real life review. I have seen people putting down this lens in forums so it was good to hear the real world views of it in use from a highly rated pro photographer. I would be interested to hear how it performs against the 24-120 f4 too.
Thanks Paul yeah I’ve said in other comments, a lot of lazy commentary from people more interested in gear than producing any quality work or others doing totally inadequate reviews. I’ve since shot some frames with the 24-120 in comparison against this and it’s as expected, marginally better. As I said in the vid if you shoot a lot of woodland then that’s the lens to get as you’ll rarely shoot anything past 150mm. For me that little extra reach is crucial when up hills.
Really enjoyed that, when I got the Z7, I had the Z 24-70mm which is superb value, however I was offered a price I could not refuse in trade in for the Z 24-120mm, I am astounded at the quality of this lens, but wanted more reach and looked at the 24-200mm but did not want to let go of the Z 24-120mm. So I kept the Z 24-120mm and bought the AF-S 70-200mm f4 lens which has superb quality with a relatively light weight. (Only downside is different filter sizes). With the success of the Z 24-200mm they might bring out an f4 version. Keep up the good work, quailty with down to earth content. !!!
Cheers Ron interesting you have the 70-200f4, one of the key reviews that convinced me to buy the 24-200 was one with it vs the 70-200f4 and in a few cases the 24-200 was sharper but for the most part they were basically identical (it’s the review I showed a clip of by Ricci Talks near the start) - my own take from using these lenses is the z mount lenses across the board are a significant step up from the F mount versions.
An excellent, pragmatic review. I picked up an open box 24-200 mm when my 24-70/f4 went in for repair last year and have been very happy with it, although a very wet woodland adventure did find its weakness on the weather sealing front. I'm currently considering the 100-400 mm to replace an F mount 70-300 mm lens with Z glass and a bit of extra reach and quality.
Cheers Mike I've not had any issues weather sealing wise though like all things I guess its how much punishment they take! the 100-400 is superb also, would highly recommend.
Researched this lense to death a few years back and comparisons and for the like of me I couldn't understand why I should pay triple the price for the 70-200,the versatility,the weight and the image quality of this lense just encourages you to take out the camera with you when you wouldn't otherwise,any difference between the 24-200 and some of the S lines is mainly an extra coating or two on the lense where it might struggle against direct sunlight but can easily be adjusted in lightroom, I hope Nikon are watching and appreciate your time in giving a favourable unbiased and honest review of this lense because this versatile lense creates greater opportunities of getting a cracking landscape shot and also those quick opportunistic moments that you would miss by changing lenses
Cheers Bob - on the older DSLR mounts the differences between the 2.8 glass and the rest was far more noticeable, now with modern tech and the flange being closer to the sensor they can do amazing things with the lesser lenses, this being a good example. As you say much of the cost in the s line lenses is coatings and build quality. For other genres where shooting handheld and DoF is more important they definitely come into their own, but for landscape use a lot of that goes out the window.
@@StuartMcGlennon Apologies Stuart I mistakenly mentioned the 70-200 when i meant the 24-200 when comparing coatings with the S lines... I would be interested to know might you have a view when it comes to the 100-400z(expensive) compared to the Sigma,Tamron etc when using with the Z7....
@@bobsmurf1601 the z 100-400 is superb though if being honest is an occasional but useful lens, if I’d had the option of a sigma 100-400 in the z system I’d have almost certainly bought that. The Sony g master vs the sigma counterpart the sigma is basically as good with a stop less light, it’s a shame they’re not being allowed to make them currently with Nikon.
As a Canon DSLR user I/m not sure why I watched this video. But I'm happy that I did as I found it quite interesting. Also, when I make the shift to mirrorless I'm not sure that I'll be sticking to Canon after only ever using them. So, some food for thought, thanks.
Cheers the main takeaway I’d like people to have is that a much of the mirrorless equipment now is so good that none of this gear is stopping people producing great images, only your vision and skill. Far too much lazy commentary given on this platform regarding kit from people nowhere near qualified.
Really appreciate this review Stuart! Moving from much loved D850 to Z8, shooting mainly landscapes/ seascapes. I mainly use my 24-120 on D850, which has been great (also have 14-24, and 500 prime). Have looked at a ton of reviews deciding between Z 24-120 and 24-200. Starting to sell images as well. While many reviews seem to favor the Z 24-120, I'd really appreciate the extra reach of the 24-200, and coming to the conclusion that this is the lens to start with (along with F adapter for other lenses I have for now). And as you so correctly note, the final image is much more a result of the photographer's skill than the gear per se- thanks!
Thanks very much, yes both 24-200 and 24-120 are great lenses, you won’t go wrong with either. It’s just a question of marginal IQ vs 80mm extra reach. For me the 80mm is vital up the mountains though if you don’t shoot that long that often the 24-120 is great. I do love being able to take two lenses out though.
An interesting comparison. It highlights what I’ve thought for a while, the biggest/heaviest and most expensive lens I’ve lenses aren’t necessarily needed for landscapes. F2.8 lenses have their place for certain genres but aren’t necessary for landscapes. It’s refreshing to hear a pro make this point as there’s always been a point between amateurs where the lens you’re using was more important than the photo.
Cheers Rob yeah that’s it really - for landscape photography where 90% of people’s images are shot at F8 and beyond it ends up being a case of diminishing returns and at those apertures there’s little difference. The better glass is undoubtedly better especially wide open, but the cost difference isn’t inline with the benefit especially in this genre.
Wow...I'm so glad I found your channel, you have some great insights here. My first Z mount lenses were going to be the 14-30 and the 24-120...now I'm not so sure. You may have really sold me on the 24-200, your images using that lens are stunning!
Thanks yeah as I say it’s very much on your use case, I find the odd occasion I need to shoot in low light hand held with it the IBIS is good enough combined with the new noise reduction tools we have though for specialised stuff like weddings etc then obviously this isn’t the right lens for that.
I moved over from the Sony G-Master 24-70 and the 70-200 F4 to a Tamron 28-200. It means I can now carry my camera with 2 lenses (16 to 200mm covered) in a small shoulder bag that will also slip into a couple of rucksacks I own easily. Best move I ever made :)
I have both the 24-200mm f4-5.6 and the 70-200mm f2.8. I too love the flexibility of the 24-200mm and have returned from many outings with outstanding images. The reason I bought the 70-200mm f2.8 is for specialized shooting like ice skaters in a poorly illuminated indoor skating rink where extra speed is needed or late evening outdoor shooting. Lugging the 70-200mm around outdoors with reasonably good light is really unpleasant and unnecessary thanks to this lens. Thanks for a nice video and information presented in a friendly and comfortable manner.
This is a very good comparison of the two lenses. I have the 24-200 Z lens and I coupled it with the Z5 body as a walk around lens and body. I shoot the combo at F8 or F9 mostly and I like it for being such a versatile lens, Looking at your seascape image I like it? I don't notice any bad corners, I wish I had a similar lens for my other Nikon the D850. very good image I do like the seascape and the cold forest image you took. Cheers.
Picked one up to pair my kit down after I saw some of your vids Stuart. Won't kid myself in that it isn't the best for everything but for pretty much most of the time for me it's great. Coupled with the 14-30 don't need much else doing landscape or woodland
Cheers Stephen yeah for landscape use/static subjects it’s fine - for faster moving stuff or anything where light gathering is key then obviously that’s a very different conversation but as you say for general landscapes it’s great
I look at your work, not the pixel peep view. Your work is breathtaking with this lens and I don't believe the 70-200mm would change the way your printed work looks to 99% of people. I own this lens and find it even better than how you describe. This lens is an outstanding performer even in low light because of the dual stabilizers. If I had to shoot 200mm in a low light action subject, i.e. a wedding reception, I would use the AZT with my 80-200mm or 50mm F1.8 and be happy with the results. For stationary subjects, I am blown away at the sharpness of the photos that I take in low light at very slow shutter speeds. This lens is a winner, before you factor in the price.
Very kind thanks for watching - yes I think at this point it’s very hard to really select lenses on outright image quality as they’re all so close, it’s more about weight/low light performance/versatility that are more important factors. For landscape use low light is rarely a factor so my only real concerns now are versatility and weight. The image quality is almost a given.
Glad to hear this lens has very good reviews and I am looking at buying. I also want it for video which it sounds it is quiet and a smooth zoom ring. Thanks for reviewing. I know the F stop is not low for video but I don't need it for that. I add LEDs indoors and usually capture in good light outside. Could be my next lens soon, as Nikon has some sales, and it lower price than a 24-120mm F4 lens with more zoom.
Thank you so much for the wonderful review! It is surprisingly hard to analyze a lens (or watch other people’s opinions for that matter) I really loved that this video is limited to your style of photography, makes the analysis laser focused and easy to interpret! I am trying to decide if I want to use 24-200 as a travel lens (I already own 28-300 with FTZ but it is heavy and I love the 24mm end)
I'm not surprised at your results Stuart. I have a selection of Z S lenses and the 24-200. My bushwalking kit consists of the 14-30, 24-200 and 20. It's everything I need. Except.......now there is the 28-400. Any plans on reviewing that lens?
Great review. I agonized about this lens vs the 24-120. I ultimately went with the 24-120 and am really happy with it and use it for general purpose shooting as well as landscape. I was blown away by your tests and the performance of this lens. It’s probably the highest performing all arounder on the market. I may ultimately pick up a copy just to have a lens I can carry when I want to go super lightweight. With the image stabilization it’s asks great to use on a z50 which I also use. I like the added reach this would give me on that camera
Thanks Eric, both great lenses. If I shot more woodland photography and less hiking I’d have got the 24-120, either way though you can’t really go wrong.
