First impressions of 24-200 z lens

[TimMc]

I added this to a Z7 kit of 14-30 and 24-70. The lens compares well to the first two for my shooting. That equates to mainly landscape and printed to 13x19. It easily fills the all in one lens when multiple lenses are a bother and it fills out the 70-200 range as well as the FTC adapter and a 70-200f4 with out the hassle of the adapter which I have grown to dislike. My other use for the lens has been in video. I help livestream our church service. It is fantastic for everything from a wide view of the church to a tight view of the altar.

The quality of the 14-30 and the 24-70 are undoubtedly better than the 24-200 but only at a pixel peeping inspection that I don’t find productive.

samples all from last night

14-30

24-70

24-200

 

[JimFox]

I am glad you are doing a review of the 24-200mm Z lens Tim. That lens is actually the lens that could push me into getting a Z camera. I use my 24-120mm a lot as it's sharp and has a good range. The only thing that could improve it is if it had more range, like to 200mm.... So the 24-200mm sure appeals to me.

It certainly looks sharp here, and I agree I like real world results instead of pixel peeping. Keep us updated with your results and add some more samples as time goes on.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Thanks for posting.

 

[Jameel Hyder]

Canon also has a 24-240 in their RF lineup. While I don’t have that lens, the reviews are pretty positive overall. Not quite their L glass but nice for an all round lens.

 

[TimMc]

Canon also has a 24-240 in their RF lineup. While I don’t have that lens, the reviews are pretty positive overall. Not quite their L glass but nice for an all round lens.

It looks like Canon has done a much better job rolling out new lenses than Nikon. Hopefully Nikon will catch up this year. In any case the competition benefits all of us.

 

[TimMc]

Finally got out to a waterfall and did not find snow

but the best use of this lens by far for me is easily grandkids

for pixel peeping, the waterfall does show a reduction in detail from the s lenses

 

[Ben Egbert]

Love these last two

 

[JimFox]

Hey Tim,

Thanks for the updated photos on this. It looks like from these to be a very competent lens. Even if it's not the absolute best, it does seem to hold it's own.

You should share your waterfall shot on Waterfall Wednesday. A lot of people may not see it in here, and that's a really great shot. What waterfall is it?

 

[TimMc]

Jim

It is Smalley Falls in Marinette County. Just upstream from Long Slide Falls and maybe 10 miles north of Dave's Falls. All in all Marinette has 13 county parks with waterfalls.

Marinette County is about an hour north of Green Bay.

 

[JimFox]

Jim

It is Smalley Falls in Marinette County. Just upstream from Long Slide Falls and maybe 10 miles north of Dave's Falls. All in all Marinette has 13 county parks with waterfalls.

Marinette County is about an hour north of Green Bay.

Very cool! Thanks Tim. I just looked it up for reference as I would love to visit this waterfall.

 

[TimMc]

Final comparison, first the 24-200 on the Z7

16-50 on the Z50

Final (I hope) thoughts : For printing to 13 x19 (A3) there is not enough difference to be of concern. The initial thought of pixel peeping differences may well have been more user error (mine) than lens difference. The real shocker for me was the comparison of output between the Z50 & Z7. The results are way too close to differentiate . The one caveat to that is the Z7 sensor allows more color and shadow to be pulled than the Z50.

Since the weather is finally turning to warm spring here, time to quit testing and start shooting full time

 

[Rick Nantais]

Interesting. Me too this lens would be the only reason I would get out of DSLR to go mirrorless.