Nikon 24-200

phinix

phinix

Messages
857
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys, I'm trying to make a choice between zoom lens.

I have Zf camera and 24-70/4 zoom. I'm a hobbist, not a pro, I use it for family travel, some landscapes during family trips etc

I'm considering 24-200, but not sure if I would ever need this kind of reach. So far during trips I used only primes (for last 20 years) and this new Nikon setup I have for last year or so. So far 24-70/4 far 70mm covered my needs, but I'm wondering if extra reach to 200mm would bring new photos - you know what I mean, when I don't have it, I may miss shots I would take if I had it, but I don't know that till I have it :LOL:

I only consider 24-200 as its lightest zoom you can get, I dont like to have more than 2 lens with me.

Question is - should I sell 24-70/4 and get 24-200 - would I miss quality of 24-70/4? Being an anthusiast-amateur, would I notice IQ drop with 24-200 compared to 24-70?
Also, should I get 24-200 at all? Is that extra reach usable that often to justify purchase fo thsi lens? I never used long zooms. I must say I had only few times during last trip to Zanzibar where I could use longer zoom, but it would be maybe 10% of the time. Looking back in my photos, 80% of the time I use wide range 20-24-40mm.

In next couple of years I'll be planning few big trips to US, Japan, where I may need long zooms, don't know, would I?
Going to Marrakech in 2 weeks, will see if 24-70 is enough, but I just purchased F mount 20mm 1.8 prime which will probably be 99% of time on my Zf :)


Many may suggest 24-120. Just to say why I would prefer not to go that route: used 24-120 in UK is £900.
Right now I can get brand new 24-200 from Nikon website for £520. I dont have much budget, even if I sell 24-70 for £250.
 
Last edited:
That's potentially 10% missed shots on your Zanzibar trip.

FOR ME, the convenience of the longer zoom (especially since it's the same speed as the alternative) would outweigh the (possible) extra IQ that the shorter zoom might give me. If you can, try the 24-200 and compare the files from it and your current zoom to see if your wife can see any real difference in quality (you might see it, since you might look extra hard for differences but she's less likely to!)
 
Nod said:
That's potentially 10% missed shots on your Zanzibar trip.

FOR ME, the convenience of the longer zoom (especially since it's the same speed as the alternative) would outweigh the (possible) extra IQ that the shorter zoom might give me. If you can, try the 24-200 and compare the files from it and your current zoom to see if your wife can see any real difference in quality (you might see it, since you might look extra hard for differences but she's less likely to!)
Click to expand...

I mean shots were taken, but not right up to moneky's face ;)

Yeah, i think IQ won't matter that much for me, not eben mentioning my wife LOL
For my wife is simple - you got the image, you can tell where we are, nobody looks fat, good. I could just use phone camera, it would be fine :D

I never liked zooms for their size, weight and IQ lower than primes. But on my trip to Zanzibar, I stopped using any prime and just went with 24-70/4 zoom - as soon as I start using zoom I keep zooming in and out to shoot, no matter where I stand. With primes I normally walk up to position first, then bring my camera up to my eyes and compose, sometimes take few steps back or forth. Zoom is so convinient during travel, where I only have 10 seconds to take a shot, or some tourists will walk in the frame, or my family get bored standing ;)

Jeez, amount of tourists nowadays, anywhere! I traveled once a year so far, only this year after cancer and 3 surgeries I decided to hell with everything, I'm going to travel and see the world, cause looks like I won't live till retirement :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
I have both the 24-120 & 24-200 and to be honest in real world situations there’s very little to choose from even when viewing at 100% in LR. I originally bought the 24-120 thinking it was the ‘better lens’ but ended up adding the 24-200 as I wanted more reach. Talking to some landscape Photographers such as Marc Robbins, Demi Ray Oral and Mike Prince, the 24-200 gives nothing up for them & if it’s good enough for them its easily good enough for me!

Having said that I prefer the constant f4 aperture of the 24-120, so invariably end up using that more than the 24-200. I’m currently thinking of moving the 24-200 on as the 24-120 is quite long enough for most of what I shoot with it.
 
wibbly said:
I have both the 24-120 & 24-200 and to be honest in real world situations there’s very little to choose from even when viewing at 100% in LR. I originally bought the 24-120 thinking it was the ‘better lens’ but ended up adding the 24-200 as I wanted more reach. Talking to some landscape Photographers such as Marc Robbins, Demi Ray Oral and Mike Prince, the 24-200 gives nothing up for them & if it’s good enough for them its easily good enough for me!

Having said that I prefer the constant f4 aperture of the 24-120, so invariably end up using that more than the 24-200. I’m currently thinking of moving the 24-200 on as the 24-120 is quite long enough for most of what I shoot with it.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. Thanks for mentioning landscape photgraphers and their use of 24-200. Like you said, if its good for them, it will definitely be good for me :)
I added some thoughts on 24-120 in first post asn I knew it will be suggested. At very end, it comes to money and investing, 24-120 even used, its out of my range for single lens.

If NIkon could come up with a nice small 20-100 or maybe 20-80mm zoom, it would be nice :)
 
Nod said:
That's potentially 10% missed shots on your Zanzibar trip.

