Nikon Z 24 200 full lens test (against 24-70mm f4)

[@sbroadbentphoto]

Great review. However the 24-200 does have vibration reduction built in to the lens

[@gbye007]

That AFS 70-200 f/2.8 VR is version 1 of the AFS lenses, and was designed and built back in the Nikon APS-C DSLR days, before FF DSLRs by Nikon. It's well known for having poor resolution outside the DX frame borders. Many people ditched it for the G VR (II) lens.

[@stanspb763]

Very useful discussion on the quality of the non-S lenses. To be as sharp as the 24-70 f/4 S is a very welcome discovery. I have a long collected collection of the best Nikon lenses from 14 to 200mm and for same FL, every S lenses I have or used, is sharper across the frame considerably better CA/color fringing. That is one of the most surprising discoveries after starting my collection of S lenses 20 months ago. The primes like the 85 1.8 were expected to be good but it was clearly better than both my 85 1.4G and Sigma 85 1.4 ART. In the very center the ART lenses seems to be as sharp but it falls off pretty quickly away from the center while the S lens is great in the corners. The biggest surprise was the 24-70 f/4 "kit" lens. It was no contests in the corners when compared to the 24-70 2.8G and E. Later when getting the 2.8 S, there was surprisingly little difference, but it was better than the f/4 version, very high praise for both because the 2.8 is likely the best mid zoom on the planet. When Nikon was teasing the Z cameras before they were revealed, their promotions claimed the mount was the best in the field and allowed better lens designs. A lot of people dismissed that as marketing hype but when released we discovered they were not exaggerating. My D850 sits on the shelf along with 18 top F mount lenses unless an art director insists on the large file sizes, for everything else my #1 camera shot 90% of the time is the Z6 with S lenses. I bought the Z solely as a travel camera because more and more regional airlines into exotic locales restrict carry on weight and size that does not allow the larger heavier bodies and lenses. After shooting for a few days, the Z6 became my primary camera and goes with me everywhere in a small sling bag, usually with the 24-70 and 85 1.8 and a SB900. The 24-200 might be my walking around/travel lens, plus a fast prime.

[@charlesmichaud6990]

Thanks for the review. I just received my 240200 today and was glad to come across your video. This confirms what i've found in my own tests and what I had read so far. What impresses me even more upon using the lens today is the convenience and ergonomics. It feels just as good in the hand as the 24-70 F4 and is barely longer. I can now put this lens on my camera and slip the 14-30 in my bag and be ready for just about anything. Kudos to Nikon for building lenses for photographers rather than aiming to impress geeks.

[@intrinsicimagery]

To your kit, I added a 50mm 1.8 S.

[@charlesmichaud6990]

@@intrinsicimagery Couldn't agree more. I also own the 50 and it's is awesome. When I'm using my backpack it's the first prime I add, along with the 85 and my vintage 180mm f2,8

[@grahamcolling5087]

Always reassuring to hear a professional photographer confirm my initial thoughts on this lens. It is a cracker. Thanks for doing the testing.

[@ulrichpflug2644]

Great review. Thanks a lot for the test. The most important thing is that you don‘t miss a shot.

[@dr.d723]

Hi John. Journeyprocess here. You have helped me immensely with your review of this lens! Thank you for taking the time to do it!

[@johngravett9194]

Glad it was helpful!

[@johngravett9194]

My pleasure!

[@hansol_foto]

So informative! Thanks a lot. I feel the resolution at telescope angle(above 70mm) of 24-200 is similar or slight sharper as 70-200 VR1 version. I am using 70-200 F4 VR now, and I hope the resolution of 24-200 is similar as my 70-200/4.

[@tonyw.1936]

Hi John, I think the 24-200 mm Z lens have VR in the lens . but the control , on or off is in the camera.

[@peterlooper7956]

VR: Yes. Lens shift using voice coil motors (VCMs)

[@johngravett9194]

@@peterlooper7956 Thanks Guys - I think I knew that - just forgot while I was talking!

[@mchjubjub6915]

You even made brick walls look interesting. Z7 and 24-70 is incredible. I think you've persuaded me to keep the 24-70 as the purchase the 24-200 was imminent anyway. Great video and you had the 70-200 along with the 200-500 which makes your review, for me top notch viewing. Thank you👍

[@lokatpic]

I bought the Z5 w 24-200 mm lens. I find it sharp as heck. Extension tubes work great with it. So macro photography is child's play. Thanks for your video. Nice job. I like real world review.

[@fredbonnett4102]

Hi John - A great practical review. Your review and the MTFs are all I need to know. Mine should arrive from Amazon between 7/24 and 8/20. Thanks

[@AffinityJack]

Thank you. Your video helped me a lot. I‘ going to buy the Z5 with the 24-200. Ciao Jack

[@jonholcombe]

I just found this reivew and your channel and I subscribed. Brilliant, practical, insisghful review.