When you showed that at 2.8 the 70-200 was already outperforming the 24-200 at 6.3, I thought for sure once both were stopped down the 70-200 was going to crush the smaller, cheaper, and more flexible lens. Pretty startling what the results actually were at f/8.
Yep that’s the case a lot of the time - at F8 you’re not going to see huge differences between modern lenses no matter what the cost. Most of the time reviewers on here are either non-photographers who don’t really know much beyond looking at test charts, or aren’t landscape photographers and only ever shoot wide open. People should absolutely buy the right lens based on use case (low light capability, DoF etc) but if it’s purely based on IQ at their optimum apertures there just isn’t all that much variance on modern lenses. People preoccupied with stuff like that in my experience don’t make very good photographers and are more excited by tech.
Clearly the 24-200 (which is a BIG ask of a lens) is very good. Although I would say in all but f8 at 130mm I thought the 70-200 was the superior and clearly so. I did wonder if there was a factor in that comparison such as a nip of wind that may have affected it. Both lenses can achieve outstanding IQ and the 24-200 definitely an advantage when in bad weather and can't change a lens. I have the 70-200 f2.8 and absolutely love it but had I bought the 24-200 first maybe I'd not have bought it but very glad I did.
Funnily enough I thought the same with that 135mm frame though I took them all twice with about 10mins separating them and they both looked identical. Could be just that copy of the lens are like all lenses there are slight variances in them. I’d partially agree that there was a marked difference in contrast but not on sharpness at F8 (most of the other frames I didn’t show bore that out though it would have took all night to show them) a simple click of +10 in Lightroom sorts that which I guess is the broader point I’m making - for 3x cost you’re getting nothing like 3x performance, if you did I’d happily pay it lol none of that is to say the 70-200 isn’t a great lens as it is, they’re all brilliant for me in the z lineup.
@@StuartMcGlennon Fair points. Certainly odd if no factor other than the lens itself explaining the f8 variance. I’m now thinking maybe the 70-200 is built to be at its best below f8. I say this as Nikon likely assume folk spending the extra on fast glass are going to use it pretty wide to wide open and therefore optimise the performance around f4 - f5.6 as you simply wouldn’t pay the money if it wasn’t super at the widest f stops. I think my 70-200 f2.8 Z lens is amongst the sharpest I have ever known BUT can’t say I have a plethora of images at f8 and above to judge which again speaks to paying for fast glass to use fast glass wide open which isn’t the typical landscape style. I shall ponder some more. I’d certainly say reassuring if biases are built into the use case for a given lens otherwise the crossover would make little sense beyond price point. I doubt for example the 24-200 is there purely as a price point but instead as a use case that being the likely use of a range of f stops at f8 and beyond while a wedding, portraits, wildlife or sports photographer is going for wide open for a variety of reasons.
@@markr3926 yeah there’s a good chance 5.6 is the sharpest point on the 70-200, as a rough guide the sharpest point is normally double the fastest aperture, perhaps an even fairer test would have been F8 vs 5.6 though in my experience there’s little drop off on most lenses between 5.6 and 8 hence that choice for the test. I wouldn’t dream of using the 24-200 for professional work in any other setting than landscape as it’s not fast enough and just not the right tool all around, but for largely static landscape work where you’re rarely shooting wider than F8 I’d say of the two it’s the better all round choice when all other factors are thrown in. I’ve said in other comments that a lot of landscapers I know are moving away from 70-200’s as despite superb IQ they can get basically the same thing in modern mirrorless 100-400’s and gain the extra reach for about the same weight, similarly the 24-70’s also by favouring 24-120’s. On the old DSLR mounts the quality gap was much more noticeable and why having the 2.8 glass was far more of a priority even if they weighed a tonne!
@@StuartMcGlennon Yes interesting, I actually wanted the 24-70 f2.8 for my Z 72 and bought the kit with 24-70 f4 ZS thinking I’d sell it and upgrade but there is no need the f4 is an S lens anyway and the IQ is stunning. Had I realised I’d have got the 24-120 f4
Very interesting video. Thanks for making it. I'm just on the verge of getting a Z system camera. Currently, I have an old Nikon D7000 with the 18mm-200mm VR lens. I've taken tons of great shots with it. When I first started looking at the Z system lens offerings, I was surprised that they didn't offer one with the same range as my current one. I really would like a faster lens for video in low light, but maybe I need to think about a cinema lens for that. Whenever I'm traveling with my wife, she likes to move fast, so there's no time to switch lenses. That's why the 18-200mm was so great.
Felt was perfect travel lens so put away my 24/70 f4 & only took this lens with my 14/30 f4 but quite disappointed with images so gone back to the 24/70 f4 & much happier.
I rebought this lens recently as I'm just tired of changing lenses in the field. I have the 28-75 2.8 if I want fast. But that's for event/portrait stuff. The 24-120mm f4 is too slow for events and not long enough for what I want (Same feeling about the 24-70mm f4). So I decided to go to use one or the other. I'll probably add the 70-180 2.8 also now the it's out. Basically I'm going down further the rabbit hole... Start at 24-200 for landscape/travel/hiking... Then 28-75 2.8 / 70-180 2.8 for events... Then 35/85 for portraits when I have more time. Depending on the needs. Basically covers everything for me.
Same situation as you. Z 14-24, Z 24-70 f/2.8, and Z 70-200 f/2.8 for events/parties/weddings. Z 35, Z 50, Z 85 for portraits when I can change lenses. Z 24-200 for travel/hiking. I'm trying to convince myself that I don't need to replace my Z 24-200 with the Z 24-120, but it's difficult as we hear such good things about the 24-120.
it certainly holds its own against the 70-200 in terms of sharpness. where it loses out, however, is certainly in the contrast, which is far inferior to the more prestigious lens. but from what I have seen from your splendid photos, it is a really good lens. congratulations.
Really interesting stuff Stuart. I agonised over whether to go for the 24-200 or the 24-120 F4 for ages, and ended up going with the 24-120. Had it for a couple of months and it's a fantastic lens, although as you suggest in the film, I do ocassionally want for someting a little bit longer. I then have to resort to my 70-200 F4 F-mount (with the FTZ convertor), so that's a fair bit more kit to carry when I'm heading up into the mountains. I'll interested to hear what you make of the 24-120.
Tough one isn’t it, mainly caused by the lack of 70-200f4 for z mount though a lot of folk I know are moving away from 70-200’s and moving more towards standard wide/ 24-120 / 100-400 set ups
Yes, it does seem like the 24-120 and 100-400 combo is gaining favour. 100-400 is on my wishlist! Could be a while though. Cheers again for all the content.
@@StuartMcGlennon seems like it gets you 90% of the way there without any major issues. I’ve joined a hill walking group and this might suit me more than the 24-120mm & 100-400mm in weight savings 😂
For what you get in performance and price, it's pretty hard to beat it. I know for a fact the 70-200 wouldn't give me personally more then I need and with the extra saved money I picked up the 14-30 f4 as well.
For me it’s all about diminishing returns and use case - it’s great that we’re now in an age where there’s little to no compromise once you step down from 2.8 glass.
Really useful Vid Stu, my 70-200 won’t show itself in your presence ever again 😃 probably the only real landscape use case for it as we’ve talked about is from the air, the ability to get down to f2.8 and keep the iso at manageable levels (eg 800) in poor light in case your shot is a worldie (and Iceland sure has that) is valuable. Will be good to repeat this with my 24-120, though you’ve frankly shown the 24-200 to perhaps be the only lens some need.
Cheers fella yeah it’s become a conversation (and should be) purely on use case rather than if the lenses are actually any good or not, that debate with is long gone. If you’re a photographer taking crap images with this lens, it’s probably because you’re a crap photographer. The extra stops of light on a 2.8 will always be very useful in certain scenarios and if they apply to the user then obviously get that lens, but if it’s a debate purely on image quality alone I can’t see a lot of sense in paying 3x cost for about 5% increase in image quality.
Thank you Stuart for your very good review! 👍🏻 Pixel or not Pixel, more or less contrast... The fact is i love your great landscape pictures! 👌🏻 And your review helped me in the decision between the 24-120 and the 24-200. I think az the 24-120 i would miss the less Tele! I too love landscape fotography and with my Z6II and onnly the 24-70/4S pushes me to any limits.. Thank you 😊
Excellent analysis Stuart. Just one little thought for the 70-200 in that you can add a 2x teleconverter giving you longer focal length up to 400mm. stopping down to F11 that combination is very sharp and adds a little more versatility to the 70-200 for landscape.
Thanks Huw - yep a TC on the 70-200 also very effective, my friend who I'm on the lofoten trip with has one and says it's excellent, though if it were me I'd buy the 100-400 if I only shot landscapes as it's just about on par optically and the same weight as the 70-200 (I think he's about to do that and sell his 70-200). More and more landscape photographers in mirrorless systems are moving away from the holy trinity set up and going more with a 16-35/24-105/100-400 kit as the lenses have gotten so good compared with the DLSR ones. Whatever people choose with these lenses they're all excellent though.
It might be my copy of the 24-200 but I don’t use it that much because I find it soft, especially at 200mm but across the board. I’m considering replacing it with a 24-120. The lens I use the most is the 24-70 f2/8 S. It is truly outstanding.
Another great video. I have the 14-30mm and 24-200mm. It's such a great combo. Like you and others I've considered the 24-120mm but I know I would miss the extra reach. If Nikon released a 70-300 instead of a 70-200mm things might change though. Looking forward to seeing the photos and vlogs from Lofoten. Have a safe trip.
