Hey Ken, longtime reader, short-time viewer here. Just wanted to thank you for your years of service, providing me with so many insightful reviews throughout my photography 'career'. Whereas many current reviewers strive to provide an objective, numbers-based approach, I find your reviews have always been great due to you unabashedly sharing from personal preference and experience. Keep up the great work, Ken, and thanks again.
Did you know that numbers don’t mean anything for overall performance? Numbers only apply to single, narrow, monotonic aspects, not overall performance, so while numbers impress the innocent, all they do is distract from what’s really important: the overall performance about which I write. Thanks!
Thanks Ken, I just ordered one of these and I expected (“ok here it comes all the things that are wrong with it”), but hard to believe it’s like a magic lens, and especially from Ken Rockwell! Thanks again!
Thank God for you Ken. I have always shot JPEG because I passionately dislike processing my images. I have been bashed from pillar to post by all and sundry for so doing but am happy with my results. Well said sir.
It’s only the less-skilled or less knowledgeable who misunderstand the mathematics involved and believe the old wives tales behind raw. The real deal is that all cameras shoot raw, and quite simply the internal processors process that data exactly the same way into final images saved as jpgs inside your camera with dedicated hardware much faster than doing exactly the same in software in a computer later. Same result faster in camera. Thanks! www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
@@KenRockwellTV That is HORRIBLE advise from someone who is a long time photographer. All things equal with proper exposure, saying that Jpeg is just as good as raw is like saying a final darkroom print is better than the negative and we should only process from the print. Yes Jpegs have come a long way but remember, they are lossy files and WILL deteriorate years down the line from opening and saving and exporting and exporting more. At least with the raw you have that "negative" to restore all the vital information going forward. Instead of telling people to ignore raw, especially those less knowledgable than you and I, cover all the basses and encourage shooting raw + jpeg. That way they have a nice jpeg to send out and post but also have a saved archival raw for those times they want to process creatively in the future when that jpeg is all but lost in detail from it's lossy nature... and maybe recover some DR for those exposure mistakes that everyone will do many times in their life. Let your viewers make that decision on their own. Thank you for the review of this lens, it was informative as I am looking for a backpacking setup, but please stay on topic. Continuously iInterjecting irrelevant opinions only tarnishes your credibility in the photo community circles.
I absolutely love this lens I got my hands on it as soon as I could and I can't believe how good the photos are, that I'm getting out of it and what I really appreciate is that it's light enough to fit on the gimbal for video work It's become a mainstay
I know Im asking randomly but does anyone know a trick to get back into an instagram account..? I was dumb lost my account password. I would love any help you can give me
@Tyler Salvador Thanks for your reply. I got to the site on google and im in the hacking process atm. I see it takes quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
@Tyler Salvador HOLY **** IT ACTUALLY WORKED! Literally hacked my Instagram login within about 30 minutes by using the site. I had to pay 15 bucks but definitely worth it :) Thanks so much, you really help me out!
Nice review Ken. I've been using this lens with z7 for one year and it is definitly an excellent lens, light weight, solid, and sharp. The IQ is so good that even you do pixel peeping you can hardly find any defect(except for the ultra corner). I have used pro lenses like 24-70 2.8g in DSLR and I can say 24-200 is as sharp as 24-70, if not sharper!
Terrific review as always. Realistic too, when there is so much snobbery about having to have fast glass for really good pictures. I think I'll get this lens for my wonderful Z50. The range 36-300 would suit a lot of my photography.
It's a great little run-and-gun lens; family events and stuff--especially outdoors. Lives on my Z6II mostly. When it comes time for serious shots, I switch to true S glass.
@@scvguan I like it. The fact that it’s a slow lens is offset by the cameras ability to produce grainless images at relatively high ISOs. The fact that it’s stabilized works well with the Z 50. All and all a equivalent 35 - 300mm lens this size on this small of a camera is pretty hard to beat. Oh, it is really sharp too.
I took this lens on a trip to France, and left my usual 70-200 f2.8 and 24-120 f4.0 at home. The result is excellent and I will order for sure this lens before the demand on the market increases its price. In the mountains, the weight of the backpack is important
This lens with my Z7 is my favorite walk around and hiking combo. I can always use DX crop mode for a 300mm equivalent focal length. I ultimately have my eye on Nikon's 28-280 Z lens which won't be available for awhile.
I tried this lens on my Z7 and I had trouble with getting consistent sharpness,and VR. Perhaps 46 megapixels is just too much for this earlier generation lens which wasn't designed for this high resolution. I am having better results with my 24-120mm F/4 which is purchased used. My 28-300 could have also been a bad copy.
Superb--you convinced me to pull out the 24-70/f2.8 from my shopping cart and go for the 24-200 instead. Lost a few stops but saved myself about $1,100. Love the small form factor ... and can't wait to get it in my hands! Thank you.
I bought one of these to take on vacation to Puerto Vallarta. On my last trip I had 3 lenses. On this trip i am only taking this one. Thanks for the review
I agree, shooting RAW does not give better image quality out of the gate. It takes more concerted effort in post processing to get to where a JPG file is automatically. However, if you are looking to recover a photo that was over or underexposed you get more flexibility to bring it back. Furthermore, you can adjust the white balance after taking the photo with no loss in image quality. Thanks for the reviews!
Correct - so I expose properly and I thus save time and storage, and thus make more and better pictures by shooting JPGs. JPGs are for experienced shooters who could get 38 perfect shots on a roll of 36 exposure slide film. It’s easy to change WB and exposure with JPGs; just like slides the only thing from which you can’t recover is gross overexposure. Raw is for learners who needed to shoot negatives so they’d have the freedom to screw up and stay sloppy. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm thanks!
Thanks for reviewing the Z 24-200mm lens which I am considering for my Nikon Z5. I bought the Nikon FX 28-300mm for my D750 because of your previous online review on your website, but I wanted a dedicated Z lens for Z5 with a smooth zooming barrel which I think the Z24-200mm is very good at. The FX 28-300mm is a bit tight to rotate zoom on my copy for quick zooming but it is certainly great for sharp photos. So I will likely get Z24-200mm lens soon as Nikon is running sales. Cheers! Thanks again for a good review, looks like a great lens.
The Z 24-200mm is my favorite full frame lens for the z system. See more samples and the full written review at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm
I choose that. I have a 28-300 Vr with a d750...but I bought a z6 and my fiance helps me in some jobs and because often we both shoot together .She was using a old D300s with a 18-200mm. We shoot most children in school events and that range help me very much. The 28-300 vr is a bliss. Hope the 24-200 Z can be as good.
Great review! Thanks Ken. I am shopping for a good Z zoom for an upcoming trip. I just wish the 200-600 were out. Waiting and hoping. BTW... yo da man! - Regards, Jim
Great review, I just got this one. I had the sigma 18-250mm for my d7000 and I *hated* that lens with a passion, it turned me off of superzooms for a long time. But tempted to try this one since I have trips coming up in the next few months to Big Bend and Death Valley. Thanks!
I’ve never liked sigma. Stick with the lenses made by the camera maker s d you’ll do so much better, especially with compatibility with future purchases. Thanks!
I'm using the 28-300 with adapter at my Z6. It's quite heavy, so I think about to get the 24-200, as it's not that expensive any more. But I guess I will miss the 300 mm... The times I carry around 5 lenses or more are definately over.
Would this lens be a good replacement from my 24-70 on my Z6 to have a better range? What am I losing or gaining if I were to replace my 70mm with this lens?
