Nikon Z* mirrorless

I'm quite interested in the new Nikon Z 24-200 lens as a walk about, and just noticed the MTF charts have been posted. I'll admit I don't really know how to read these so can anyone tell me if this is supposed to be good from a contrast and resolution point of view please ?

I'm guessing that the on the better lenses, the solid and dotted coloured lines for Sagittal and Meridional should be as close together as possible ?

Here's the new 24-200 Chart


and for comparison, here's the charts for the 24-70 F4 and 24-70 F2.8 Z lenses as well

Nikon Z 24-70S F4


Nikon Z 24-70S F2.8
 
Last edited:
I see these all the time and haven't a clue about them either. My guess is the lines need to be as close to the top as possible without a wavy line. A gradual drop off if any, is probably preferred.
I could be totally wrong and no idea how it corresponds to CA, Flare, Sharpness etc
 
AZ6 said:
I'm not sure if it will be 'comfortably better' than the 24-120; that is already an excellent lens, and was very underrated until it started to be sold as a kit with the D750, and people realised just how versatile it really is. My experience of superzooms is that they are always compromised somehow, in terms of sharpness, distortion, aberration, etc etc. Putting such a range into one lens is always going to have to require some compromise. Then there's the relatively small aperture at the longer focal lengths; f4 is about as small as I can tolerate; working in low light conditions becomes difficult beyond that point. I don't feel the need for reach, as much as I do for IQ. I'd much rather have just one or two really good primes/short range zooms than a jack of all trades. But everyone's different. I've found that with say my 70-200mm, I'm mostly shooting at one end or the other anyway. So for me, a nice reasonably compact 200/180mm f4/3.2 lens would be great. Even a 135mm f2.8 would be lovely!
Click to expand...
I did find the 24-120 (also a super zoom imo) to have acceptable (at best) iq. That was on a D600 so not an overly demanding sensor.

I do agree on the compromise thing, I loved my old Sony rx10 with its 24-200 zoom which just seemed to be sharp all over but a smaller sensor again.

What does give me hope for the Nikon superzoom to be comfortably better than the old 24-120 F4 is that this new z mount seems to be much easier to design for.
 
Not a scooby what the charts mean, but I await the first real-world tests with interest, as I’ve already made room in my bag and wallet for it.
 
Sootchucker said:
I'm quite interested in the new Nikon Z 24-200 lens as a walk about, and just noticed the MTF charts have been posted. I'll admit I don't really know how to read these so can anyone tell me if this is supposed to be good from a contrast and resolution point of view please ?

I'm guessing that the on the better lenses, the solid and dotted coloured lines for Sagittal and Meridional should be as close together as possible ?

Here's the new 24-200 Chart


and for comparison, here's the charts for the 24-70 F4 and 24-70 F2.8 Z lenses as well

Nikon Z 24-70S F4


Nikon Z 24-70S F2.8
Click to expand...
It doesn't look too bad tbh. Very sharp at the centre with good contrast, dropping off at the edges. Going to get some CA's and astigmatism with some field curvature. I'd say exceptional centre performance and average mid to edge performance.
 
snerkler said:
It doesn't look too bad tbh. Very sharp at the centre with good contrast, dropping off at the edges. Going to get some CA's and astigmatism with some field curvature. I'd say exceptional centre performance and average mid to edge performance.
Click to expand...
A lot of the "defects" should be handled by in-camera correction, I would imagine.
 
Stephen L said:
A lot of the "defects" should be handled by in-camera correction, I would imagine.
Click to expand...
Pass, I'm not sure how all that works TBH, do raw files have any lens corrections? Field curvature looks to be wavy so mid frame may suffer a bit of softness, and the extreme edges have quite a big drop off in detail. I'm not sure how, or even if you can interpret barrel/pincushion distortion from MTF's?
 
Brazo said:
I did find the 24-120 (also a super zoom imo) to have acceptable (at best) iq. That was on a D600 so not an overly demanding sensor.

I do agree on the compromise thing, I loved my old Sony rx10 with its 24-200 zoom which just seemed to be sharp all over but a smaller sensor again.

What does give me hope for the Nikon superzoom to be comfortably better than the old 24-120 F4 is that this new z mount seems to be much easier to design for.
Click to expand...