[@bdfrankmeow]

This lens is now a strong argument for the Z mount . If i get a Z body, this (probably at F8 most of the time) and the 50mm f1.8 would be my first to get . The limitation of the wide range zoom can be lessen by adding a favorite prime within its range and/or something out of it like a 20mm f1.8 or that 200-500mm zoom .

[@johngravett9194]

bdfrankmeow absolutely. I love my 50mm f1.8.

[@scotimages]

Excellent comparison that is personally helpful for my forthcoming purchase. Many thanks.

[@CAYENNEOREZ]

Best review I've seen on this lens yet. Cheers.

[@RichardBO9]

Thanks for the review. I have been considering this lens for a while.

[@mikeconnors1673]

Nice review; thank you. Your 70-200 problem may just be that it has drifted a bit with age. I had the same problem with my 24-70 2.8VR, sent it back to Nikon for adjustment and it's pin sharp again now.

[@philcowling6812]

Thanks for a superb and practical review. I have the 24-200 as it came with the camera. Your point re zooming to an equivalent 6ft print says it all. It's easy to hear other reviewers pulling apart and completing microscopic examination of lens performance, but in truth who and when will an average Joe get to benefit or even see the extra minutia improvement for the massive additional cost. As a basic amateur enthusiast I love the one lens, compact and lightness and anything better is probably way outside my skill set and compromises the benefits of traveling with a z camera. Thanks again for saving me the expense of believing I really needed to blow $2500 on a F2.8 zoom or prime. I will invest in a lens to suite landscape shots in the near future but for now and for travels through Europe I will stick with what I have and enjoy the luxury of travelling light and as you say "never having the wrong lens"

[@stjepanjina]

24-200 SPECTACULAR LENS!

[@CharleyHarley01]

Nice review. I'll but one right away. The lens is VR according to the detail descriptions I have read

[@radupetrupetica]

Hello sir, and thank you for the video! I just got the 24-200 lens together with the Z5 camera. Didn't had much tine to test it but I like very much the photos I took until now. Please tell me, in your opinion, would this lens perform better with the Z7 or other Nikon camera with more megapixels? Would it be a big difference in quality?

[@johngravett9194]

@@radupetrupetica with any high resolution camera any lens defects will be more obvious, but only in larger prints. Before you buy a Z7 think carefully about how large you are planning to print your pictures. I’m pretty sure that the 24-200 will work perfectly well with it.

[@radupetrupetica]

@@johngravett9194 thank you very much for the answer! Maybe I'll get the Z7 or something better in the future. For now I enjoy the Z5, it's my first mirrorless, I was using DSLR until now. Have a great day sir!

[@willardkennedy6021]

Great review. I have one on order and can't wait to get it. Love the practical approach to your review.

[@skyrunr]

Very interesting! I'm actually considering the 24-200mm for my Z50. Double checked, and this lens does in fact have VR. It focuses 1' closer at 200mm, nearly the same size, and I don't have to deal with that twist storage unlock. The weight is worth not having to switch between the 16-50 and 50-250. I found myself doing that way too often, and the exposed CCD on mirrorless worries me a bit.

[@johngravett9194]

Yes - as you say (and as I didn't realise at the time I filmed) the lens does have VR, but it is switched on and off via the camera, rather than by a switch on the lens.

[@skyrunr]

@@johngravett9194 I'm waiting for ANY specs on the 24-105mm as well. Probably a fixed f4 S. I have a feeling it will be over 1,000 and all these lenses are about the same size. Closer focusing across the range would steer me in that direction as well. Then again there is the WAIT... It would need to have VR to work with my Z50; until I (very likely) get the next Z release FF body.

[@Andy-zr9gi]

Just Ordered the 24-200mm, Thanks for the review, very useful, (I feel more confident about he purchase now).

[@edcoronel9671]

Hi John, this post on the 24-200 is very useful and informative. I wonder how you'd rate it for portaits? Anyway, it's no deal breaker. I've seen your review and it settles a lot of questions. I think you have a great channel. Keep posting. More power!

[@stevojaco]

Very informative- I think that I might ditch my Z 24-70 f/4 and nab this to replace it.

[@StephanKempchen]

I have both...after I got my 24-200 I didn’t use my 24-70S anymore. I believe I’m going to replace it with the 14-30mm S f4 (After I saved some more money.)

[@PekkoAhlsten]

Thank you for the very informative and great review! I'm considering getting the Z5. This lens looks very, very good. Size, weight, sharpness and weather sealing. As a landscape photographer, this could be the only lens I need.

[@johngravett9194]

I think it would balance really well with the Z5, way better than the 24-50

[@stanobert3475]

Combine this lens with Nikon's 35mm 1.8 s lens and you have all of the bases covered for a travel kit.