Only loss is a stop or so of speed - which few people use. Personally I prefer having all the focal lengths at my fingertips rather than missing photos while changing lenses.
“I don’t shoot raw. I just get it right the first time.” Yes, yes, YES! I’ve left a similar response to a comment you made in another video about post processing everything on a computer not being photography. Once again, I’m relieved to find that I’m not the only one left who still thinks that way.
Thanks for video Ken, my question is do you think I should get the canon 24-240 with an adapter for my Z7 or go for the Z mount 24-200 lens? Thanks again.
What? Just get a Canon EOS-R series camera and the EF 24-240mm. The Z6 was awful for autofocus and more. If you insist on Nikon, stick with the Z 24-200. Cross-brand adapters rarely work well or reliably. Does this help?
Just curious, because I see a couple of people commenting about doing this. If you already have the Z 50 and the two kit lenses, what advantage would it be to switch to this 24 to 200 mm? Other than the longer zoom length, is the quality of this lens that much higher?
No advantage, unless you’d rather use just the 24-200 rather than the other combo. Whatever you do, don’t get all three. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/assembling-a-system.htm
@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for referring me to that article! Had read it before but needed to be reminded again. I’m enjoying learning to get the most out of the kit lenses and although the 50mm f1.8 is great for the occasional low light videos and shallow depth of field shots I never carry all three. I may just get the upcoming 28mm f2.8 pancake lens for low light and light weight and that should give me enough options for the Z-50.
Hey Ken. Love your website and this Channel is a gem! I'm thinking of getting into the Canon or Nikon mirrorless system. And I think lenses are more important than the bodies. That being said I saw you reviewed and enjoyed both this lens and Canons RF 24-240 equivalent. Which would you rather own out of the two? Thanks for your time.
Easy: Canon is WAY ahead. They were way ahead in 2018 www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/nikon-vs-canon-vs-sony-full-frame.htm and this summer came out with even better cameras that go way beyond anything from Sony or Nikon. Thanks
@@KenRockwellTV are you not stretching it a bit saying Canon is way ahead of Sony? I guess the A1 was not yet released but still... I would also say Nikon is a lot of bang for the bucks if you take price into consideration which most people do. I think all systems are really good and you'll be happy with whatever you go with.
Hey Ken Interesting how these modestly priced lenses can produce fantastic images but fast lenses at far more cost, size and weight have seem to often have compromises
It’s all simple engineering: the more you ask a lens to do, the more expensive and soft it gets. If you let the lens be slow like this lens, it’s easy to get it super sharp and huge zoom range. If you need f/2.8 it gets expensive and still can only cover a narrow range. This is why this lens is so sharp and inexpensive and light: because it’s not fast. Thanks!
Hello Ken. Very nice videos... Love your unbiased reviews. I wanted to know your opinion about which of the z lenses 24-200 or DX 50-250 is better to pair with Nikon Z50?
Mr. Ken, help me out please. Just as I was planning to buy the Nikon Z7 based on your review I read your review of the Canon EOS R and the 24-105 lens. I'm mixed up now. Aside from the person behind the camera it also depends for a great deal on the lens. I'm planning to use it mainly for landscapes. So a good zoom lens is important for me.
@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for your quick reply Ken! I have to tell you that I'm a kind of pixelpeeper so the decision is sort of important to me. I saw your photo's of a model made with the Canon R with the 24-105 lens. Amazing sharp. You still recommend the EOS R after reading this? Greetings from Holland
EOS-R was the first. It’s still a good ‘little-bit-of-everything’ medium level camera, but I prefer the newest Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6 for state of the art, or the RP for compact and inexpensive.
Hello Mr Ken Rockwell. I've been watching your reviews since collage when I first got into photography. I wonder if the Canon 24-240 is shaper or the Nikon, or even compared to the Tamron 28-200 FE. It would be a one lens travel thats quick and really wont miss shots.
Great question, but in actual shooting they, like most lenses today, are just as sharp. Of course the real question which is the better camera system, since you can only use each on its brand of body. I greatly prefer the Canon system. www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/index.htm thanks!
Great review Ken...need some advice...planning to sell Canon R6 body and lenses(24-105f4, 70-300ef, 50mmf1.4). Just the resale of R6 body I’ll get Nikonz5 +24-200+50mmf1.8). All those money from selling Canon lenses will be extra saving. Do you think it’ll be a wise decision. The reason for doing this trade off is that coz I’m a casual shooter with family stuff and save some money. Please advise...thanks
I'm late to this party. I have a Z5 as a backup or everyday walk around camera and I've just bought this to replace 2 other lenses and don't know why i didn't earlier. It's outstanding. My main camera is a Fuji GFX100S (Medium format) and I have to really pixel peep to see where the 45-100 on that is sharper than this lens from a combined lens/body price thats getting on for 5 times the cost of this and the baby full-frame Z5.
Of course, but it might be $125,000 and weigh 75 pounds. Profession television lenses often go to 600mm and f/1.8 - with a 6mm wide end!! Canon and Schneider and Fujinon already make these www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/883370-REG/Fujinon_xa88x12_5esm_XA88X12_5BESM_HDTV_Lens_for.html?BI=287&KBID=1037
Hi Ken, as always your reviews are great, hence the reason for thumbs up and subscribing. I have not upgraded to Nikon z from FX DSLR. I use often Nikkor 24-300mm f mount for travel. If I upgrade to z system camera, will you recommend I buy this lens replacing my 24+300mm which I use in DSLR or just keep the lens and buy a z adapter? Thanks a lot.
@@KenRockwellTV there are advantages switching to Z body, it’s lighter, what you see is what you get, IBIS…. I use that F 28-300 for travel for years, it’s very heavy, your neck will thank you for switching to Z 24-200, I can turn on DX to reach 300, and 4mm in wide angle is not small.
Thanks for the always candid opinions on your reviews. I think zooms like this, on modern cameras are just so versatile and fantastic. Just spent a week in Maine with some new equipment. I have an RP with the 15-35 RF, 35mm f/1.8 RF, 85mm f/1.8 EF, Sigma 150-600 C and the 24-240 RF. That 24-240 was on my camera 75% of the time and should've been more...
Exactly. Those lenses are the best; just that old people who still remember the crappy zooms of the 1990s and before can’t fathom that 10:1 zooms actually work well. Thanks!
Presumably the best German expert for digital photography, Anders Uschold, also shoots and even tests in JPG; in this video (one in a very interesting series) he explains the advantages of shooting JPG and some disadvantages of shooting RAW: czcams.com/video/fVKlF-Pec1c/video.html.
Hi Ken, many thanks! Does the lens’ stabilizer combine with the camera build in stabilization? If so, how many f stops do I gain? Best wishes from Germany Ralf
I get two to five stops of real world improvement. As always the details are at my written review at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm#stabilizer thanks!
You’re one of the few out there who respects superzooms, years ago in the D40 days, you recommended the Nikon DX 18-200 and that was glued to my camera for years. I have an A7iii now, I’m planning a trip to NC and will be doing some hiking, what are your thoughts on Tamron’s 28-200? Seems to be exceptionally well reviewed.
I never buy Tamron or sigma - too kinky for me. They don’t give me any confidence about lasting more than ten years before jining them. I’d get this Z lens; it works great. Thanks!
No; it lacks the S designation because Nikon wants people who can spend more money to spend more money on more expensive lenses - even though the pictures are THE SAME! Look at my sample files at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm#sampleimages S is just for what business people call “market segmentation” (extracting as much money from customers of different incomes as possible), it has NO other meaning. Thanks!