Just stumbled across your really good video here, and would like to share my experiences with this lens for others that may be considering it. I bought it with my Z6II as I switched from my D610 and needed a backup lens for my 35-50-85 f/1.8 F-series lenses that I am using with the FTZ adapter. I shoot a lot of corporate work (portraits, buildings, products etc.) and while some of the work is done at f/2-2.8, most of it takes place at around f/8, so in a lot of cases, this lens could take over if I smashed one of my primes on location. So, that was the idea: A relatively cheap lens that could live silently in the corner of my bag, until it was needed for an emergency. Heh. Now, I know that the f/1.8 series of primes for the F-mount is the cheaper option, but especially the 85 mm f/1.8 is generally accepted as a very, very sharp lens at f/5.6 - f/8, and yet I can use the 24-200 side by side with the D610/85mm f/1.8 combo at f/8 and not be able to tell the difference while editing the images afterwards. The colors, the sharpness, the contrast - if there is a difference, I cannot tell it in a fair comparison at all. Yes, the variable aperture is sometimes a bit of a bother, but when doing run-and-gun work (like workers in action at the production line), I use auto-ISO anyway, so I am OK with it. Yes, at 24 mm it is definitely weak wide open, but stop it down to f/8 and I think it cleans up very nicely. Add a bit of contrast in the corners and you need to print extremely big to see the difference in the real world. But for the money and the weight and the versatility you really can't go wrong with this lens, as long as you know that you can work with the limitations around its available apertures - this is not for low-light work in any way. Bonus info: This lens is actually really good for occasional video captures for your clients. Focus breathing is really limited and the VR does a good job stabilizing your shot. Oh, and a completely random thought: It is truly amazing, that the work you do with a Z7 and a prosumer super zoom lens today was the exclusive playing field of high-end medium format cameras with equally high-end medium primes not that many years ago. It really understates the fact that it is in no way the gear that is holding anyone back today: Any keen landscape photography hobbyist can afford a used Z7 and the 24-200 and have the potential to produce excellent work with it.
Thanks or watching - yes diminishing returns, marginal gains often for significant cost where landscapes are concerned. Other genres fast apertures are far more important.
Looks a great little lens,the proof is obviously in the pudding with your images…👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 if you do a variety of photography ie portraits,sports or events etc the 70-200 is a must over the 24-200.I have the Sony 70-200 f2.8 gm2 and it is amazing for the things I mentioned so horses for courses really.
Yeah it’s not a lens for anything fast moving where light gathering is key as I mentioned in the test section - for static stuff though it’s absolutely fine
Excellent points I agree ! it's the photographer not the lens. You are correct about changing lenses in bad weather, you can't do it without high risk to damage the gear. It's not a time to bring 2-3 primes out. The Nikon 24-120 F4 S does resolve slightly sharper but not enough to really make a difference. the 24-200 when stopped down to F8 is plenty sharp and I shoot it at F8 a lot
I'll confess that my knowledge of tech camera equipment would easily fit in a small match box...but even with that I could see how you were testing the different lenses which was interesting anyway. My efforts in photography tbh revolve much more around the process of trying to select images, taking the shot and putting together a decent composition. That said, thanks as ever for sharing the video Stuart.
To be honest Bob more photographers would do well to follow that approach and worry far less about gear that has no bearing on their ability to make good images.
I accidently got the borrow lens of Nikon 70-200m zf2.8 with 2 TC for bird from Nikon. So I tested against my old 80-200 f2.8, I could not believed that old len 80-200 ED lens quite up to this Z lens in all range except the Z len more contrast due to newer technology elements.
Yeah the extra sharpness people often hope to get from 2.8's (certainly at around F8) rarely ends up being all that noticeable, certainly with more modern lenses. Improved contrast is more often the case though it's an easy thing to adjust in post anyway.
Really interesting review that challenges the group think about the 24-200. Comparing the numbers of views with actual likes, one might conclude that viewers are uncomfortable with you not confirming their previous bias. It doesn't make you wrong and your photos should make people change their views.
Photography is full of lazy conclusions and stereotypes, usually from people who aren’t actually pros and don’t make a living from it. The camera industry needs less discerning / lazy consumers to keep the industry going. The fact is that for landscape specifically, any modern equipment more than suffices 90% of the time.
Very good reveiw and beautiful images. I have this lens and honestly, after using the 24-70 f4s quite a lot before, I found the image quality a little bit disappointing on the wide end especially in tricky light conditions. Now i'm considering to sell it and get the 24-120 f4s instead. Hard to choose because other than that the 24-200 is really a very good lens.
Did you change from 24-200 to 24-120 f4s? I'm considering a similar move, but sometimes I use the 200, especially during holiday trips, so I treat the 24-200 as a basic, convenient and universal lens.
Really beautiful images you've made. This video is a godsend. I've been wondering what telephoto lens to get, even considering the AF-S 70-200mm f4 or Tamron's 70-210mm f4, but I hate that they're so large. I'll need to carry different kinds of equipment when walking around, so I do want to save on space and weight. I didn't consider this lens before now, but it might actually not only be the better option, but also save me some more space, if I won't need to carry the 24-70mm f4 with me either.
Hi Stuart, I have the 24-200mm lens on my z6ii and absolutely agree with you. It's a great combination at an affordable price. Nice comparison, nice video.
I think the prints you've produced of the images you've captured with this lens speak for themselves, Stuart. I've had a similar debate over whether I should exchange my 24-120mm f/4 for a 24-70mm f/2.8, but like you, although there is better contrast, I feel the extra weight over what little else I would gain in sharpness is minimal. As a result, I've kept with this lens for about ten years as I cannot justify the move. I mean, I would love to move over to the Nikon Mirrorless Z System from my D750, but funds won't allow for that anytime soon. My priority at the moment is that I need to sell my last few remaining items of Lee Filters gear, to reinvest it in the items I still need from Kase. Might need a light tent for shooting the products in, as photographing the items for sale is a key component. Anyway, I'll bear this in mind for when I do finally move over to the Z System.
Thanks Ian yeah if you're happy with it and it's doing the job that's all that matters - as I said to Mali in an earlier comment many landscape photographers spend more time than they should fretting about technical gear stuff that has little consequence in their ability to make good images.
Had it and hated it. I sold it to LCE and purchased the 24-120mm F4. Probably me but I just didn’t like it. It was good for when travelling aboard. You’ll see my kit tomorrow morning on a new vlog if you’re interested. Thanks
@@paulwbakerphotography you might have had a bad copy Paul, my own experience with many z lenses I’ve tried is they’re all excellent and a significant step ahead of all the old F mount glass. Since this video I’ve also shot the 24-120 against this and again I found little difference between them at 200% in Lightroom, certainly from 50mm onwards anyway.
@@StuartMcGlennon I have many of the Z lenses and agree they’re all excellent. My favourite is the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm just amazing. Enjoyed the video, thank you for sharing
I love your landscapes. I also find the 24-200 as my most used lens, but I think I should imitate you and make better use of my tripod to bring out this lens's best.
These days I try not to compare lenses on Z6/Z7 and gen 2 bodies. I find their AF is really not that reliable while just doing lens comparison. More often than not I have to fight with the pinpoint AF system since it doesn't always want to turn green for the same spot somehow. I think that might be the reason why your 720.8 didn't perform, especially if previous shots turned out to be razor sharp. With a lot of modern preimium lenses the trend seems to be that they are really good right from wide open in contrary to older designs. Stopping down nowadays is rather more for dof and control of shutter speed, or say bokeh ball shape and to correct other minor optical imperfections, than having front to back sharpness. Most great compositions usually shouldn't force a sharp corner anyway. You brought up a good point that the 24-200 enabled you to be out about and at the scene with gears ready at fingertips for opportunities. These days more great images are still relying on better idea/composition to standout. I think that's the real take away here. Though honestly and subjectively, I shoot and save my raw files with the intention that I might one day blow it up huge and hang it somewhere I like. So I'd prefer to use it with the best optics at hand possible. Just that I won't be looking at it and go like “well, imagine if I had XXX lens in my backpack before snapping this”.
I blow all my images up huge running my own gallery and these files hold up absolutely fine to be honest. We’ve reached a point where there’s no limitation on the user with any of this glass now, which wasn’t the case for many years. Now you simply pick the correct lens for your shooting style and need not worry about IQ.
Great video! Currently shooting a Z7 with a Z 24-70 f/4 and F mount 16-35 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. I really want to replace the 16-35 as the Z 14-30 seems to blow it away. Happy with the quality of my other two lenses but this video really gives food for thought, could save almost a kilo of weight and not have to switch lenses as often.
Thanks for a realistic comparison. I have the 24-200 z and have been fighting off the urge to also buy the 70-200 z (I'm a hobbyist). Your photo comparison shows me the only thing the 24-200 z lacks for me is some contrast. Is it as simple as bumping up the contrast in post to make the 24-200 photo look as appealing as the 70-200 photo?
Speaking from my experience with other lenses, typically the contrast you get from global adjustments in post isn't quite the same as a more contrasty lens, but just fiddling with curves and adding touches of clarity can get you pretty close. I plan to get the 24-200 over a 70-200 or 100-400 with the expectation that a little extra finesse in post will make the contrast benefits negligible in most situations.
Short answer, basically yes if you know what you’re doing. As the other poster has mentioned you’ll get most if not all the way there with correct contrast manipulation. You do indeed gain more micro contrast on more expensive lenses (generally this more than outright sharpness) but as I said in the video you’re paying a huge premium for it. If you’re stood infront of amazing light and conditions these things in real world use make zero difference.
