Any experience w/new NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR?

You might get a better response to your question if you put this in the Nikon Z lenses forum

I have the 24-200. It is a thoroughly competent lens for walk-around photography.

I'd like it better if it were f/5.6 on the long end or 300mm.

I have had the 24-200 for a while & use it with the Z6 & as others have said I find it a wonderful `walking' around lens. In a pinch using it in DX mode I have take photos of stationary birds...but the 200-500 is much better for that. The 24-200, paired with the 14-30 F4 in my view makes a great `travel' kit.
norm

Hi John, I do have the 24-70 F4 but haven’t done any detailed comparisons with the 24-200.
Norm

I have had the 24-200 for just over two months. I got lucky on Ebay.

It's sharp but the aperture is little tight on the long end. At 200mm it remains sharp but watch the corners which are softer. Almost all zooms seem to back away on sharpness at the long end.

If it was 300mm instead of 200, that would make it a more complete system, at long end of 200 (and probably 300) diffraction is a noticeable problem after F10 on my test charts. Still, it's great for landscape stuff.

I still like to carry it with me as a walk around lens on the Z7. The 50 1.8 S is what I use for absolute sharpness.

Regarding trading up to the Z6ii -- it really depends on whether the new capabilities (faster AF, grip, dual slots, etc) are relevant to your photography. If you really think two slots are critical, then the Z6ii is probably right for you. In my case, I saw no advantage in the new features of the Z6ii, so I went for a used Z6.

I picked up a copy of the 24-200 a couple of weeks ago to go with my Z6, and I shot this combination extensively last week in Death Valley and the Alabama Hills. I was encouraged to spring for this lens (when I happened to find one in stock at my local camera store) by Jason Odell's review in which he found that the Z 24-200 was pretty much equivalent to the F-mount 24-120 f/4 in the 24-120mm range. The 24-120 has been my main lens on my D750 and D850 for the past 6 years. I'm just starting to work through my images from the trip, but so far I have no complaints with the 24-200. Bear in mind, however, that I shoot landscapes -- I was working primarily at f/8 - f/14 so the fact that the lens is not particularly fast was not that important to me.

I've mentioned in other threads that the Z lens I really wanted is the promised 24-105, and I bought the 24-200 to serve as a placeholder until the time when Nikon brings out the 24-105. It's possible, however, that I'll just keep the 24-200. I'm not one to chase absolute sharpness -- I've found in practice that the F-mount 24-120 is sharp enough on both the D750 and D850 for my needs, and I've never been disappointed in the quality of large prints (up to 21x28) made from images taken with that lens. Based on reviews, I expect similar performance of the 24-200 on the Z6. I'll know more as I work through the shots from my recent trip.

Dave

A week ago or so I played with the 24-200 using it at 200mm with focus tracking and got the attached photo.

Attachment#1 (jpg file)

A good companion to the 24-70 f/4 is the AF-P 70-300 f/4.5-5.6. It is compact and light enough for travel and has excellent image quality. It does require an FTZ, which I keep permanently mounted to mine.

I'd be curious to know whether anyone tried this lens on the Z50 body.

The crop factor might be another advantage in certain situations. Efov of 36-300mm...

Wonder how it compares optically to the Nikkor 70-300mm Dx.

Christian,

www.flickr.com/photos/cfphotographs/
www.ChristianFritschi.com

Welcome to my Portfolio:

https://www.nikonians.org/portfolio/ChristianF

Love this lens for walking around. I can make great images and this will be my goto travel lens. All Z lenses( for me so far) outperform any equivalent lens in the Nikon FX lineup. 15 sec exposure with 24-200 on my Z6 at blue hour. Can't complain!