Great review. If Nikon ever releases a Z body worth paying for (and maybe a proper FTZ adapter for all of my vintage Nikkor glass) I'll likely get this lens. I love my tiny primes and my pro zooms, but sometimes you just need an easy rig. Question about recent lenses in general: have you seen any recent lenses (within the past 5 years or so) by any manufacturer with bokeh that's better than "neutral"? It seems to me that everyone making lenses now is so concerned with wide-open corner-to-corner sharpness that they've forgotten that the parts of a photo that are out of focus often matter just as much as the parts that are. (And call me old-fashioned, but I'd rather have an optically "imperfect" lens that isn't sharp wide-open in the corners because my corners are never in focus anyways.)
@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for the tips! As much as I hate to say it as a die-hard Nikon shooter, if I were to switch over to mirrorless today, I'd almost certainly go with Canon. :/
@@KenRockwellTV One truly nit-picky thing that makes me dislike Canon: their vertical front dials. The horizontal front dials on both Nikon and Sony are so much easier on my mildly arthritic knuckles. But ibuprofen is always an option.... ;) (Aaaand, I've launched on a tangent. Sorry!)
I can tell you that on the Z6 the Z 24-200 is no sharper than the F 24-120 f4 from 24-120. Subjective IQ at normal magnification is better on the F 24-120 f4, particularly 70-120mm. The images just look better. However, when pixel peeping, you will not be able to tell these apart 24-120mm. They both have virtually the same amount of color fringing wide open at 24, roughly same amount of vignetting at 24. Same center sharpness, corner sharpness. And so on. The only real difference is that the F24-120 keeps that f4, and the 24-200 has more reach. The F 24-120 f4 at the longer end at 4, has better bokeh and that helps your subject appear to have better sharpness than it really does. Its not actually sharper, but it subjectively looks sharper (at normal viewing). The Z 24-200 aperture just slows down too much and too early in its zoom range to realize that benefit. But, it easily beats the F 24-120 f4 in other areas such as better weather sealing, better VR (combined), silent AF, faster AF (sometimes), smoother AF, less focus breathing, less focus shift, and a few other things. Overall, the Z 24-200 is pretty good. I was surprised to see that color fringing at 24 at f4. First Z lens I have seen that. Overall its a solid choice, especially if you care about video.
Why wait? Canon or Sony each have at least two each. Nikon is so far behind - and has so few resources today - that I doubt it’s a good idea to put any money into them. It’s not 1987 anymore when they were a leader.
Can anyone tell about the 'sharpness' of 28-300 in Z6? Heard that 28-300 lens shows flaws when it is used with high megapixel cameras but it is fine using with lower megapixel camera. Can anyone please comment on it?
Looks awesome. See samples shot on my 45 MP D850 at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm#sampleimages people who can’t get good photos with the 28-300 simply aren’t good photographers. Thanks!
I've been using the 28-300 on my Z6 and now my Z6 II and I have had nothing but outstanding results. The only negative for me is the weight. With modern Nikons' ability to work with low light, even the slow speed of the lens is not a major problem; but I usually travel with this lens (the 28-300) and either a 35 or 50 S 1.8 for when the sun goes down. If you do low light/nighttime photography, there is probably no zoom lens that will let you get the shots that a fast prime will get; so figure it's a two-lens kit under just about any travel circumstances.
Great video, but I didn't quite understand the raw file comment. It's not always possible to get it right the first time. I shoot raw for high dynamic situations where I need to underexpose to avoid highlight blowout and keep the shadow info to recover later. Without raw I just wouldn't be able to keep the info for both areas. Am I wrong and missing something?
Raw definitely captures more info you can play with when editing. Of course it's a matter of personal preference, but for myself I shoot raw exclusively.
Plastic. Probably been better with the plastic lens mount, as aluminum tends to bend over time. However, it’s easy to fix. This lens should be awesome 👏 for the Z50.
@@KenRockwellTV thanks! seems 14-30 and 24-200 are a solid combo. may not even need a "fast prime" for night shots. i'm gonna wait for Z6-III to come out and try to snatch a used Z6-II and these two lenses
Fast primes for night shots haven’t been a thing since the days of film. Here are some photos a shot with exactly this combination of 24- 240 and 14-30 mm lenses
@@KenRockwellTV you know what? you're right. I'm still thinking like when I had the D3000 that was really bad at high iso. new cameras should have no problem. especially full frame
No need for raw if you’re good enough to get it right the first time. I can edit and recover highlights and shadows just fine from JPGs. See www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-comparison.htm
Whenever I hear you comment about shooting test charts or brick walls I can't help but think of a fromer train photographer that used to have a website. I believe it was called Grumpysworld or something like that.
Grumpy is an icon to us all; the one guy not afraid to say it like it is, at least when is came to Nikon. Nikon makes such junk today by comparison he probably realized that it wasn’t worth his while anymore.
@@KenRockwellTV It's just a do it all lens, I use the camera now with manual lenses plus I have the Fuji xe2 and pro1 as well as the D610 and D850. I have G.A.S.
No. No Nikon lenses merit the “L” grade or sport a red band. If you want a quality domestically-made lens you have to stick with Canon as I do. Nikon’s best lenses have gold “ED” bands but most of those lenses are in Nikon’s glorious past. Thanks for asking.
I love my Z7 and 24-200mm lens. The biggest drawback is the fact that I use the magnetic ring Kase filter system with a 95mm filter set. It works great for my 14-30mm zoom with an 82-95 mm step up ring. BUT ... Kase does not provide, as far as I know, a 67-95mm step up ring. Do you know if Kase will address this issue or if there a 3rd party sources that are addressing this need?
Great video Ken... need to ask a question please. I do a lot of church photography, during the service... taken from the front of the church all the way to the balcony. This is a large church. I shoot a Nilon z6 and I have the 24/70 4s z lens as my go-to lens for the closer shots, down front etc. I also have been shooting my old favorite Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 DX for the balcony shots, with the adaptor. This lens does really good for my skill set. I have been looking at getting a z24-200 in hopes it would be much crisper and cleaner than the DX and work a little better in lower light. It would also let me carry only one lens. My question, is it worth the change and is there that much quality difference in the 200 lens? Also, there is a Tamron lens out there with similar specs I think ... Your knowledge is appreciated and thank you in advance... what would you recommend?
@@KenRockwellTV That has been my question because I like the 18-200 3.5 but always thought it struggled in low light. I was just thinking by using the z lens, it may give me some better shots in those low light encounters in the church.
I also have a Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 I use with the adaptor ... It does great from a distance... I just have a light situation in the church and it is a large church.
Hi Ken , I have this lens but thinking of getting 70 200 f2.8 , is it worth it as a difference between the f2.8 and this lens ? Because what I like about this lens is that it does it all , your advice is appreciated
I never use a 70-200 anymore after having this lens. Why would you want a 70-200 that only covers one-third of this lens' range? f/2.8 was for back in the days of film when even ISO 200 film was pretty grainy and only got worse at ISO 400 and 800. Today Digital looks great at this eand higher ISOs, to for me f/2.8 is unnecessary . Both lenses are as sharp as each other.
@Ken Rockwell thank you very much really I was confused specifically that the f2.8 70 200 is around 2.6k bucks. And i already have the 24-200. So the f.8 for 70 300 isn't worth the extra money just to get the f2.8 from 70 to 200 . Another question: if you have to choose between Z 100 400 S and 70 200 f2.8 + TC 2.0 X what do you choose? Please advise
I was double thinking my purchase decision of this lens. Not a pro, but Was trying to stick with F4 gear and wish they had a 70-250 or 70-300 that had a FIXED max aperture. Maybe some day, but for now I think this will totally work for me. Thanks for the review!