Really interesting that Stuart, top vid, I hadn't been planning to switch from the D850 to Z but after seeing the 2 lens setup my mate had today, Z7II 14-30 and this lens you are reviewing, how could I not consider it? a 2 lens setup and no more 150mm filter system for my 14-24 f/2.8 F mount. I'd be going from 4 lenses in my bag to 2, and all of that lighter, it's a bit of a jump from 'what you know' but in so many ways it makes sense.
Cheers fella, the 14-30 is as good as the F mount 14-24 optically, all the Z lenses are better than the F mount stuff, in many cases noticeably. 24-200mm is optically on par with the 70-200f4 F mount lens which is very good, but half the weight. Honestly mate for landscape use it’s bloody excellent
@@StuartMcGlennon Cheers mate I have the 70-200 f/4 and that's an absolute corker so this is good to know, appreciate the review! Think it could be an LCE trade in ....
I worried about buying the F-mount 24-120 f4 for the same reasons. But, it's my go-to workhorse lens. There's better or course but I can get 24x30 prints with no problems. My 14-24mm does a lot better at 24 mm. So, the Z 24-120 would be a good choice for landscape. But, the variable aperture that's f.6.3 is too slow for most photojournalism and documentarty photography.
The differences in a lot of these lenses is no tiny that the only limitations photographers have is their vision and skill - they all produce great results in the right hands.
Hi Stuart. Have you formerly used the F mount 28-300 and if yes, how would the 24-200 compare? On my D800 I used the 28-300 for years but on the Z world I’ve moved to the 24-70/2.8 (outstanding) and still using the 70-200/2.8 VRii on the ftz adapter. A solid combo but heavy and yes, changing lenses all the time. I’ve used the Z 24-120/f4 and loved it, but I miss those extra 80mm too. Been debating whether to get the 24-200 for 1 year now :-) and curious to hear from other fellow photographers how it would compare to the old 28-300 f mount!
Hi Nelson, yes briefly used the 28-300 and also the 24-120 F mounts and found both quite poor, this lens is miles better than both for me. A good review here is the 24-200 against the z 24-70f4 which is a brilliant lens for the money, basically there’s little difference between them. ua-cam.com/video/m7AkjAP1IMM/v-deo.html
Hi and thank you for the video! I got the 24-200 lens together with the Z5 camera. Please tell me, in your opinion, would this lens perform better with the Z7 or a Nikon Z camera with more megapixels, does this make a huge difference?
Thanks you for the review. I'm currently trying to decide between the Z24-200mm and the Tamron 24-300mm. Whichever I choose will accompany my Z 24-70 f4. I'm sort of leaning toward the Tamron for the extra focal length. Any thoughts?
@@StuartMcGlennon You are correct, Stuart; I made a typing error. I have since seen a review of the Tamron z70-300 and it compared favorably to the Nikon version so I will probably go with that as it fits well with my Nikon z24-70. Thanks for taking the time to send your advice; much appreciated.
Thanks Stuart for a great input. I have 24-120 for landscape which I love but I am trying to reduce the weight. On top of it I have sigma 100-400 which is also fab lens but all this and the weight adds up. that 24-200 is probably 90% of what I am shooting. The only problem is that switching lenses means loosing money when selling on ebay. that's the only thing which keeps me with -120 version. oh... with this post you are just creating dilemmas... 🙂
I took the 24-200 on vacation, and for the first time I left the 24-120 f4 and 70-200 f2.8 at home.
The quality of the shots and the weight of the lens, have made the 24-200 now the best option for traveling.
I bought the 24-200 as the kit lens with my Z5. Shockingly good for a "kit lens". Reminds me of the f mount 24-120 f/4 I bought with my D800. These are my most used lenses on their respective cameras.
You know how much I deliberated about this lens. It’s been tough to take off! Some UA-camrs saying things about this lens that are just not right! So to see your images produced, says it all. But also the results I’ve seen already, some of my best photography already this year! I’ve noticed like you say 35mm up at f8 wow super sharp! So that rules out the variable aperture. The differences is marginal. Thanks for this Stuart, well put together
You know me mate I couldn’t be less excited about gear but yeah I’ve seen some pretty lazy commentary from people on this lens which is why I’ve done such a comprehensive review. Too many photographers spend way too much time worrying about microscopic increases in sharpness when it would be better spent improving skills and using kit that compliments the subjects they shoot. The hard truth is all of these mirrorless lenses now are so good that the only limitation photographers have is their ability and the space between their ears.
@@StuartMcGlennon Eye, nail on the head! Bloody so happy now with having this set up. 2 primes, kept my 24-70 f4 and I couldn't be happier with the 24-200. It's all about the imagination now and getting out as much as possible. Looking forward to some longer hikes as well.
Couldn’t agree more Stuart, it’s an absolutely smashing lens. Glad I took your advice last year and didn’t risk divorce by going for the 70-200. Best lens I’ve had for all the reasons you outlined
Haha thanks mate glad to help 👍
I used to use my 24-200mm with my Z6ii all the time for travel/landscape photography but when I tried it on my Z8 when I got that I was disappointed with the colour fringing in particular.
I still use my Z6ii with the 24-200 but use my Z8 with the 24-120mm f4 as it has superior image quality overall. I use my 70-200mm (also have x2 teleconverter) f2.8 for the extra range.
One of the first lenses I bought for my Z system after I sold the 28-300 from my D750 era. Overall really great quality for price and size.
I’m a beginner and just bought a Z6ii with this lens not knowing what I could really expect. Very good to know that I made a good decision. I don’t really know yet what kind of photography I will be interested in ultimately but I am interested in getting into landscape and it is good to know this lens is up to it. Thanks for your review!
Excellent comparison, thank you Stuart. IMHO the most useful YT vlog I've watched for ages.
I got my Z6 back in August 2019 when the longest reach of any available Z series lens was 70mm. When the 70-200 f2.8 was released I scrimped and saved and bought one and have been delighted with it, the first pro quality lens I've owned. A year later I got the 24-200 and have been pleasantly surprised with just how sharp it can be, particularly away from the extreme ends of the focal lengths.
One big minus point for me with the 24-200 is the lack of MF/AF switch on the lens, I really miss it compared to the S lenses (14-30 F4; 24-70 F4 and 70-200 F2.8).
So basically for me it's the 70-200 for trips not involving too much distance from the car, and the 24-200 for long hikes.
Next dilemma for me is do I go for the 100-400 or should I upgrade my much loved Z6 to a Z7ii.
Thanks Richard yes a good point about the lack of an AF/MF switch that can be a pain at times. If you don’t need the megapixels I’d get the 100-400 every time to be honest 👍
A refreshing review based on personal use and experience of the product in question. I personally appreciate your view of why spend more money than needed to achieve what it is that your are looking for in a lens, and this coming from an established professional landscape photographer, who earns his living from his work, provides even more value to the review in my opinion.
Thanks Rob really appreciate that, glad you found it useful.
I bought this lens for the Z711 and it is just stellar. So versatile and certainly good value for money. Great video thank you for your comparison.
Thanks Bruce
Appreciate the review. Just picked up this lenses up today for my Nikon Zf. Will be heading to Yosemite National Park in the next few weeks. Looking forward to give it a good workout.
Great, i using 24-200 on z5, fantastic!
Your prints speak for themselves. Very well put together review 🤩🤩🤩
Cheers Simon 👍
Dear Stuart, Both you , (and my best friend) and Mr Nigel Danson recommended this lens on UA-cam !
I have saved all my pennies and looking forward to using it in a week or so on the Z7ii ! Thank you so so much for your knowledge and beautiful work !
Did you use it, and happy? Im considering it, thanks
So glad you did this Stuart, just proves you don’t need to remortgage for a 2.8 trinity as well as own every other piece of S line Z glass on the market…ahem. Anyway, I think the difference in contrast will just be the extra coatings on S glass. Nothing you can’t match in post. Another great video, cheers Stuart.
Thanks Karl yeah sharpness is one thing but a slight difference in contrast is a 2 second job in post and for me anyway certainly not worth paying 3 times cost for.
Excellent review, I got the z7 with the 24-200 and the 14-30 from the start and always thought they were both great, especially like the light weight and compact nature of the 24-200. Occasionally miss having a m/af button on the 24-200 but that is probably about my technique not the lens. 👍🙂
Cheers Will yeah the switch being left off is an odd one but other than that it’s hard to find fault with it
I own both the 24-200 and the 24-120 s lens. I seem to take both with me on trips. I have them with me now in the bad lands South Dakota. I can’t decide which to use, they are both good. I generally use the 24-120 but add the long range of the 24-200 when subjects are off in the distance, nice video.
Thanks yes they’re both great lenses and have their merits in different scenarios - if I did less hiking I’d get the 24-120
I use the 24-200 for long hikes and in the mountains and it makes a great job.
But for the rest i prefer my holy trinity ( 14-30, 24-120 and the 100-400) on the Z7, because i shot a lot on the shorter and longer end.
Many greets from Germany.
Yep I’m similar i use my 14-30 for wide stuff and if I’m at ground level I’ve got my 100-400 with me, it’s the 24-120 I can’t really justify at the moment though as I said in the video I may have bought it if it was available in 2020
I love your photographs! I think the gear does not make the photographer… and you’re the proof I might be right 😊
Interesting comparison. I first bought the Z 24-200mm f4-6.3 in about 2020 when I bought a Nikon Z6ii. Quite honestly, the lens has sat on my shelf the last couple of years, especially when I bought the Nikkor Z 24-120mm f4 S lens. My use case is primarily shooting movement, often in low light where I use the Nikkor Z 70-200mm f2.8 S lens because I'm shooting often movement indoors in really lousy florescent lighting and the f2.8 allows the high shutter speed I need. But watching your video has convinced me to take the 24-200mm back off the shelf. I do quite a bit of landscape when I'm not shooting thousands of frames of movement, and truthfully, I took some wonderful landscape and walk around photos 2 and 3 years ago with the 24-200mm.