[@lukehuang4225]

and 14-30 F4.

[@SpencerPullenPhotography]

I agree, it's nice to have good tools to work with, but at the end of the day, I believe it's all about the final photo. Keep up the great work!

[@ericerickson6537]

Nice video I own this lens plus the 24-70 f4. I also own the 24-70 f2.8 S lens (long story) but I am anxious to compare the 24-200 to the f 2.8 version. Not that I need to have things as sharp as the 2.8 which is one of the best lenses I have ever used. Good work thanks for the effort.

[@joshalsip9441]

Would you go 24-70f4 or the 24-200f4?

[@photosmusic7177]

The 24-200mm aperture zoomed out to 70mm is f/6.3.

[@johngravett9194]

Hi Photos Music - sorry to disagree, I have just checked, but f6 is possible up to 77mm, only at 78mm does it reduce to f6.3

[@photosmusic7177]

@@johngravett9194 Thank you most kindly for the correction. I based that on information gathered from the KZbin Channel "Ricci Talks". Though f/6 to f/6.3 hardly makes a difference, it is still good to have the exact information you provided.

[@johngravett9194]

@@photosmusic7177 my pleasure! Thank you for stopping by

[@ToniGVK]

Beautiful photos! From a French photographer. 👍🏼

[@EdwardKilner]

Nice to see this. Have the lens, but stuck indoors. May be able to get out a bit after Christmas. I had a super zoom on my D7200 and found the flexibility on trips handy. This lens is superior to that one, and the Z6ii has great high iso performance, so I figure the results will be good. I’ll try 1/5 handheld...but at 75 I’m not sure I will get your fine results.

[@Isidor0]

Hello, I have the Nikon Z6 and a Nikkor Z 24-200mm f4-f6.3 VR lens. Can you tell me what the sweet spot of this telephoto lens for sharper photos? Thank you.

[@StephanKempchen]

Thanks John for your Great Video. I have a 24-70 S f4 (Kit lens with my Z 6). Now I changed to Z 6II (big improved AF) and bought a 24-200 f4-6.3. I’m really impressed. I experienced the same like you did. It will probably replace my 24-70 S. I have no problem with f6.3 at 200mm because the Z 6(II) works great on high ISO. By the way... I’m German... so if you find any mistakes (spelling or grammar) you are allowed to keep them 🤣

[@ericadams6608]

Thank you for a great comparison John, order going in NOW. Cheers!

[@matejbizjak3839]

Great video! Could you please post some of these sample shots you have made for us to download so we can zoom in and check the quality by ourselves?

[@wparo]

I guess not

[@GerardSheridan]

Thank you for a very informative and useful comparison. This looks like a great all rounder. I’m still on the D800, D850 and D500 and I’m considering selling the 800 and 500 and replace with the Z6 I.this might be a good lens to pair it with.

[@raymondpan5961]

Nice review, I will be buying thic lens.

[@Winzrful]

Brilliant analysis, loved it, subscribed!!!

[@GoskiSlovakia]

I still think about this lens. Do you think, in daylight conditions, Nikon Z6 II with this lens will focus moving objects (skiers, bikers) as well as 24-70 S ? Some people say it is slow lens - if only in low light condition, never mind :-) What dou you think?

[@robtyman4281]

Are these Nikon lenses compatible with a Canon camera?

[@KarenVaisman1]

Thank you! Was this shot on a z6 or z7? Would you say the 24 -200 makes 24 to 70 obsolete?

[@johngravett9194]

Karen Vaisman Shot on a Z6. The advantage of the 24-70 is slightly less chromatic aberration at 24mm, and f4 at 70mm instead of f6 on the 24-200.

[@mickue]

Thanks for the comparison. Guess I will sell my 24-70 to get the 24-200.

[@johnyoung1606]

Hi John ,,, Thank You for a Very enlightening video,,,, I much prefer the kind of real use look at a product... I have been looking for just such a look at the 24-200.... I am guessing that i am of the same age as you. I have been shooting with my D750 and a few mid high range of lenses for years for fun and documentation of every day life (Phx Az USA). I view my photos on a 42" 4k tv monitor and when i enlarge my photos I will not go smaller than 20"X30"... I really have GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) but really the only thing that makes me excited about Mirrorless is "eye auto focus" to chase my 4yr old Gran. about ....... I Hope You Continue to Enjoy Life !!!!!!

[@ВиталийГаврилов-л2о]

Thousandth like!!! Thanks for the review!

[@andyvan5692]

which z camera have you put the lens/s on, because if it is the z 7 the 46.6 MP resolution will "knock the pants off" the F- mount glass, as these lenses ONLY ever have to cope with the D800 series 36 MP sensors! so the resolving capability of the lens will be shown out, when put up against ( or on the z 7 with the FTZ adaptor). but it DOES show us the difference between apertures as the constant f 4 is different to the variable apature lenses, and the f 4's to the 2.8's ( which some 70-200 lenses are).

