Why I like the Nikon 24-200

I was in the UK for reasons that had nothing to do with pleasure. But my Z7 with 24-200 takes up little room in my briefcase, and I knew I would have time to do some photography.

Ignoring test charts and lens reviews, I find this lens is brilliant for when I want travel light, or just when I want to do some photography on the back of a job in some interesting place. It is great not to have to any lens changing. When I come back from a trip where I have just taken this one lens combination, I never feel I have missed anything. The 24-120 seems to be popular right now, but I find the extra reach out to 200mm very useful. I never really found my old F mount 24-120 to be a good one lens solution. The lens has a couple of flaws that are easy to sort out in post.

It was this lens that brought me into the Z system. I wanted an all in one lens to use for hiking and travel. It was a toss up between a Z7 +24-200 and the M43 EM1 + 12-100. As there is no weight difference the choice was easy.

Here are just a few snaps I took whilst in Bath for a short time recently.

Hotel room with a view.

The shot everybody takes in Bath

Kennet and Avon Canal

Under a canal bridge.

I enjoyed your photos. I too am a recent purchaser of the 24-200 Z lens. IMO, it exceeds expectations. I use it on a Zfc , Z6ii and Z9.

The versatility of the 24-200 far outweighs any minor negatives and it's the lens that is left on my camera. I wish it focused a little closer but It's a lot of lens for the weight/size. The house camera (wildlife) is a D810 with the 28-300.

Thanks for the pictures!

Not quite sure whether its the subject but your photos look good!

Really nice shots, thanks for sharing.

I think we're lucky that the Z lineup is filling out and we have some excellent choices. The 24-200 might be one of the best superzooms ever made. I remember when our choices were the 18-200 and then the 18-300, which were fine at the time but don't come anywhere near the quality of what the 24-200 delivers.

For me, when I evaluated this lens vs. the 24-120, it wasn't a matter of quality but more a matter of the range I'd use plus the variable aperture of the one lens vs. the constant f/4 of the other. Interestingly, it looks to me like all of your images posted here fall within the 24-120 range, but if you need the 120-200, then you need it. And it's nice to have in reserve vs. carrying an additional lens. But they're both great lenses, and I'd probably own the 24-200 if the 24-120 hadn't appeared as an option.

Very nice series. Would love to see some shots at longer focal lengths if you have some.

Here are a couple. The first one is at 200mm

I completely agree. I bought the 24-200 in the same purchase as a brand new Nikon Z 6ii (didn't even consider the "kit" lens), and no regrets at all. The alleged drawbacks to this lens, as pointed out by a number of YouTube commentators, are trivial to me.

I am so spoiled by the Z 24-200mm, it does great on my Z7 as well.

@NCV, thanks for those shots. It looks like the lens does a nice job at the long end.

I bought this lens for those sort of things where photography comes in behind some other activity. On my first trip out with it the 24-200 replaced the 24-70 for some long lens shots, and never came off the camera. The practical advantages of this lens outweigh any lens chart drawbacks that this lens might have.

Various commentators really do a lot of damage, when the denigrate stuff.

I'm considering getting the 24-200mm to use on my Z50 APS-C body. Since it has VR, the Z50's lack of IBIS is negated. It's a bit wider and faster at the low end compared to my Z 50-250mm DX kit lens. Also, since it's a full frame lens, it would produce an angle of view equivalent to 300mm on the APS-C sensor, in effect giving me a bit more reach for wildlife shots.

dear... Z 50-250mm DX = 75-375 eq FOV lens on APS-C camera... so 24mm is A LOT WIDER than 50mm, a whole lot - not a "bit wider" ... and 200mm is a shorter reach too vs 250 mm.

When I want to travel light weight and compact, perhaps when leading a wildlife event with photography not the first priority, I may take the 24-120 plus Nikon 6T CU on a step-down ring.
I can then take wide angle to telephoto and close-up to a good standard with a compact light weight outfit.

Wonderful shots!

Nice pictures, NCV. I took a shot identical to your fourth photo 30 years ago!

The odd thing is that the vast majority of the photos you showed in your first posting are around 35mm.

I also value my Canon RF24-240 lens for the same reason as you do your Nikon equivalent, and curiously enough, when I did a survey of photos taken with it in the first six months of 2022, I found that some of the best were at 50mm! :)

See here

and here

David

Everybody who visits Bath takes that fourth shot! It is a classic view. I think most travel photography is done with short focal lengths, but having 200mm is useful for details.

LOL. The one you omitted is the one of the west end of the Abbey with the angels descending Jacob's ladder upside down!

David

Very nice pictures (as always) and a great lens. It made me think. I have a bicycle trip planned in June cycling from Bolzano to Venice and need to limit my photography gear I will take. So was thinking of the z 24-120 which is the best zoom I ever had, combining it with a fast prime, like the 35 or 50 f1,8 for night shots. But I could also take the 24-200 for the extra reach and use the 35 mm F1,8 as general purpose lens, for which it's also very suitable.

I won't be able to take more than a 1 camera (my Z6ii) and 2 lenses max.

Alain

"dear"? Really?? Let me be clear. I understand that 24 is less than half of 50 and that 250 is less than 200.

Since it's a full frame lens, it would produce an angle of view equivalent to 36mm on the APS-C sensor (vs 24mm), in effect a bit wider than 50mm on the kit lens. As for "200mm is a shorter reach too vs 250 mm", you ignored the modifying phrase "in effect" that was used when discussing "an angle of view equivalent to 300mm on the APS-C sensor" in the original post. It is the angle of view equivalence using an APS-C sensor that's of interest to me when it comes to this lens on my Z50.

As for your comment, noted and filed appropriately. Done and done.

The kit lens has a fair bit more reach than the 24-200, but isn't as wide.

The 24-200 becomes effectively a 36-300.

The 50-250 is effectively a 75-375.

The crop factor applies to both lenses. I think you don't understand what you have now is better for wildlife. Feel free to try it out yourself after buying it.

I would suggest an even more radicle solution. Just one lens. The 24-120 or 24-200. For indoor shots 2000ISO is almost flawless with a Z FF sensor. I am able to do quite dark interiors if I take care at 1/15th.