Thanks John yep use case is key, for static subjects shot mostly around F8 pretty much any modern lens will get the job done (certainly in the Z range) and it’s splitting hairs over marginal IQ.
I was speak with Mark LJ about this lens and he highly rates it as well, off to order one now after watching this 👍🏻
Thanks Rich yeah I'm good mates with Mark I remember recommending it to him actually a while ago he loves it
@@StuartMcGlennon that Holme Fen is the deal sealer for me, stunning photograph mate. I photograph a lot of woodland as I try to stay local now and this will really help, also £600 from MPB 🤯
@@richdoak9349 cheers mate it’s not taken at Holme Fen it’s from the Eden valley here in cumbria (looks similar though), I will visit Holme Fen at some point it looks lovely.
@@StuartMcGlennonah not sure why I thought Holme fen, similar as you say mate 👍🏻
A good watch. My copy continues to amaze me. It stands up against my Zeiss 100mm f2 far better than it has any right to. Photographers lose much more quality by poor technique than by switching to 'budget' lenses like this. My lightroom catalogue is swamped by this lens since purchasing last year.
Cheers mate yeah was saying to Mali yesterday that the mirrorless lenses are so good now that you can’t really buy a bad one, especially not Nikon ones. I’ve since tested that 24-120 and while obviously very good it’s another case of very marginal quality vs having 80mm extra which is an easy choice for me.
Excellent video Stuart. Thank you. One suggestion. Try running a few raw files through DXO PureRaw 2 (and now 3) and be amazed at how that plug-in increases resolution and brings out even more detail as well as differentially sharpens the file (more sharpening applied as you get toward the edges and corners) by use of their proprietary modules that are engineered for specific combinations of cameras and lenses and also eliminates noise, chromatic aberrations, vignetting and distortion. Makes this lens even better. I have no ties to DXO but last year I took only my Z7II and this lens on a 7300 mile (11,700 km) coast-to-coast and back road trip across the United States. After all was said and done, this lens served all of my needs very well. No regrets in not taking additional lenses. I believe DXO offers a 30-day free trial. I believe it does a much better job than Lightroom in converting raw files. Again, your content is very well thought out and professionally presented. Thank you.
Hi Dennis glad you enjoyed the video - I actually already use pure raw already, yep great programme! Their global sharpening option is a bit aggressive so I tend to just use the base level sharpening.
Based on this review I did actually purchase the 24-200 Z mount lens and I did pair it with the Z5 body and as you mentioned it works very well. I tend to shoot at F9 which gives me sharp and adequate images. Thank you for the review it is well done. Cheers.
Thank you, a very useful real life review. I have seen people putting down this lens in forums so it was good to hear the real world views of it in use from a highly rated pro photographer. I would be interested to hear how it performs against the 24-120 f4 too.
Thanks Paul yeah I’ve said in other comments, a lot of lazy commentary from people more interested in gear than producing any quality work or others doing totally inadequate reviews. I’ve since shot some frames with the 24-120 in comparison against this and it’s as expected, marginally better. As I said in the vid if you shoot a lot of woodland then that’s the lens to get as you’ll rarely shoot anything past 150mm. For me that little extra reach is crucial when up hills.
WELL DONE STUART, THIS HAS BEEN THE COMPARISON I'VE WAITED FOR. YOUR TESTING AND EXPLANATION WAS FIRST CLASS. JUST GOT TO SAVE UP NOW.
Really enjoyed that, when I got the Z7, I had the Z 24-70mm which is superb value, however I was offered a price I could not refuse in trade in for the Z 24-120mm, I am astounded at the quality of this lens, but wanted more reach and looked at the 24-200mm but did not want to let go of the Z 24-120mm.
So I kept the Z 24-120mm and bought the AF-S 70-200mm f4 lens which has superb quality with a relatively light weight. (Only downside is different filter sizes).
With the success of the Z 24-200mm they might bring out an f4 version.
Keep up the good work, quailty with down to earth content. !!!
Cheers Ron interesting you have the 70-200f4, one of the key reviews that convinced me to buy the 24-200 was one with it vs the 70-200f4 and in a few cases the 24-200 was sharper but for the most part they were basically identical (it’s the review I showed a clip of by Ricci Talks near the start) - my own take from using these lenses is the z mount lenses across the board are a significant step up from the F mount versions.
An excellent, pragmatic review. I picked up an open box 24-200 mm when my 24-70/f4 went in for repair last year and have been very happy with it, although a very wet woodland adventure did find its weakness on the weather sealing front. I'm currently considering the 100-400 mm to replace an F mount 70-300 mm lens with Z glass and a bit of extra reach and quality.
Cheers Mike I've not had any issues weather sealing wise though like all things I guess its how much punishment they take! the 100-400 is superb also, would highly recommend.
Interesting! As you may remember my setup is Z6 and 24-200mm Z lens which I absolutely love. Your analysis explains why!
A great combo!
Researched this lense to death a few years back and comparisons and for the like of me I couldn't understand why I should pay triple the price for the 70-200,the versatility,the weight and the image quality of this lense just encourages you to take out the camera with you when you wouldn't otherwise,any difference between the 24-200 and some of the S lines is mainly an extra coating or two on the lense where it might struggle against direct sunlight but can easily be adjusted in lightroom,
I hope Nikon are watching and appreciate your time in giving a favourable unbiased and honest review of this lense because this versatile lense creates greater opportunities of getting a cracking landscape shot and also those quick opportunistic moments that you would miss by changing lenses
Cheers Bob - on the older DSLR mounts the differences between the 2.8 glass and the rest was far more noticeable, now with modern tech and the flange being closer to the sensor they can do amazing things with the lesser lenses, this being a good example. As you say much of the cost in the s line lenses is coatings and build quality. For other genres where shooting handheld and DoF is more important they definitely come into their own, but for landscape use a lot of that goes out the window.
@@StuartMcGlennon
Apologies Stuart I mistakenly mentioned the 70-200 when i meant the 24-200 when comparing coatings with the S lines...
I would be interested to know might you have a view when it comes to the 100-400z(expensive) compared to the Sigma,Tamron etc when using with the Z7....
@@bobsmurf1601 the z 100-400 is superb though if being honest is an occasional but useful lens, if I’d had the option of a sigma 100-400 in the z system I’d have almost certainly bought that. The Sony g master vs the sigma counterpart the sigma is basically as good with a stop less light, it’s a shame they’re not being allowed to make them currently with Nikon.
@@StuartMcGlennon Thanks for replying Stuart,much appreciated 👍
As a Canon DSLR user I/m not sure why I watched this video. But I'm happy that I did as I found it quite interesting. Also, when I make the shift to mirrorless I'm not sure that I'll be sticking to Canon after only ever using them. So, some food for thought, thanks.
Cheers the main takeaway I’d like people to have is that a much of the mirrorless equipment now is so good that none of this gear is stopping people producing great images, only your vision and skill. Far too much lazy commentary given on this platform regarding kit from people nowhere near qualified.
Really appreciate this review Stuart! Moving from much loved D850 to Z8, shooting mainly landscapes/ seascapes. I mainly use my 24-120 on D850, which has been great (also have 14-24, and 500 prime). Have looked at a ton of reviews deciding between Z 24-120 and 24-200. Starting to sell images as well. While many reviews seem to favor the Z 24-120, I'd really appreciate the extra reach of the 24-200, and coming to the conclusion that this is the lens to start with (along with F adapter for other lenses I have for now). And as you so correctly note, the final image is much more a result of the photographer's skill than the gear per se- thanks!
Thanks very much, yes both 24-200 and 24-120 are great lenses, you won’t go wrong with either. It’s just a question of marginal IQ vs 80mm extra reach. For me the 80mm is vital up the mountains though if you don’t shoot that long that often the 24-120 is great. I do love being able to take two lenses out though.
An interesting comparison. It highlights what I’ve thought for a while, the biggest/heaviest and most expensive lens I’ve lenses aren’t necessarily needed for landscapes. F2.8 lenses have their place for certain genres but aren’t necessary for landscapes. It’s refreshing to hear a pro make this point as there’s always been a point between amateurs where the lens you’re using was more important than the photo.
Cheers Rob yeah that’s it really - for landscape photography where 90% of people’s images are shot at F8 and beyond it ends up being a case of diminishing returns and at those apertures there’s little difference. The better glass is undoubtedly better especially wide open, but the cost difference isn’t inline with the benefit especially in this genre.
I have some of the finest S lenses already. But you have convinced me to get this lens with your insanely great photos. Subbed by the way.
Wow...I'm so glad I found your channel, you have some great insights here. My first Z mount lenses were going to be the 14-30 and the 24-120...now I'm not so sure. You may have really sold me on the 24-200, your images using that lens are stunning!
Thanks very much glad you found it useful 👍
love this lens for video, because of the build in VR and the reach, only downsize is its not fast enough for lowlight scenes
Thanks yeah as I say it’s very much on your use case, I find the odd occasion I need to shoot in low light hand held with it the IBIS is good enough combined with the new noise reduction tools we have though for specialised stuff like weddings etc then obviously this isn’t the right lens for that.
I moved over from the Sony G-Master 24-70 and the 70-200 F4 to a Tamron 28-200. It means I can now carry my camera with 2 lenses (16 to 200mm covered) in a small shoulder bag that will also slip into a couple of rucksacks I own easily. Best move I ever made :)
You produce some fine images Dave so it's definitely working for you - like you I'd far rather have gear that allows me to work quickly and flexibly.