It’s all original work. Since I don’t watch anything or anyone else on CZcams I won’t fall into the trap of making the same boring look-alike stuff everyone else does. Thanks!
This lens seems to be not too different from my tinker toy plastic Nikon 50-200 lens for my Nikon DX camera. Nikon lenses are turning to crap - especially the Z lenses.
@@KenRockwellTV - Ever since the 1970's? You've got to be kidding. One lens I was going to sell that I decided to keep is my Nikon 70-210 constant f/4. That lens is a very plain Jane lens, but it's otherwise a beast. Stellar optics, but you'd never know it unless you have a crappy lens to compare it to, which I do.
You sold me. Sort of :) I have the Z7 II and latest and greatest F mount 70-200 FL E lens. Love it. Spectacular lens. However…if the Z 24-200 produces comparable images…time to say goodbye to it. I will order the Z 24-200, make some side by side tests against the 70-200 and make a decision. I’m making music vids currently and my old 70-200, on a tripod, is perfect. But for any other scenario it’s killing me with its size and weight. I rarely need f2.8. Here's an example - Z7 II and F mount 70-200 (available in 4k depending on your browser). czcams.com/video/YJdCJVs2sts/video.html
@@KenRockwellTV Although... it can't hold a candle to my 85mm f1.4 G when set to 85mm. Guess I'll keep that "old" glass. if I know I'm going to shoot portraits then the 85 f1.4 G is my preference - it's a spectacular lens - especially when used with a big sensor. Terrible focal length for walking around but when 85mm is the field of view you need - it's amazing.
"I don't shoot raw I got it right the first time" LOL I am going to follow suit and stop shooting in raw, it will save so much time writing onto the storage cards
Hey Ken, longtime reader, short-time viewer here. Just wanted to thank you for your years of service, providing me with so many insightful reviews throughout my photography 'career'. Whereas many current reviewers strive to provide an objective, numbers-based approach, I find your reviews have always been great due to you unabashedly sharing from personal preference and experience. Keep up the great work, Ken, and thanks again.
Did you know that numbers don’t mean anything for overall performance? Numbers only apply to single, narrow, monotonic aspects, not overall performance, so while numbers impress the innocent, all they do is distract from what’s really important: the overall performance about which I write. Thanks!
This guy is the best when asking any and all questions, also he is not bias when it comes to different camera companies. Tell it like it is!!
Thanks!!!!
Ken Rockwell living it up driving a Porsche. Ken saving a lot of money shooting jpeg.😂😂😂
Nothing but the best. Thanks!
Leicaman style 😉👌
He doesn’t need my money
Thanks Ken, I just ordered one of these and I expected (“ok here it comes all the things that are wrong with it”), but hard to believe it’s like a magic lens, and especially from Ken Rockwell! Thanks again!
It’s all about getting the picture rather than missing it while changing lenses. The real world ever stops to wait for us to change lenses.
“It is ultra, ultra, ultra sharp”. Never one to shy away from hyperbole is Ken.
It is! Just look at the latest photos I made a few weeks ago at www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2021-06-slo/index.htm#d01 thanks!
Thank God for you Ken. I have always shot JPEG because I passionately dislike processing my images. I have been bashed from pillar to post by all and sundry for so doing but am happy with my results.
Well said sir.
It’s only the less-skilled or less knowledgeable who misunderstand the mathematics involved and believe the old wives tales behind raw. The real deal is that all cameras shoot raw, and quite simply the internal processors process that data exactly the same way into final images saved as jpgs inside your camera with dedicated hardware much faster than doing exactly the same in software in a computer later. Same result faster in camera. Thanks! www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Ken, could you perhaps do a video on the Jpeg/Raw conundrum? I reckon it would cause a bit of a stir amongst the shutterocracy.
See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm ; it’s neither a conundrum nor mystery; just preference depending on workflow.
@@KenRockwellTV I thought I went back in time with that article. It's 12 years out of date!
@@KenRockwellTV That is HORRIBLE advise from someone who is a long time photographer. All things equal with proper exposure, saying that Jpeg is just as good as raw is like saying a final darkroom print is better than the negative and we should only process from the print.
Yes Jpegs have come a long way but remember, they are lossy files and WILL deteriorate years down the line from opening and saving and exporting and exporting more. At least with the raw you have that "negative" to restore all the vital information going forward.
Instead of telling people to ignore raw, especially those less knowledgable than you and I, cover all the basses and encourage shooting raw + jpeg. That way they have a nice jpeg to send out and post but also have a saved archival raw for those times they want to process creatively in the future when that jpeg is all but lost in detail from it's lossy nature... and maybe recover some DR for those exposure mistakes that everyone will do many times in their life. Let your viewers make that decision on their own.
Thank you for the review of this lens, it was informative as I am looking for a backpacking setup, but please stay on topic. Continuously iInterjecting irrelevant opinions only tarnishes your credibility in the photo community circles.
I absolutely love this lens I got my hands on it as soon as I could and I can't believe how good the photos are, that I'm getting out of it and what I really appreciate is that it's light enough to fit on the gimbal for video work
It's become a mainstay
I thought so. Thanks!
I know Im asking randomly but does anyone know a trick to get back into an instagram account..?
I was dumb lost my account password. I would love any help you can give me
@Camdyn Abraham instablaster =)
@Tyler Salvador Thanks for your reply. I got to the site on google and im in the hacking process atm.
I see it takes quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
@Tyler Salvador HOLY **** IT ACTUALLY WORKED! Literally hacked my Instagram login within about 30 minutes by using the site.
I had to pay 15 bucks but definitely worth it :)
Thanks so much, you really help me out!
Just bought a z5 with this lens yesterday. Looking forward to trying it out. Thanks for the review.
I so hope you love. I think they’re awesome!
Nice review Ken. I've been using this lens with z7 for one year and it is definitly an excellent lens, light weight, solid, and sharp. The IQ is so good that even you do pixel peeping you can hardly find any defect(except for the ultra corner). I have used pro lenses like 24-70 2.8g in DSLR and I can say 24-200 is as sharp as 24-70, if not sharper!
Exactly. When it’s slower like this it’s easy to make it as sharp or sharper; basic engineering. Thanks!
Terrific review as always. Realistic too, when there is so much snobbery about having to have fast glass for really good pictures. I think I'll get this lens for my wonderful Z50. The range 36-300 would suit a lot of my photography.
Yip, just as shear and same pictures as the poser lenses. The 28-300 VR works great on the FTZ. Thanks!
Tks Ken, great video. Very helpful as I have been thinking about buying that 24/200.
The 24-200 is a super lens. I love it!!! Thanks!
It's a great little run-and-gun lens; family events and stuff--especially outdoors. Lives on my Z6II mostly. When it comes time for serious shots, I switch to true S glass.
Right on. S doesn’t mean anything; just marketing fluff. Thanks!
Hey Ken, I ordered one, but they are on backorder. Hope they ship soon. Thanks for the informative review.
Thanks!!!! Hope you LOVE yours!
Thanks Ken. Mine arrives Monday. Going to use it on my Z50.
Hope you love it! Thanks!
Hey Mike! What's your thought on the lens? I have been wanting to get an additional lens for my Z50 too.