[@jayhallsworth]

Bloody hell John, you’ve probably just cost me £850 😀 Im desperate to reduce the amount of times you need to change the lens and get dust on the sensor on a mirrorless

[@michaelrogers2039]

Hi John I have the Z 7 and I tested the sharpness of my Z lenses using FoCal and they all were either spot on or a +/- 1. When I tested my F mount lenses with the FTZ adaptor they all needed fine tuning. I was wondering if you fine tuned the 70-200 ?

[@kevinfrench9896]

Interesting and informative John. I had heard it was good so maybe a future purchase maybe on the horizon 👍

[@johngravett9194]

Have you gone mirrorless? - If you do invest in this, you certainly won't regret it!

[@kevinfrench9896]

John I have owned a Z7 for a year now and absolutely love it. I’m a Nikon convert 👍

[@HoLeeChit11]

Good test, but if you were to use the Z glass instead of the F glass against the 24-200 Z, the results would be different. I think I’ll wait for the Z 24-120 f4.

[@johngravett9194]

I did use Z glass where applicable, with the 24-70.

[@maze400]

I bought the z5 for shits and giggles as a street rig with manual lenses from my Leica film days, no thanks to you, I am contemplating this lens. Great job! PS. Always wanted that 200-500.....

[@irisotte83]

Thanks for sharing. Great video👍

[@carlosandreviana9448]

What's the aperture at 70mm? Still f4?

[@plasmonreaktor5792]

I've just bought the lens and tested it: 24 mm: f4 35 mm: f4.8 50 mm: f5.6 70 mm: f6 ~80 mm - 200 mm: f6.3

[@carlosandreviana9448]

@@plasmonreaktor5792 :( that sucks. I was expecting the same aperture until 70mmm

[@classysidd123]

Hi John, thank you so much for your review. I really liked it. Sorry if I ask a very basic question, I'm a noob in photography. Can I use this lens to take portrait photos? I hope to have response from you(or from someone who knows) :) thank you.

[@johngravett9194]

Absolutely, traditionally, lenses of 85-105mm are considered “ideal” for portrait photography, as they give a natural perspective on the face. Wider angle lenses tend to exaggerate facial features (large nose/small ears). Many fashion photographers use longer lenses (200mm) in order to throw the background out of focus and concentrate on the subject. So certainly this would be a great lens for portraits. Hope that answers your question.

[@classysidd123]

@@johngravett9194 Thank you so much for the answer.. :)

[@stanspb763]

@@classysidd123 I do a lot of portrait work and John is right about the most popular focal lengths but don't discount the compression effect at 150-200 mm, which can be very flattering for some faces. The slow aperture can still produce good subject isolation by being closer to the model than the background. If you are planning on shooting people often, you should look at the excellent 85 1.8 S, because it is very useful in lower natural light with excellent subject isolation. Starting out however, the 24-200 would be a very good lens to learn with and develop your style.

[@wesdonze2014]

very good review

[@billyburg4870]

Great review. It makes me seriously want to switch to Nikon :-)

[@einmanaulfur]

Thank you for this review! But I think you just cost me a loooot of money. ;-D

[@scottweaverphotovideo]

Thanks for your very informative review! Your opinion on this new lens is inline with two other reviewers: Ricci Talks and Nikon Thailand: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZ6kZJqnpNepd7s Ricci found it to be the equal or better than the respected 24-120 f4.

[@clancydubh]

You are comparing apples to oranges.

[@johngravett9194]

Sorry Mike. Can’t agree.

[@clancydubh]

@@johngravett9194 No disrespect implied, just wondering why not compare lens of similar range? I just got the 24-200 (using it on a Z50 body (so effectively a 36-300mm) and after very limited use love it.

[@johngravett9194]

@@clancydubh None taken, but this lens is so good, it's streets ahead of the (still very good) Nikon 28 - 300. Also I only have a certain range of lenses (I'm not given anything to test - I buy them!)

[@fattestallenalive7148]

Why is it so hard to just take pictures of FLAT CHARTS to test sharpens instead of using freaking 3 dimension brick walls that obviously isn't ideal due to depth of field??? It's ridiculous seeing people pixel peeping on bunch of stupid brick walls that are IMPERFECT BY NATURE I really wish more people would learn from Christopher frost by using STANDARDIZED test charts for pixel peeping sharpness review STOP USING STUPID BRICK WALLS People make fun of those using brick walls to test lens sharpness as if the act of pixel preeping itself is something to be ridiculed but it's actually some people's weird obsession with brick walls that gives pixel peeping the bad rep it has

[@johngravett9194]

Because life is in three dimensions. Unless you spend your life shooting two dimensional subjects. If that’s your bag, but a macro lens 🤪