@Stuart McGlennon thanks :)
I have both the 24-200mm f4-5.6 and the 70-200mm f2.8. I too love the flexibility of the 24-200mm and have returned from many outings with outstanding images. The reason I bought the 70-200mm f2.8 is for specialized shooting like ice skaters in a poorly illuminated indoor skating rink where extra speed is needed or late evening outdoor shooting. Lugging the 70-200mm around outdoors with reasonably good light is really unpleasant and unnecessary thanks to this lens. Thanks for a nice video and information presented in a friendly and comfortable manner.
Great video. I have both lenses--use the 70-200 for sports, 24-200 for everything else. I haver not found a reason to be dissatisfied with the 24-200.
Thanks Willard 👍
This is a very good comparison of the two lenses. I have the 24-200 Z lens and I coupled it with the Z5 body as a walk around lens and body. I shoot the combo at F8 or F9 mostly and I like it for being such a versatile lens, Looking at your seascape image I like it? I don't notice any bad corners, I wish I had a similar lens for my other Nikon the D850. very good image I do like the seascape and the cold forest image you took. Cheers.
Thanks for watching 👍
Picked one up to pair my kit down after I saw some of your vids Stuart. Won't kid myself in that it isn't the best for everything but for pretty much most of the time for me it's great. Coupled with the 14-30 don't need much else doing landscape or woodland
Cheers Stephen yeah for landscape use/static subjects it’s fine - for faster moving stuff or anything where light gathering is key then obviously that’s a very different conversation but as you say for general landscapes it’s great
Great review. You explain so well what a good lens it is.
Cheers Richard
I look at your work, not the pixel peep view. Your work is breathtaking with this lens and I don't believe the 70-200mm would change the way your printed work looks to 99% of people. I own this lens and find it even better than how you describe. This lens is an outstanding performer even in low light because of the dual stabilizers. If I had to shoot 200mm in a low light action subject, i.e. a wedding reception, I would use the AZT with my 80-200mm or 50mm F1.8 and be happy with the results. For stationary subjects, I am blown away at the sharpness of the photos that I take in low light at very slow shutter speeds. This lens is a winner, before you factor in the price.
Very kind thanks for watching - yes I think at this point it’s very hard to really select lenses on outright image quality as they’re all so close, it’s more about weight/low light performance/versatility that are more important factors. For landscape use low light is rarely a factor so my only real concerns now are versatility and weight. The image quality is almost a given.
Glad to hear this lens has very good reviews and I am looking at buying. I also want it for video which it sounds it is quiet and a smooth zoom ring. Thanks for reviewing. I know the F stop is not low for video but I don't need it for that. I add LEDs indoors and usually capture in good light outside. Could be my next lens soon, as Nikon has some sales, and it lower price than a 24-120mm F4 lens with more zoom.
Thank you so much for the wonderful review! It is surprisingly hard to analyze a lens (or watch other people’s opinions for that matter)
I really loved that this video is limited to your style of photography, makes the analysis laser focused and easy to interpret!
I am trying to decide if I want to use 24-200 as a travel lens (I already own 28-300 with FTZ but it is heavy and I love the 24mm end)
I'm not surprised at your results Stuart. I have a selection of Z S lenses and the 24-200. My bushwalking kit consists of the 14-30, 24-200 and 20. It's everything I need. Except.......now there is the 28-400. Any plans on reviewing that lens?
Really enjoyed this, I actually own this lens and the 14-30. I love them both.
Thanks yes they’re really great lenses
Great review. I agonized about this lens vs the 24-120. I ultimately went with the 24-120 and am really happy with it and use it for general purpose shooting as well as landscape. I was blown away by your tests and the performance of this lens. It’s probably the highest performing all arounder on the market. I may ultimately pick up a copy just to have a lens I can carry when I want to go super lightweight. With the image stabilization it’s asks great to use on a z50 which I also use. I like the added reach this would give me on that camera
Thanks Eric, both great lenses. If I shot more woodland photography and less hiking I’d have got the 24-120, either way though you can’t really go wrong.
When you showed that at 2.8 the 70-200 was already outperforming the 24-200 at 6.3, I thought for sure once both were stopped down the 70-200 was going to crush the smaller, cheaper, and more flexible lens. Pretty startling what the results actually were at f/8.
Yep that’s the case a lot of the time - at F8 you’re not going to see huge differences between modern lenses no matter what the cost. Most of the time reviewers on here are either non-photographers who don’t really know much beyond looking at test charts, or aren’t landscape photographers and only ever shoot wide open. People should absolutely buy the right lens based on use case (low light capability, DoF etc) but if it’s purely based on IQ at their optimum apertures there just isn’t all that much variance on modern lenses. People preoccupied with stuff like that in my experience don’t make very good photographers and are more excited by tech.
Clearly the 24-200 (which is a BIG ask of a lens) is very good. Although I would say in all but f8 at 130mm I thought the 70-200 was the superior and clearly so. I did wonder if there was a factor in that comparison such as a nip of wind that may have affected it. Both lenses can achieve outstanding IQ and the 24-200 definitely an advantage when in bad weather and can't change a lens. I have the 70-200 f2.8 and absolutely love it but had I bought the 24-200 first maybe I'd not have bought it but very glad I did.
Funnily enough I thought the same with that 135mm frame though I took them all twice with about 10mins separating them and they both looked identical. Could be just that copy of the lens are like all lenses there are slight variances in them. I’d partially agree that there was a marked difference in contrast but not on sharpness at F8 (most of the other frames I didn’t show bore that out though it would have took all night to show them) a simple click of +10 in Lightroom sorts that which I guess is the broader point I’m making - for 3x cost you’re getting nothing like 3x performance, if you did I’d happily pay it lol none of that is to say the 70-200 isn’t a great lens as it is, they’re all brilliant for me in the z lineup.
@@StuartMcGlennon Fair points. Certainly odd if no factor other than the lens itself explaining the f8 variance. I’m now thinking maybe the 70-200 is built to be at its best below f8. I say this as Nikon likely assume folk spending the extra on fast glass are going to use it pretty wide to wide open and therefore optimise the performance around f4 - f5.6 as you simply wouldn’t pay the money if it wasn’t super at the widest f stops. I think my 70-200 f2.8 Z lens is amongst the sharpest I have ever known BUT can’t say I have a plethora of images at f8 and above to judge which again speaks to paying for fast glass to use fast glass wide open which isn’t the typical landscape style. I shall ponder some more. I’d certainly say reassuring if biases are built into the use case for a given lens otherwise the crossover would make little sense beyond price point. I doubt for example the 24-200 is there purely as a price point but instead as a use case that being the likely use of a range of f stops at f8 and beyond while a wedding, portraits, wildlife or sports photographer is going for wide open for a variety of reasons.
@@markr3926 yeah there’s a good chance 5.6 is the sharpest point on the 70-200, as a rough guide the sharpest point is normally double the fastest aperture, perhaps an even fairer test would have been F8 vs 5.6 though in my experience there’s little drop off on most lenses between 5.6 and 8 hence that choice for the test. I wouldn’t dream of using the 24-200 for professional work in any other setting than landscape as it’s not fast enough and just not the right tool all around, but for largely static landscape work where you’re rarely shooting wider than F8 I’d say of the two it’s the better all round choice when all other factors are thrown in. I’ve said in other comments that a lot of landscapers I know are moving away from 70-200’s as despite superb IQ they can get basically the same thing in modern mirrorless 100-400’s and gain the extra reach for about the same weight, similarly the 24-70’s also by favouring 24-120’s. On the old DSLR mounts the quality gap was much more noticeable and why having the 2.8 glass was far more of a priority even if they weighed a tonne!
@@StuartMcGlennon Yes interesting, I actually wanted the 24-70 f2.8 for my Z 72 and bought the kit with 24-70 f4 ZS thinking I’d sell it and upgrade but there is no need the f4 is an S lens anyway and the IQ is stunning. Had I realised I’d have got the 24-120 f4
Very interesting video. Thanks for making it. I'm just on the verge of getting a Z system camera. Currently, I have an old Nikon D7000 with the 18mm-200mm VR lens. I've taken tons of great shots with it. When I first started looking at the Z system lens offerings, I was surprised that they didn't offer one with the same range as my current one. I really would like a faster lens for video in low light, but maybe I need to think about a cinema lens for that. Whenever I'm traveling with my wife, she likes to move fast, so there's no time to switch lenses. That's why the 18-200mm was so great.
Felt was perfect travel lens so put away my 24/70 f4 & only took this lens with my 14/30 f4 but quite disappointed with images so gone back to the 24/70 f4 & much happier.
👍
I rebought this lens recently as I'm just tired of changing lenses in the field. I have the 28-75 2.8 if I want fast. But that's for event/portrait stuff. The 24-120mm f4 is too slow for events and not long enough for what I want (Same feeling about the 24-70mm f4). So I decided to go to use one or the other. I'll probably add the 70-180 2.8 also now the it's out. Basically I'm going down further the rabbit hole... Start at 24-200 for landscape/travel/hiking... Then 28-75 2.8 / 70-180 2.8 for events... Then 35/85 for portraits when I have more time. Depending on the needs. Basically covers everything for me.
Sounds like you’re pretty well covered! 👍
Same situation as you.
Z 14-24, Z 24-70 f/2.8, and Z 70-200 f/2.8 for events/parties/weddings.
Z 35, Z 50, Z 85 for portraits when I can change lenses.
Z 24-200 for travel/hiking.