@@scvguan I like it. The fact that it’s a slow lens is offset by the cameras ability to produce grainless images at relatively high ISOs. The fact that it’s stabilized works well with the Z 50. All and all a equivalent 35 - 300mm lens this size on this small of a camera is pretty hard to beat. Oh, it is really sharp too.
Too many people ignore this awesome lens and instead they focus on the crazy 1.2 lenses
Exactly. Thanks!
Yeah the bokeh looks great from this lens when shooting at F1.2, lol
I took this lens on a trip to France, and left my usual 70-200 f2.8 and 24-120 f4.0 at home. The result is excellent and I will order for sure this lens before the demand on the market increases its price.
In the mountains, the weight of the backpack is important
Exactly! Merci bein!
This lens with my Z7 is my favorite walk around and hiking combo. I can always use DX crop mode for a 300mm equivalent focal length. I ultimately have my eye on Nikon's 28-280 Z lens which won't be available for awhile.
Try the 28-300VR as I do www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm on the FTZ
I tried this lens on my Z7 and I had trouble with getting consistent sharpness,and VR. Perhaps 46 megapixels is just too much for this earlier generation lens which wasn't designed for this high resolution. I am having better results with my 24-120mm F/4 which is purchased used. My 28-300 could have also been a bad copy.
Picked this lens up for my Z5 and couldn't be happier with it. Thanks for the honest review Ken !
Thank YOU! Love mine.
My Mrs uses this lens with her Z50. She loves this lens. It is light, feels solid and is very, very sharp. Highly recommend. It’s cheap too.
Love it! Thanks!
Superb--you convinced me to pull out the 24-70/f2.8 from my shopping cart and go for the 24-200 instead. Lost a few stops but saved myself about $1,100. Love the small form factor ... and can't wait to get it in my hands! Thank you.
It’s my preference. Look what I shot the other week with it: www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2021-06-slo/index.htm
@@KenRockwellTV Excellent. The lens seems to perform at its best in bright light.
I bought one of these to take on vacation to Puerto Vallarta. On my last trip I had 3 lenses. On this trip i am only taking this one. Thanks for the review
Hope you love it as much as I do. It does everything! Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV your thoughts are ones I trust. Have liked your reviews for years.
I'm getting this to replace the z6 kit lens. Seems just as good, relatively cheap and gives me a light set up with range.
Better than just good; it’s great. Thanks!
"I don't call this a bag, they call it a bag...and they'll take your money for it" lol well said.
Just being honest as always. Geesh, some camera makers really sometimes think we're idiots. Thanks!
I've been using this lens for 6 months, something fantastic, quality, glass, sharpness, recommendations!
Excellent; it’s my favorite for the Z system. Thanks! More at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm
I agree, shooting RAW does not give better image quality out of the gate. It takes more concerted effort in post processing to get to where a JPG file is automatically. However, if you are looking to recover a photo that was over or underexposed you get more flexibility to bring it back. Furthermore, you can adjust the white balance after taking the photo with no loss in image quality. Thanks for the reviews!
Correct - so I expose properly and I thus save time and storage, and thus make more and better pictures by shooting JPGs. JPGs are for experienced shooters who could get 38 perfect shots on a roll of 36 exposure slide film. It’s easy to change WB and exposure with JPGs; just like slides the only thing from which you can’t recover is gross overexposure. Raw is for learners who needed to shoot negatives so they’d have the freedom to screw up and stay sloppy. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm thanks!
Ken, you're the man! Thank you for your videos! :)
Thank you!
Ken update I bought 24-200 and love it. Great photos!
Yes! I was hoping you’d love it as much as I do. Super handy and the photos are the same as with the larger lenses that do less. Thanks!
Thanks for reviewing the Z 24-200mm lens which I am considering for my Nikon Z5. I bought the Nikon FX 28-300mm for my D750 because of your previous online review on your website, but I wanted a dedicated Z lens for Z5 with a smooth zooming barrel which I think the Z24-200mm is very good at. The FX 28-300mm is a bit tight to rotate zoom on my copy for quick zooming but it is certainly great for sharp photos. So I will likely get Z24-200mm lens soon as Nikon is running sales. Cheers! Thanks again for a good review, looks like a great lens.
The Z 24-200mm is my favorite full frame lens for the z system. See more samples and the full written review at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm
did not know you had a youtube channel!! already fan of your website. good surprise.
Thanks! This channel is just for fun; my website is more current and way more detailed and complete.
I choose that. I have a 28-300 Vr with a d750...but I bought a z6 and my fiance helps me in some jobs and because often we both shoot together .She was using a old D300s with a 18-200mm. We shoot most children in school events and that range help me very much. The 28-300 vr is a bliss. Hope the 24-200 Z can be as good.
24-200Z does the same thing; my favorite nikon lens past few years.
@@KenRockwellTV Your review about this lens is one of the best reviews you ever made. Beatitfull samples shots.
Thanks Ken for another excellent review. I just used your link and ordered one of these lenses from Adorama.
Let me know how you love it. There are more recent photos I’ve made with it at www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2021-06-slo/index.htm
Excellent review Ken, decent comparisons and right to the point.
Thanks!!!! It’s a religious issue for me to stay to the point with zero BS. Thanks for noticing.
Great review! Thanks Ken. I am shopping for a good Z zoom for an upcoming trip. I just wish the 200-600 were out. Waiting and hoping. BTW... yo da man! - Regards, Jim
Thanks, Jim! My Z8 ought to arrive today and the Z 24-200 will probably be the lens I use 90% of the time.
@@KenRockwellTV We all look forward to your Z8 review. I am considering picking that up to backup my Z9.
I love it, no RAW and NO tripod, just how I have always shot digital with great success.
Of course! Those other things just weigh down creativity.
Great review, I just got this one. I had the sigma 18-250mm for my d7000 and I *hated* that lens with a passion, it turned me off of superzooms for a long time. But tempted to try this one since I have trips coming up in the next few months to Big Bend and Death Valley. Thanks!
I’ve never liked sigma. Stick with the lenses made by the camera maker s d you’ll do so much better, especially with compatibility with future purchases. Thanks!
See my sample images at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm#sampleimages
I'm using the 28-300 with adapter at my Z6. It's quite heavy, so I think about to get the 24-200, as it's not that expensive any more. But I guess I will miss the 300 mm... The times I carry around 5 lenses or more are definately over.
I find the 24-200 is great and I simply crop a little as needed rather than carry the 28-300. Thanks!
Would this lens be a good replacement from my 24-70 on my Z6 to have a better range? What am I losing or gaining if I were to replace my 70mm with this lens?
Only loss is a stop or so of speed - which few people use. Personally I prefer having all the focal lengths at my fingertips rather than missing photos while changing lenses.
“I don’t shoot raw. I just get it right the first time.” Yes, yes, YES! I’ve left a similar response to a comment you made in another video about post processing everything on a computer not being photography. Once again, I’m relieved to find that I’m not the only one left who still thinks that way.
The photo is done when the shutter closes. Thanks!
Thanks for video Ken, my question is do you think I should get the canon 24-240 with an adapter for my Z7 or go for the Z mount 24-200 lens? Thanks again.
What? Just get a Canon EOS-R series camera and the EF 24-240mm. The Z6 was awful for autofocus and more. If you insist on Nikon, stick with the Z 24-200. Cross-brand adapters rarely work well or reliably. Does this help?
hi Ken. i d like to know why you pump the colors too much in your picks. thanks
Because I LOVE WILD COLORS!!!!! I am INSANE!!! Thanks!