FOR ME, the convenience of the longer zoom (especially since it's the same speed as the alternative) would outweigh the (possible) extra IQ that the shorter zoom might give me. If you can, try the 24-200 and compare the files from it and your current zoom to see if your wife can see any real difference in quality (you might see it, since you might look extra hard for differences but she's less likely to!)
Click to expand...

I'd add to this to try and hire the lens either for the trip, or for a weekend trial beforehand. I've done this a few times in the past with lenses I have been considering and its helped loads.
 
I have both the 24-70 f4 and the 24-200. Seldom use the 24-70 (but I’m not selling it). I didn’t think I would ever need above 70mm, but to my surprise I found it very useful. I also had the 24-120 for a short while but all it gave me is sore shoulders! I do know that @lunar22 suspects quality variance on copies of the 24-200, but I’ve not experienced it, and I have had 3 copies.
 
Last edited:
Dont have the lens mentioned, but personally I'd go for the longer reach. I do have the Tamron 28-300, and while it's never going to match a 24-70L it's "good enough" for the times I want to use one lens and travel light. I'm led to believe the Nikon 24-200 is a lot better.
 
Especially for travel, zooms are hard to beat. Yes, there are a few compromises to be made but the benefits cancel them out. IMO!
 
I have the 24-70, 24-120 and 24-200. The first two I’ve had a while, but I bought a used 24-200 for a big trip to Japan where I just wanted to take one lens that would cover pretty much every eventuality. And I’m glad I did as for travel use it’s excellent, and I made use of the entire focal range on that trip.

It lacks the nth degree of image quality that the 24-120 has, but you’d have to be doing a lot of pixel peeping or have a very discerning eye to notice the difference. It’s not a fast lens though so you’ll be increasing the ISO when there is less light, that may or may not matter to you.

I had intended moving the lens on after Japan, as it’s hard to justify having three 24-something lenses, but it is a very useful lens to have and I found myself using it this week when I found i needed something with a little bit more at the long end than than the 24-120 (which is on my Z7 95% of the time). So given that I have the luxury of being able to afford to keep all 3 lenses, I’ll keep it for a while longer.
 
Stephen L said:
I do know that @lunar22 suspects quality variance on copies of the 24-200, but I’ve not experienced it, and I have had 3 copies
Click to expand...
well, as you know I tried it out around a year ago but found the performance at the wide end very poor towards the edges and in general the AF was less reliable than my other Z lenses, though some of the shots were absolutely fine. My copy was second hand bought from Calumet and I must say my second hand 24-120 from the same source was incomparably better. I guess I was just unlucky.
 
phinix said:
Hi guys, I'm trying to make a choice between zoom lens.

I have Zf camera and 24-70/4 zoom. I'm a hobbist, not a pro, I use it for family travel, some landscapes during family trips etc

I'm considering 24-200, but not sure if I would ever need this kind of reach. So far during trips I used only primes (for last 20 years) and this new Nikon setup I have for last year or so. So far 24-70/4 far 70mm covered my needs, but I'm wondering if extra reach to 200mm would bring new photos - you know what I mean, when I don't have it, I may miss shots I would take if I had it, but I don't know that till I have it :LOL:

I only consider 24-200 as its lightest zoom you can get, I dont like to have more than 2 lens with me.

Question is - should I sell 24-70/4 and get 24-200 - would I miss quality of 24-70/4? Being an anthusiast-amateur, would I notice IQ drop with 24-200 compared to 24-70?
Also, should I get 24-200 at all? Is that extra reach usable that often to justify purchase fo thsi lens? I never used long zooms. I must say I had only few times during last trip to Zanzibar where I could use longer zoom, but it would be maybe 10% of the time. Looking back in my photos, 80% of the time I use wide range 20-24-40mm.

In next couple of years I'll be planning few big trips to US, Japan, where I may need long zooms, don't know, would I?
Going to Marrakech in 2 weeks, will see if 24-70 is enough, but I just purchased F mount 20mm 1.8 prime which will probably be 99% of time on my Zf :)


Many may suggest 24-120. Just to say why I would prefer not to go that route: used 24-120 in UK is £900.
Right now I can get brand new 24-200 from Nikon website for £520. I dont have much budget, even if I sell 24-70 for £250.
Click to expand...
You might find this review helpful.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5vOKV1fcCw
 
My main issue with the Nikon 24-200mm is the aperture. It's f5.6 from 50mm and f6.3 from 70mm.
For my uses that's a bit slow and I'd like having the f4 of 24-120mm.

Not sure is tamron 28-200mm is available for Z mount but that lens is f4 till 80mm and f4.5 till 110mm and f5.6 beyond. That's really nice for me.

If you are happy with f5.6-6.3 for the majority of the zoom range then 24-200mm looks really nice overall.
 
I guess it depends what you want to use it for. For landscapes the smaller aperture isn’t much of an issue as you’re likely to be using f8-f11. The light weight and compact size is great. I’m much happier carrying that one lens that a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 (still can’t believe I’d carry them for landscape photography!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top