I'm trying to convince myself that I don't need to replace my Z 24-200 with the Z 24-120, but it's difficult as we hear such good things about the 24-120.
it certainly holds its own against the 70-200 in terms of sharpness. where it loses out, however, is certainly in the contrast, which is far inferior to the more prestigious lens. but from what I have seen from your splendid photos, it is a really good lens. congratulations.
Really interesting stuff Stuart. I agonised over whether to go for the 24-200 or the 24-120 F4 for ages, and ended up going with the 24-120. Had it for a couple of months and it's a fantastic lens, although as you suggest in the film, I do ocassionally want for someting a little bit longer. I then have to resort to my 70-200 F4 F-mount (with the FTZ convertor), so that's a fair bit more kit to carry when I'm heading up into the mountains. I'll interested to hear what you make of the 24-120.
Tough one isn’t it, mainly caused by the lack of 70-200f4 for z mount though a lot of folk I know are moving away from 70-200’s and moving more towards standard wide/ 24-120 / 100-400 set ups
Yes, it does seem like the 24-120 and 100-400 combo is gaining favour. 100-400 is on my wishlist! Could be a while though. Cheers again for all the content.
Nikon coolpix P510 42x 24-1,000. Another remarkable lens. Great pictures under $200
After watching Mark Littlejohn for a week in Torridon use nothing but this lens it’s definitely one to be considered!
I know I bloody told him to buy it! :-D
@@StuartMcGlennon seems like it gets you 90% of the way there without any major issues. I’ve joined a hill walking group and this might suit me more than the 24-120mm & 100-400mm in weight savings 😂
For what you get in performance and price, it's pretty hard to beat it. I know for a fact the 70-200 wouldn't give me personally more then I need and with the extra saved money I picked up the 14-30 f4 as well.
For me it’s all about diminishing returns and use case - it’s great that we’re now in an age where there’s little to no compromise once you step down from 2.8 glass.
Really useful Vid Stu, my 70-200 won’t show itself in your presence ever again 😃 probably the only real landscape use case for it as we’ve talked about is from the air, the ability to get down to f2.8 and keep the iso at manageable levels (eg 800) in poor light in case your shot is a worldie (and Iceland sure has that) is valuable. Will be good to repeat this with my 24-120, though you’ve frankly shown the 24-200 to perhaps be the only lens some need.
Cheers fella yeah it’s become a conversation (and should be) purely on use case rather than if the lenses are actually any good or not, that debate with is long gone. If you’re a photographer taking crap images with this lens, it’s probably because you’re a crap photographer. The extra stops of light on a 2.8 will always be very useful in certain scenarios and if they apply to the user then obviously get that lens, but if it’s a debate purely on image quality alone I can’t see a lot of sense in paying 3x cost for about 5% increase in image quality.
Thank you Stuart for your very good review! 👍🏻 Pixel or not Pixel, more or less contrast...
The fact is i love your great landscape pictures! 👌🏻
And your review helped me in the decision between the 24-120 and the 24-200. I think az the 24-120 i would miss the less Tele!
I too love landscape fotography and with my Z6II and onnly the 24-70/4S pushes me to any limits..
Thank you 😊
As much as anything, this has reassured me as to the weather resistance.
Ty for saving me money. Going to the store and will purchase after work today.
Excellent analysis Stuart. Just one little thought for the 70-200 in that you can add a 2x teleconverter giving you longer focal length up to 400mm. stopping down to F11 that combination is very sharp and adds a little more versatility to the 70-200 for landscape.
Thanks Huw - yep a TC on the 70-200 also very effective, my friend who I'm on the lofoten trip with has one and says it's excellent, though if it were me I'd buy the 100-400 if I only shot landscapes as it's just about on par optically and the same weight as the 70-200 (I think he's about to do that and sell his 70-200). More and more landscape photographers in mirrorless systems are moving away from the holy trinity set up and going more with a 16-35/24-105/100-400 kit as the lenses have gotten so good compared with the DLSR ones. Whatever people choose with these lenses they're all excellent though.
It might be my copy of the 24-200 but I don’t use it that much because I find it soft, especially at 200mm but across the board. I’m considering replacing it with a 24-120. The lens I use the most is the 24-70 f2/8 S. It is truly outstanding.
Another great video. I have the 14-30mm and 24-200mm. It's such a great combo. Like you and others I've considered the 24-120mm but I know I would miss the extra reach. If Nikon released a 70-300 instead of a 70-200mm things might change though. Looking forward to seeing the photos and vlogs from Lofoten. Have a safe trip.
Tamron have released a 70-300 on z mount which looks pretty good
Just stumbled across your really good video here, and would like to share my experiences with this lens for others that may be considering it.
I bought it with my Z6II as I switched from my D610 and needed a backup lens for my 35-50-85 f/1.8 F-series lenses that I am using with the FTZ adapter. I shoot a lot of corporate work (portraits, buildings, products etc.) and while some of the work is done at f/2-2.8, most of it takes place at around f/8, so in a lot of cases, this lens could take over if I smashed one of my primes on location. So, that was the idea: A relatively cheap lens that could live silently in the corner of my bag, until it was needed for an emergency.
Heh.
Now, I know that the f/1.8 series of primes for the F-mount is the cheaper option, but especially the 85 mm f/1.8 is generally accepted as a very, very sharp lens at f/5.6 - f/8, and yet I can use the 24-200 side by side with the D610/85mm f/1.8 combo at f/8 and not be able to tell the difference while editing the images afterwards. The colors, the sharpness, the contrast - if there is a difference, I cannot tell it in a fair comparison at all.
Yes, the variable aperture is sometimes a bit of a bother, but when doing run-and-gun work (like workers in action at the production line), I use auto-ISO anyway, so I am OK with it.
Yes, at 24 mm it is definitely weak wide open, but stop it down to f/8 and I think it cleans up very nicely. Add a bit of contrast in the corners and you need to print extremely big to see the difference in the real world.
But for the money and the weight and the versatility you really can't go wrong with this lens, as long as you know that you can work with the limitations around its available apertures - this is not for low-light work in any way.
Bonus info: This lens is actually really good for occasional video captures for your clients. Focus breathing is really limited and the VR does a good job stabilizing your shot.
Oh, and a completely random thought: It is truly amazing, that the work you do with a Z7 and a prosumer super zoom lens today was the exclusive playing field of high-end medium format cameras with equally high-end medium primes not that many years ago. It really understates the fact that it is in no way the gear that is holding anyone back today: Any keen landscape photography hobbyist can afford a used Z7 and the 24-200 and have the potential to produce excellent work with it.
Thanks or watching - yes diminishing returns, marginal gains often for significant cost where landscapes are concerned. Other genres fast apertures are far more important.
Very pleased to hear this seeing as I have this lens already!
Looks a great little lens,the proof is obviously in the pudding with your images…👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 if you do a variety of photography ie portraits,sports or events etc the 70-200 is a must over the 24-200.I have the Sony 70-200 f2.8 gm2 and it is amazing for the things I mentioned so horses for courses really.
Yeah it’s not a lens for anything fast moving where light gathering is key as I mentioned in the test section - for static stuff though it’s absolutely fine
Excellent points I agree ! it's the photographer not the lens. You are correct about changing lenses in bad weather, you can't do it without high risk to damage the gear. It's not a time to bring 2-3 primes out. The Nikon 24-120 F4 S does resolve slightly sharper but not enough to really make a difference. the 24-200 when stopped down to F8 is plenty sharp and I shoot it at F8 a lot
Cheers thanks for watching 👍
I'll confess that my knowledge of tech camera equipment would easily fit in a small match box...but even with that I could see how you were testing the different lenses which was interesting anyway. My efforts in photography tbh revolve much more around the process of trying to select images, taking the shot and putting together a decent composition. That said, thanks as ever for sharing the video Stuart.
....and I work on the basis that most modern equipment is superb anyway!
To be honest Bob more photographers would do well to follow that approach and worry far less about gear that has no bearing on their ability to make good images.
Thank you Stuart! Eyes-opening video...
👍
I accidently got the borrow lens of Nikon 70-200m zf2.8 with 2 TC for bird from Nikon. So I tested against my old 80-200 f2.8, I could not believed that old len 80-200 ED lens quite up to this Z lens in all range except the Z len more contrast due to newer technology elements.
Yeah the extra sharpness people often hope to get from 2.8's (certainly at around F8) rarely ends up being all that noticeable, certainly with more modern lenses. Improved contrast is more often the case though it's an easy thing to adjust in post anyway.
I choose the 24-200 because I used to use the old 28-300 vr. I shoot most children on schools events. For me worked.
Really interesting review that challenges the group think about the 24-200. Comparing the numbers of views with actual likes, one might conclude that viewers are uncomfortable with you not confirming their previous bias. It doesn't make you wrong and your photos should make people change their views.
Photography is full of lazy conclusions and stereotypes, usually from people who aren’t actually pros and don’t make a living from it. The camera industry needs less discerning / lazy consumers to keep the industry going. The fact is that for landscape specifically, any modern equipment more than suffices 90% of the time.
Very good reveiw and beautiful images. I have this lens and honestly, after using the 24-70 f4s quite a lot before, I found the image quality a little bit disappointing on the wide end especially in tricky light conditions. Now i'm considering to sell it and get the 24-120 f4s instead. Hard to choose because other than that the 24-200 is really a very good lens.
Did you change from 24-200 to 24-120 f4s? I'm considering a similar move, but sometimes I use the 200, especially during holiday trips, so I treat the 24-200 as a basic, convenient and universal lens.