What setting used for macro F?..And mm.?..
200mm and get as close as you need. Stop down to keep things in focus.
Thank you & happy new year
For sharp macro what F number when shooting watches for example or flower?
I like your macro shot of the wrist watch
I use f/22 to f/32 at macro distances, and even then it’s a lot of work to try to keep things flat and in focus.
Just curious, because I see a couple of people commenting about doing this. If you already have the Z 50 and the two kit lenses, what advantage would it be to switch to this 24 to 200 mm?
Other than the longer zoom length, is the quality of this lens that much higher?
No advantage, unless you’d rather use just the 24-200 rather than the other combo. Whatever you do, don’t get all three. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/assembling-a-system.htm
@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for referring me to that article! Had read it before but needed to be reminded again. I’m enjoying learning to get the most out of the kit lenses and although the 50mm f1.8 is great for the occasional low light videos and shallow depth of field shots I never carry all three. I may just get the upcoming 28mm f2.8 pancake lens for low light and light weight and that should give me enough options for the Z-50.
Hey Ken. Love your website and this Channel is a gem!
I'm thinking of getting into the Canon or Nikon mirrorless system. And I think lenses are more important than the bodies. That being said I saw you reviewed and enjoyed both this lens and Canons RF 24-240 equivalent. Which would you rather own out of the two?
Thanks for your time.
Easy: Canon is WAY ahead. They were way ahead in 2018 www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/nikon-vs-canon-vs-sony-full-frame.htm and this summer came out with even better cameras that go way beyond anything from Sony or Nikon. Thanks
@@KenRockwellTV Awesome! Thanks! I appreciate your time 👍
@@KenRockwellTV are you not stretching it a bit saying Canon is way ahead of Sony? I guess the A1 was not yet released but still... I would also say Nikon is a lot of bang for the bucks if you take price into consideration which most people do. I think all systems are really good and you'll be happy with whatever you go with.
Do you always have to switch VR on/off in the menu or does the camera automatically recognize a tripod? (like the new Fujis do)
Haven’t checked. Most work OK. Thanks!
Hey Ken
Interesting how these modestly priced lenses can produce fantastic images but fast lenses at far more cost, size and weight have seem to often have compromises
It’s all simple engineering: the more you ask a lens to do, the more expensive and soft it gets. If you let the lens be slow like this lens, it’s easy to get it super sharp and huge zoom range. If you need f/2.8 it gets expensive and still can only cover a narrow range. This is why this lens is so sharp and inexpensive and light: because it’s not fast. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV thanks Ken
All the best
Hello Ken. Very nice videos... Love your unbiased reviews. I wanted to know your opinion about which of the z lenses 24-200 or DX 50-250 is better to pair with Nikon Z50?
50-250 and 16-50 are only two lenses you need with it. Caution that the 50-250 is too slow to focus for most action.
This is a great lens!
Thanks!
Mr. Ken, help me out please. Just as I was planning to buy the Nikon Z7 based on your review I read your review of the Canon EOS R and the 24-105 lens. I'm mixed up now. Aside from the person behind the camera it also depends for a great deal on the lens. I'm planning to use it mainly for landscapes. So a good zoom lens is important for me.
Canon is way better. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/nikon-vs-canon-vs-sony-full-frame.htm and www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/index.htm
@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for your quick reply Ken! I have to tell you that I'm a kind of pixelpeeper so the decision is sort of important to me. I saw your photo's of a model made with the Canon R with the 24-105 lens. Amazing sharp. You still recommend the EOS R after reading this? Greetings from Holland
EOS-R was the first. It’s still a good ‘little-bit-of-everything’ medium level camera, but I prefer the newest Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6 for state of the art, or the RP for compact and inexpensive.
Hello Mr Ken Rockwell. I've been watching your reviews since collage when I first got into photography. I wonder if the Canon 24-240 is shaper or the Nikon, or even compared to the Tamron 28-200 FE. It would be a one lens travel thats quick and really wont miss shots.
Great question, but in actual shooting they, like most lenses today, are just as sharp. Of course the real question which is the better camera system, since you can only use each on its brand of body. I greatly prefer the Canon system. www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/index.htm thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV thank you sir
Thanks so much!!
Thank YOU!
You briefly talked about the Nikon 28-300mm f mount lens can you do a review on how this lens performs on a Z7 camera
Works exactly the same as it does on a DSLR. Here’s the full review www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm
Great review Ken...need some advice...planning to sell Canon R6 body and lenses(24-105f4, 70-300ef, 50mmf1.4). Just the resale of R6 body I’ll get Nikonz5 +24-200+50mmf1.8). All those money from selling Canon lenses will be extra saving. Do you think it’ll be a wise decision. The reason for doing this trade off is that coz I’m a casual shooter with family stuff and save some money. Please advise...thanks
No! The Canon EOS R6 is a superior camera and Canon is a superior system. Why would you go to the trouble and expense to downgrade?
@@KenRockwellTV agree may be I’ll rethink...thank you Ken
I'm late to this party. I have a Z5 as a backup or everyday walk around camera and I've just bought this to replace 2 other lenses and don't know why i didn't earlier. It's outstanding.
My main camera is a Fuji GFX100S (Medium format) and I have to really pixel peep to see where the 45-100 on that is sharper than this lens from a combined lens/body price thats getting on for 5 times the cost of this and the baby full-frame Z5.
Exactly. Thanks!!!!
Ken, do you think any manufacturer could manage a 24-200 f/2.8 constant aperture lens? That would be the ultimate versatile lens.
Of course, but it might be $125,000 and weigh 75 pounds. Profession television lenses often go to 600mm and f/1.8 - with a 6mm wide end!! Canon and Schneider and Fujinon already make these www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/883370-REG/Fujinon_xa88x12_5esm_XA88X12_5BESM_HDTV_Lens_for.html?BI=287&KBID=1037
@@KenRockwellTV wow, thanks Ken
Hi Ken, as always your reviews are great, hence the reason for thumbs up and subscribing. I have not upgraded to Nikon z from FX DSLR. I use often Nikkor 24-300mm f mount for travel. If I upgrade to z system camera, will you recommend I buy this lens replacing my 24+300mm which I use in DSLR or just keep the lens and buy a z adapter? Thanks a lot.
28-300 is bigger than 24-200, but goes much longer. Z is NOT an upgrade from DSLR; just different and more expensive. Thanks !
@@KenRockwellTV there are advantages switching to Z body, it’s lighter, what you see is what you get, IBIS…. I use that F 28-300 for travel for years, it’s very heavy, your neck will thank you for switching to Z 24-200, I can turn on DX to reach 300, and 4mm in wide angle is not small.
Thanks for the always candid opinions on your reviews. I think zooms like this, on modern cameras are just so versatile and fantastic.
Just spent a week in Maine with some new equipment. I have an RP with the 15-35 RF, 35mm f/1.8 RF, 85mm f/1.8 EF, Sigma 150-600 C and the 24-240 RF. That 24-240 was on my camera 75% of the time and should've been more...
Exactly. Those lenses are the best; just that old people who still remember the crappy zooms of the 1990s and before can’t fathom that 10:1 zooms actually work well. Thanks!
Getting this to replace the Z6 24-50mm kit lens.
I love mine, hope you do, too! It's much bigger, but saves having to swap and carry different lenses.
The new 24-120mm f4 or 24-200 f4.5-6.3 for travelling ? This is the question...
I way prefer the 24-200mm. Your preference may vary.
