Nikon Z lens choice

C

Charles B

Suspended / Banned
Messages
88
Name
Charles
Edit My Images
Yes
Using a mobility scooter to get around on trips away I can’t take a lot of gear with me - I use a Billingham Hadley Pro 2020 bag carried between my feet on the scooter. I have a Nikon Z6ii and am trying to decide which lens to get as a (almost) do-it-all. I have the 14-30 f/4 and am trying to decide between the 24-120 or the 24-200.

My subjects are very general - travel, landscape, and annual family portraits. I think I’ve read and seen most of the comparative reviews but would appreciate some real life opinion from this forum.

Many thanks in advance.
 
My experience is limited, but I went with the 24-120 shortly after purchasing my Z6iii and scouring Google. A good deal popped up used so that didn’t hurt.

I cannot speak for the 24-200, but I can say while I love my 24-120, it’s just isn’t enough reach that I’m used to or would like. My D3200 was paired with a Sigma 28-300mm and I found it quite adequate for everything.

This trip I’m currently on is the first time I’ve taken this combination on a traveling trip. The 24-120 is compact enough I can carry it without it being inconvenient. The lack of reach is my only complaint, but I knew that could be a potential. I prefer a tighter focal point so I kind of do it to myself when using it. If I had to do it again I’d probably go for the longer reach.
 
I’ve got both lenses. The 24-120 is on my camera most of the time, but I bought a 24-200 for the extra reach when I went to Japan as I wanted to take one lens. I didn’t intend to keep it but have done as the extra reach does come in useful and it’s lighter than the 24-120.
Image quality isn’t as good if you enjoy viewing your images at 100% on screen, and obviously it’s not a constant aperture, but if you’re not fussed about things like that then it’s worth buying.
 
I had both and ultimately ended up keeping the 24-120. To be honest, there’s not much difference in image quality between the two, but it is noticeable if you’re a pixel peeper.

Where the 24-200 did disappoint me was at the longer end, definitely less contrast than at the wider end.
 
Thank you for the responses. One further question. The 24-200 has image stabilisation - as my Z6ii also has IS do you get increased IS using this lens?
 
Before I moved predominantly to FX format, I used to have a 18-200 VR II on my DX bodies. I found the focal range quite versatile as I only needed to carry the one lens to cover most things (with the exception of a 1.8 prime in the bag for low light). It did the job fine for what I wanted, but with the large gap between 18mm and 200mm, it came with variable aperture and some distortion as trade-offs. Distortion might be better managed in the newer lenses, though I'm not sure as I don't own any.

I have the F-Mount 24-120 f/4 as my general walkabout lens, and that's been alright so far. That said, for subjects further away there is still a need for something longer. If you can borrow each of the candidates for a few test slots, that might help ascertain what's going to be most appropriate for your usage :)
 
Given your circumstances, Charles, I would go for the extra versatility that the 24-200 gives and live with the slight compromises.
 
I'm also after all-round travel lens. I do 95% photos with 20mm lens, so getting Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 for my Nikon Zf (with Viltrox adapter).
However, I was wondering what I should pick to cover rest of the focal length - 24-120/4 is praised so much, but for me its big and heavy. 24-200 is now best next lens after reading all the reviews. For travel 24-200 is amazing, but I never used such long FL, so don't know if 24-120 would be enough or 200mm on other end is better?
Asking all of you travellers - do you often use FL longer than 120mm? Maybe I visited places where I didnt need it, but for example for ucoming trips to US or Japan I would need 200mm?

I have Sigma 105mm lens (for macro) so I can imagine what 120mm would be, pretty much same as 105mm, so it is close, but 200mm - waht would I need it for?
24-200 is lighter and shorter lens than 24-120, that is why I would prefer it over that brick, especally on Zf.
 
phinix said:
Asking all of you travellers - do you often use FL longer than 120mm? Maybe I visited places where I didnt need it, but for example for ucoming trips to US or Japan I would need 200mm?
Click to expand...

Just because you have up to 200mm doesn’t mean you have to use it all. As you pointed out, it’s a smaller lighter lens than the 24-120, that alone is with having if you’re trading off weight for a variable aperture.

Would you need 200mm? Only you can answer that. It would depend on where you’re going, what you’re interested in photographing, etc. I used my 24-200 for 95% of the pictures I took on my Z7 in Japan last year, and just less than 10% were taken at 200mm. Some were of far away things, other times I used it to isolate or compress perspective of a scene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top