Really beautiful images you've made. This video is a godsend. I've been wondering what telephoto lens to get, even considering the AF-S 70-200mm f4 or Tamron's 70-210mm f4, but I hate that they're so large. I'll need to carry different kinds of equipment when walking around, so I do want to save on space and weight. I didn't consider this lens before now, but it might actually not only be the better option, but also save me some more space, if I won't need to carry the 24-70mm f4 with me either.
Thanks glad you found it useful, it’s a brilliant lens
This lens has become my goto lens for my Z6.
It’s a great lens 👍
Hi Stuart, I have the 24-200mm lens on my z6ii and absolutely agree with you. It's a great combination at an affordable price. Nice comparison, nice video.
Thanks very much 👍
How does it compare to the 24 to 120S
I think the prints you've produced of the images you've captured with this lens speak for themselves, Stuart. I've had a similar debate over whether I should exchange my 24-120mm f/4 for a 24-70mm f/2.8, but like you, although there is better contrast, I feel the extra weight over what little else I would gain in sharpness is minimal. As a result, I've kept with this lens for about ten years as I cannot justify the move.
I mean, I would love to move over to the Nikon Mirrorless Z System from my D750, but funds won't allow for that anytime soon. My priority at the moment is that I need to sell my last few remaining items of Lee Filters gear, to reinvest it in the items I still need from Kase. Might need a light tent for shooting the products in, as photographing the items for sale is a key component.
Anyway, I'll bear this in mind for when I do finally move over to the Z System.
Thanks Ian yeah if you're happy with it and it's doing the job that's all that matters - as I said to Mali in an earlier comment many landscape photographers spend more time than they should fretting about technical gear stuff that has little consequence in their ability to make good images.
My favorite store has a promotional discount of 193 euros on this optic. Will probably order it.😊
Which store :)
@@ukqwerty999 CyberPhoto in Sweden
👍
Fantastic images! I´m waiting for this lense to arrive today as I write this, and can´t wait to try it out on my new Nikon Zf! 😃
Your work is PHENOMENAL
I own the 24-200 as well. But I use it on a Z6II. I’m really surprised how good it performs on a Z7II. Thanks for sharing!
Had it and hated it. I sold it to LCE and purchased the 24-120mm F4. Probably me but I just didn’t like it.
It was good for when travelling aboard. You’ll see my kit tomorrow morning on a new vlog if you’re interested.
Thanks
👍
By the way, you have some stunning images with it so I could have been wrong 😂
@@paulwbakerphotography you might have had a bad copy Paul, my own experience with many z lenses I’ve tried is they’re all excellent and a significant step ahead of all the old F mount glass. Since this video I’ve also shot the 24-120 against this and again I found little difference between them at 200% in Lightroom, certainly from 50mm onwards anyway.
@@StuartMcGlennon I have many of the Z lenses and agree they’re all excellent. My favourite is the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm just amazing.
Enjoyed the video, thank you for sharing
I love your landscapes. I also find the 24-200 as my most used lens, but I think I should imitate you and make better use of my tripod to bring out this lens's best.
Thanks very much 👍
These days I try not to compare lenses on Z6/Z7 and gen 2 bodies. I find their AF is really not that reliable while just doing lens comparison. More often than not I have to fight with the pinpoint AF system since it doesn't always want to turn green for the same spot somehow. I think that might be the reason why your 720.8 didn't perform, especially if previous shots turned out to be razor sharp.
With a lot of modern preimium lenses the trend seems to be that they are really good right from wide open in contrary to older designs. Stopping down nowadays is rather more for dof and control of shutter speed, or say bokeh ball shape and to correct other minor optical imperfections, than having front to back sharpness. Most great compositions usually shouldn't force a sharp corner anyway. You brought up a good point that the 24-200 enabled you to be out about and at the scene with gears ready at fingertips for opportunities. These days more great images are still relying on better idea/composition to standout. I think that's the real take away here. Though honestly and subjectively, I shoot and save my raw files with the intention that I might one day blow it up huge and hang it somewhere I like. So I'd prefer to use it with the best optics at hand possible. Just that I won't be looking at it and go like “well, imagine if I had XXX lens in my backpack before snapping this”.
I blow all my images up huge running my own gallery and these files hold up absolutely fine to be honest. We’ve reached a point where there’s no limitation on the user with any of this glass now, which wasn’t the case for many years. Now you simply pick the correct lens for your shooting style and need not worry about IQ.
Great video! Currently shooting a Z7 with a Z 24-70 f/4 and F mount 16-35 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. I really want to replace the 16-35 as the Z 14-30 seems to blow it away. Happy with the quality of my other two lenses but this video really gives food for thought, could save almost a kilo of weight and not have to switch lenses as often.
Thanks yeah I had the old 16-35 on F mount and the 14-30 I’d say is significantly better and much much lighter
Thanks for a realistic comparison. I have the 24-200 z and have been fighting off the urge to also buy the 70-200 z (I'm a hobbyist). Your photo comparison shows me the only thing the 24-200 z lacks for me is some contrast. Is it as simple as bumping up the contrast in post to make the 24-200 photo look as appealing as the 70-200 photo?
Speaking from my experience with other lenses, typically the contrast you get from global adjustments in post isn't quite the same as a more contrasty lens, but just fiddling with curves and adding touches of clarity can get you pretty close. I plan to get the 24-200 over a 70-200 or 100-400 with the expectation that a little extra finesse in post will make the contrast benefits negligible in most situations.
Short answer, basically yes if you know what you’re doing. As the other poster has mentioned you’ll get most if not all the way there with correct contrast manipulation. You do indeed gain more micro contrast on more expensive lenses (generally this more than outright sharpness) but as I said in the video you’re paying a huge premium for it. If you’re stood infront of amazing light and conditions these things in real world use make zero difference.
Really interesting that Stuart, top vid, I hadn't been planning to switch from the D850 to Z but after seeing the 2 lens setup my mate had today, Z7II 14-30 and this lens you are reviewing, how could I not consider it? a 2 lens setup and no more 150mm filter system for my 14-24 f/2.8 F mount. I'd be going from 4 lenses in my bag to 2, and all of that lighter, it's a bit of a jump from 'what you know' but in so many ways it makes sense.
Cheers fella, the 14-30 is as good as the F mount 14-24 optically, all the Z lenses are better than the F mount stuff, in many cases noticeably. 24-200mm is optically on par with the 70-200f4 F mount lens which is very good, but half the weight. Honestly mate for landscape use it’s bloody excellent
@@StuartMcGlennon Cheers mate I have the 70-200 f/4 and that's an absolute corker so this is good to know, appreciate the review! Think it could be an LCE trade in ....
I worried about buying the F-mount 24-120 f4 for the same reasons. But, it's my go-to workhorse lens. There's better or course but I can get 24x30 prints with no problems. My 14-24mm does a lot better at 24 mm. So, the Z 24-120 would be a good choice for landscape. But, the variable aperture that's f.6.3 is too slow for most photojournalism and documentarty photography.
The differences in a lot of these lenses is no tiny that the only limitations photographers have is their vision and skill - they all produce great results in the right hands.
That joint-fav shot....amazing!
Thanks 🙏
Hi Stuart. Have you formerly used the F mount 28-300 and if yes, how would the 24-200 compare? On my D800 I used the 28-300 for years but on the Z world I’ve moved to the 24-70/2.8 (outstanding) and still using the 70-200/2.8 VRii on the ftz adapter. A solid combo but heavy and yes, changing lenses all the time. I’ve used the Z 24-120/f4 and loved it, but I miss those extra 80mm too. Been debating whether to get the 24-200 for 1 year now :-) and curious to hear from other fellow photographers how it would compare to the old 28-300 f mount!
Hi Nelson, yes briefly used the 28-300 and also the 24-120 F mounts and found both quite poor, this lens is miles better than both for me. A good review here is the 24-200 against the z 24-70f4 which is a brilliant lens for the money, basically there’s little difference between them.
ua-cam.com/video/m7AkjAP1IMM/v-deo.html
Hi and thank you for the video! I got the 24-200 lens together with the Z5 camera. Please tell me, in your opinion, would this lens perform better with the Z7 or a Nikon Z camera with more megapixels, does this make a huge difference?
You will only notice the 25 to 45MP jump in bigger print outs.
My next new lens for sure 👍
👍
Thanks Stuart for an excellent video! BTW what Z body do you use the lens with?
Thanks Paul I use a Z7ii
Interesting video Stuart, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
👍
Wonderful photos. Great review.
Thanks you for the review. I'm currently trying to decide between the Z24-200mm and the Tamron 24-300mm. Whichever I choose will accompany my Z 24-70 f4. I'm sort of leaning toward the Tamron for the extra focal length. Any thoughts?
Thanks Gary, if you’re talking about adapting a Tamron lens then I’d say the Nikon
@@StuartMcGlennon Thanks, Stuart, I failed to say that the
Tamron lens is a Z mount lens for Nikon.
@@garybeat6637I thought Tamron only did a 70-300mm for Z mount which recently came out, unless it's an upcoming one?
@@StuartMcGlennon You are correct, Stuart; I made a typing error. I have since seen a review of the Tamron z70-300 and it compared favorably to the Nikon version so I will probably go with that as it fits well with my Nikon z24-70. Thanks for taking the time to send your advice; much appreciated.
Thanks Stuart for a great input. I have 24-120 for landscape which I love but I am trying to reduce the weight. On top of it I have sigma 100-400 which is also fab lens but all this and the weight adds up. that 24-200 is probably 90% of what I am shooting. The only problem is that switching lenses means loosing money when selling on ebay. that's the only thing which keeps me with -120 version. oh... with this post you are just creating dilemmas... 🙂