Do you really shoot in JPEG?
Always. Never had any problem selling my BASIC JPG images for thousands of dollars each. Thanks!
Presumably the best German expert for digital photography, Anders Uschold, also shoots and even tests in JPG; in this video (one in a very interesting series) he explains the advantages of shooting JPG and some disadvantages of shooting RAW: czcams.com/video/fVKlF-Pec1c/video.html.
Fair and useful review, ty Ken!
Thank you!
Hi Ken, many thanks! Does the lens’ stabilizer combine with the camera build in stabilization? If so, how many f stops do I gain? Best wishes from Germany Ralf
I get two to five stops of real world improvement. As always the details are at my written review at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm#stabilizer thanks!
@mipmipmipmipmipthat’s a good question but not answered.
great review
Thank you!
You’re one of the few out there who respects superzooms, years ago in the D40 days, you recommended the Nikon DX 18-200 and that was glued to my camera for years. I have an A7iii now, I’m planning a trip to NC and will be doing some hiking, what are your thoughts on Tamron’s 28-200? Seems to be exceptionally well reviewed.
I never buy Tamron or sigma - too kinky for me. They don’t give me any confidence about lasting more than ten years before jining them. I’d get this Z lens; it works great. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV Gotcha, well I shoot the Sony so will keep on that ecosystem for now =)
Then the Sony 24-240 also works great. See www.kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/24-240mm.htm
So this lens lacks the S designation because of variable aperture, and not because of optics or weather sealing?
No; it lacks the S designation because Nikon wants people who can spend more money to spend more money on more expensive lenses - even though the pictures are THE SAME! Look at my sample files at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm#sampleimages S is just for what business people call “market segmentation” (extracting as much money from customers of different incomes as possible), it has NO other meaning. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for that.
Great review. If Nikon ever releases a Z body worth paying for (and maybe a proper FTZ adapter for all of my vintage Nikkor glass) I'll likely get this lens. I love my tiny primes and my pro zooms, but sometimes you just need an easy rig.
Question about recent lenses in general: have you seen any recent lenses (within the past 5 years or so) by any manufacturer with bokeh that's better than "neutral"? It seems to me that everyone making lenses now is so concerned with wide-open corner-to-corner sharpness that they've forgotten that the parts of a photo that are out of focus often matter just as much as the parts that are.
(And call me old-fashioned, but I'd rather have an optically "imperfect" lens that isn't sharp wide-open in the corners because my corners are never in focus anyways.)
Of course! Look at the Fuji 56/1.2 apd, Canon 85/1.2 DS and similar. www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/85mm-f12-ds.htm
@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for the tips!
As much as I hate to say it as a die-hard Nikon shooter, if I were to switch over to mirrorless today, I'd almost certainly go with Canon.
:/
I would too! I d preferred Canon since 2013!!! See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/nikon-vs-canon-vs-sony-full-frame.htm
@@KenRockwellTV One truly nit-picky thing that makes me dislike Canon: their vertical front dials. The horizontal front dials on both Nikon and Sony are so much easier on my mildly arthritic knuckles.
But ibuprofen is always an option....
;)
(Aaaand, I've launched on a tangent. Sorry!)
I can tell you that on the Z6 the Z 24-200 is no sharper than the F 24-120 f4 from 24-120. Subjective IQ at normal magnification is better on the F 24-120 f4, particularly 70-120mm. The images just look better. However, when pixel peeping, you will not be able to tell these apart 24-120mm. They both have virtually the same amount of color fringing wide open at 24, roughly same amount of vignetting at 24. Same center sharpness, corner sharpness. And so on. The only real difference is that the F24-120 keeps that f4, and the 24-200 has more reach. The F 24-120 f4 at the longer end at 4, has better bokeh and that helps your subject appear to have better sharpness than it really does. Its not actually sharper, but it subjectively looks sharper (at normal viewing). The Z 24-200 aperture just slows down too much and too early in its zoom range to realize that benefit. But, it easily beats the F 24-120 f4 in other areas such as better weather sealing, better VR (combined), silent AF, faster AF (sometimes), smoother AF, less focus breathing, less focus shift, and a few other things. Overall, the Z 24-200 is pretty good. I was surprised to see that color fringing at 24 at f4. First Z lens I have seen that. Overall its a solid choice, especially if you care about video.
Thanks!
Anyone heard when the 24-105 is being released?
Why wait? Canon or Sony each have at least two each. Nikon is so far behind - and has so few resources today - that I doubt it’s a good idea to put any money into them. It’s not 1987 anymore when they were a leader.
Can anyone tell about the 'sharpness' of 28-300 in Z6? Heard that 28-300 lens shows flaws when it is used with high megapixel cameras but it is fine using with lower megapixel camera. Can anyone please comment on it?
Looks awesome. See samples shot on my 45 MP D850 at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm#sampleimages people who can’t get good photos with the 28-300 simply aren’t good photographers. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV thank you Ken 👍
I've been using the 28-300 on my Z6 and now my Z6 II and I have had nothing but outstanding results. The only negative for me is the weight. With modern Nikons' ability to work with low light, even the slow speed of the lens is not a major problem; but I usually travel with this lens (the 28-300) and either a 35 or 50 S 1.8 for when the sun goes down. If you do low light/nighttime photography, there is probably no zoom lens that will let you get the shots that a fast prime will get; so figure it's a two-lens kit under just about any travel circumstances.
Great video, but I didn't quite understand the raw file comment. It's not always possible to get it right the first time. I shoot raw for high dynamic situations where I need to underexpose to avoid highlight blowout and keep the shadow info to recover later. Without raw I just wouldn't be able to keep the info for both areas. Am I wrong and missing something?
JPGs capture shadows just fine. It’s all I ever shoot. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Raw definitely captures more info you can play with when editing. Of course it's a matter of personal preference, but for myself I shoot raw exclusively.
Plastic. Probably been better with the plastic lens mount, as aluminum tends to bend over time. However, it’s easy to fix. This lens should be awesome 👏 for the Z50.
Thanks!
Anodised 7000 aluminium alloy is much harder than brass, it is stronger and wears less
Hi Ken thanks for the reviews
Thanks for the compliments!
ken, what lens would you recommend as an ultra-wide companion for this one? i don't mind if it's a prime.
I use the 14-30mm www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/mirrorless/lenses/14-30mm.htm
@@KenRockwellTV thanks! seems 14-30 and 24-200 are a solid combo. may not even need a "fast prime" for night shots. i'm gonna wait for Z6-III to come out and try to snatch a used Z6-II and these two lenses
Fast primes for night shots haven’t been a thing since the days of film. Here are some photos a shot with exactly this combination of 24- 240 and 14-30 mm lenses
www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2022-04-slo/index.htm
@@KenRockwellTV you know what? you're right. I'm still thinking like when I had the D3000 that was really bad at high iso. new cameras should have no problem. especially full frame
Thanks Ken , great review. 👍
Thank you!
What software are you using when you showed the macro?
Photoshop CS6 from 2010 and iMovie. Thanks!
I just love your state of mind : "I don't shoot RAW" ;-)
No need for raw if you’re good enough to get it right the first time. I can edit and recover highlights and shadows just fine from JPGs. See www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-comparison.htm
Whenever I hear you comment about shooting test charts or brick walls I can't help but think of a fromer train photographer that used to have a website. I believe it was called Grumpysworld or something like that.
Grumpy is an icon to us all; the one guy not afraid to say it like it is, at least when is came to Nikon. Nikon makes such junk today by comparison he probably realized that it wasn’t worth his while anymore.
Waiting for a sale!!! Saw it for $699.00 and decided not to get it. I've been enjoying manual Leica M lenses on the z5.
Christmas ought to be a great time for deals, if you can afford to lose all the photos you can't take till you actually get it. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV It's just a do it all lens, I use the camera now with manual lenses plus I have the Fuji xe2 and pro1 as well as the D610 and D850. I have G.A.S.
@@KenRockwellTV One more thing, JPEG-shoot it right the first time....
Does Nikon have a lens series similar to L series of Canon?
if yes what is it called
No. No Nikon lenses merit the “L” grade or sport a red band. If you want a quality domestically-made lens you have to stick with Canon as I do. Nikon’s best lenses have gold “ED” bands but most of those lenses are in Nikon’s glorious past. Thanks for asking.
@@KenRockwellTV Thank You.
I’m hoping to get my hands on the Z F when that releases. Should I get this lens or the Z 24-120?
I prefer this 24-240, Nikon makes the other lens for people who want it. Thanks!
I love my Z7 and 24-200mm lens. The biggest drawback is the fact that I use the magnetic ring Kase filter system with a 95mm filter set. It works great for my 14-30mm zoom with an 82-95 mm step up ring. BUT ... Kase does not provide, as far as I know, a 67-95mm step up ring. Do you know if Kase will address this issue or if there a 3rd party sources that are addressing this need?
There are loads of step rings out there. If you can’t find a direct 67-95, go 67-77 and 77-95. Search at eBay.
Great video Ken... need to ask a question please. I do a lot of church photography, during the service... taken from the front of the church all the way to the balcony. This is a large church. I shoot a Nilon z6 and I have the 24/70 4s z lens as my go-to lens for the closer shots, down front etc. I also have been shooting my old favorite Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 DX for the balcony shots, with the adaptor. This lens does really good for my skill set. I have been looking at getting a z24-200 in hopes it would be much crisper and cleaner than the DX and work a little better in lower light. It would also let me carry only one lens. My question, is it worth the change and is there that much quality difference in the 200 lens? Also, there is a Tamron lens out there with similar specs I think ... Your knowledge is appreciated and thank you in advance... what would you recommend?
Tamron I avoid as it may not work with cameras you buy in the future.
Z 24-200 is slow. How about the 28-300mm VR on your FTZ adapter? Otherwise if you like the DX 18-200, why change?
@@KenRockwellTV That has been my question because I like the 18-200 3.5 but always thought it struggled in low light. I was just thinking by using the z lens, it may give me some better shots in those low light encounters in the church.
I also have a Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 I use with the adaptor ... It does great from a distance... I just have a light situation in the church and it is a large church.
Hay bro Z5 24-200mm setup is good daily shoot photos?
Yes! It’s my favorite lens. See the proof at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm#sampleimages thanks!
Hi Ken , I have this lens but thinking of getting 70 200 f2.8 , is it worth it as a difference between the f2.8 and this lens ? Because what I like about this lens is that it does it all , your advice is appreciated
I never use a 70-200 anymore after having this lens. Why would you want a 70-200 that only covers one-third of this lens' range? f/2.8 was for back in the days of film when even ISO 200 film was pretty grainy and only got worse at ISO 400 and 800. Today Digital looks great at this eand higher ISOs, to for me f/2.8 is unnecessary . Both lenses are as sharp as each other.
@Ken Rockwell thank you very much really I was confused specifically that the f2.8 70 200 is around 2.6k bucks. And i already have the 24-200. So the f.8 for 70 300 isn't worth the extra money just to get the f2.8 from 70 to 200 . Another question: if you have to choose between Z 100 400 S and 70 200 f2.8 + TC 2.0 X what do you choose? Please advise
for me, this one is so good as i dont need s line for work
"S" is just BS; it has no real meaning. Look at my pictures from this lens, works AWESOME!!!! www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm#sampleimages
Ken is the master of sample test shots. He knows exactly what will show off the lens’s ability.
Thanks, but I try to do better for real photos www.kenrockwell.com/gallery.htm
@@KenRockwellTV do you think Nikon will design primes specifically for their crop sensor Zs?
I doubt it.
Great review! Thanks!
Thank you!
I own now and love it.
Excellent. THANKS!
"The model number is bigger than the item itself" :)
Thanks!
It's not orange but yellow right?
The zoom lock indicator is bright orange.
Mr. Rockwell, when are you going to have another live Q&A?
Ooooh, fun idea. Did you like that?
@@KenRockwellTV Definitely!
If there's ever a photography hall of fame, you should be in it!
I'm going to name my new baby after you, she'll understand one day...
Thanks Ken 🙏
What name will you use; Rock or Roxanne or? Hee hee. You’re the best!
@@KenRockwellTV No, I'll name her Ken.
Kenneth would just be cruel. 😉
It's not a stabilized lens, but you camera has IBIS
The Nikon Z 24-200mm VR is an optically stabilized lens. Details at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm Thanks!
I was double thinking my purchase decision of this lens.
Not a pro, but Was trying to stick with F4 gear and wish they had a 70-250 or 70-300 that had a FIXED max aperture.
Maybe some day, but for now I think this will totally work for me. Thanks for the review!
This is my favorite Z lens. Thanks!!
Hahahaha brilliant! Is this a review or a parody of a review, I almost can’t tell!
It’s all original work. Since I don’t watch anything or anyone else on CZcams I won’t fall into the trap of making the same boring look-alike stuff everyone else does. Thanks!
Why not z6. Z7 is 4209 which is too expensive
Z6 and Z7 are long since obsolete. They had awful autofocus and sold for more than the vastly superior II versions. Thanks!
This lens seems to be not too different from my tinker toy plastic Nikon 50-200 lens for my Nikon DX camera. Nikon lenses are turning to crap - especially the Z lenses.
They’ve been getting crappy ever since the series e of the 1970s. Been downhill ever since, even though the optics get better and better. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV - Ever since the 1970's? You've got to be kidding. One lens I was going to sell that I decided to keep is my Nikon 70-210 constant f/4.
That lens is a very plain Jane lens, but it's otherwise a beast. Stellar optics, but you'd never know it unless you have a crappy lens to compare it to, which I do.
You sold me. Sort of :) I have the Z7 II and latest and greatest F mount 70-200 FL E lens. Love it. Spectacular lens. However…if the Z 24-200 produces comparable images…time to say goodbye to it. I will order the Z 24-200, make some side by side tests against the 70-200 and make a decision. I’m making music vids currently and my old 70-200, on a tripod, is perfect. But for any other scenario it’s killing me with its size and weight. I rarely need f2.8. Here's an example - Z7 II and F mount 70-200 (available in 4k depending on your browser). czcams.com/video/YJdCJVs2sts/video.html
Yes, makes same images most of the time. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV Although... it can't hold a candle to my 85mm f1.4 G when set to 85mm. Guess I'll keep that "old" glass. if I know I'm going to shoot portraits then the 85 f1.4 G is my preference - it's a spectacular lens - especially when used with a big sensor. Terrible focal length for walking around but when 85mm is the field of view you need - it's amazing.
"I don't shoot raw I got it right the first time" LOL I am going to follow suit and stop shooting in raw, it will save so much time writing onto the storage cards
It will. Thanks!
Yawn. I find his reviews to be pedantic. I learn nothing from them.
Zzzzzzzzz. Thanks!
TRUMP 2020!!!!!
Eh? Thanks!
This aged well