Interesting. We have different experience of the same model of lens, and camera! I don't know what you mean by the D600 not having an 'overly demanding sensor', mine has always given me excellent results. I don't consider the zoom to be as good, overall, as primes, but mine has performed better than several other zoom lenses I've used. I found it to offer the best balance between IQ and compromise. I use it as a 'do it all' type lens; it's excellent for travelling with just one lens. For me, the 24-200mm would be too compromised due to the diminishing aperture as you zoom closer. F6.3 is just not practical for my requirements. I would be interested in seeing how it performs against the 24-120, but as yet, none of us know how it will. So far, Z-series lenses have proven to be excellent, but so far, these have been primes or short zooms. Not every lens will be as good. I judge equipment based on the results it gives me.
 
snerkler said:
Pass, I'm not sure how all that works TBH, do raw files have any lens corrections? Field curvature looks to be wavy so mid frame may suffer a bit of softness, and the extreme edges have quite a big drop off in detail. I'm not sure how, or even if you can interpret barrel/pincushion distortion from MTF's?
Click to expand...
Certainly some raw processors apply lens profiles automatically (unless you tell them otherwise). Lightroom certainly does.
 
AZ6 said:
Interesting. We have different experience of the same model of lens, and camera! I don't know what you mean by the D600 not having an 'overly demanding sensor', mine has always given me excellent results. I don't consider the zoom to be as good, overall, as primes, but mine has performed better than several other zoom lenses I've used. I found it to offer the best balance between IQ and compromise. I use it as a 'do it all' type lens; it's excellent for travelling with just one lens. For me, the 24-200mm would be too compromised due to the diminishing aperture as you zoom closer. F6.3 is just not practical for my requirements. I would be interested in seeing how it performs against the 24-120, but as yet, none of us know how it will. So far, Z-series lenses have proven to be excellent, but so far, these have been primes or short zooms. Not every lens will be as good. I judge equipment based on the results it gives me.
Click to expand...
By not a demanding sensor I meant it’s only 24megs so won’t show up deficiencies in lenses like higher mp sensor would.
 
Brazo said:
By not a demanding sensor I meant it’s only 24megs so won’t show up deficiencies in lenses like higher mp sensor would.
Click to expand...

Well it's demanding enough to show up deficiencies in some lenses, such as my old 50mm f1.4G! :runaway:

TBH the sensor in the Z6 is superior to the one in the D600, although the differences are more noticeable the higher you go with ISO. And it's superior enough to show the difference between various 50mm lenses I have, more than the D600 can. So it's more 'demanding' in that sense. But I could see differences between lenses on my old D200...
 
Last edited:
AZ6 said:
Well it's demanding enough to show up deficiencies in some lenses, such as my old 50mm f1.4G! :runaway:

TBH the sensor in the Z6 is superior to the one in the D600, although the differences are more noticeable the higher you go with ISO. And it's superior enough to show the difference between various 50mm lenses I have, more than the D600 can. So it's more 'demanding' in that sense. But I could see differences between lenses on my old D200...
Click to expand...
The Nikon 50 1.4 ain’t all that.

And no both the D600 and the Z6 have the same number of megapixels so will resolve Equally given the same lens.
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
The Nikon 50 1.4 ain’t all that.

And no both the D600 and the Z6 have the same number of megapixels so will resolve Equally given the same lens.
Click to expand...

Well you'd think that. But for some reason, the differences stand out more with the Z6. Don't ask me how. Witchcraft, probably.
 
AZ6 said:
Interesting. We have different experience of the same model of lens, and camera! I don't know what you mean by the D600 not having an 'overly demanding sensor', mine has always given me excellent results. I don't consider the zoom to be as good, overall, as primes, but mine has performed better than several other zoom lenses I've used. I found it to offer the best balance between IQ and compromise. I use it as a 'do it all' type lens; it's excellent for travelling with just one lens. For me, the 24-200mm would be too compromised due to the diminishing aperture as you zoom closer. F6.3 is just not practical for my requirements. I would be interested in seeing how it performs against the 24-120, but as yet, none of us know how it will. So far, Z-series lenses have proven to be excellent, but so far, these have been primes or short zooms. Not every lens will be as good. I judge equipment based on the results it gives me.
Click to expand...
I found the 24-120mm f4 to be a very good lens, every bit as sharp as the 24-70mm f2.8. That being said, I didn't pay RRP or anywhere close to RRP, if I had I might be singing a different tune.
Stephen L said:
Certainly some raw processors apply lens profiles automatically (unless you tell them otherwise). Lightroom certainly does.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes raw processors do, but you said in camera corrections which is where my confusion lay ;)
Brazo said:
By not a demanding sensor I meant it’s only 24megs so won’t show up deficiencies in lenses like higher mp sensor would.
Click to expand...
My 24-120mm performed well on my D850 (y)
 
snerkler said:
Ahh yes raw processors do, but you said in camera corrections which is where my confusion lay ;)
My 24-120mm performed well on my D850 (y)
Click to expand...
Quite right, I misphrased my reply. I meant that the lens details were read and aligned with a profile in LR, etc. :)
 
AZ6 said:
Well you'd think that. But for some reason, the differences stand out more with the Z6. Don't ask me how. Witchcraft, probably.
Click to expand...
The sensor may be the same but the processor may be different.
 
It seems NikonRumors are reporting Nikon are going to put out a new FW update with improved AF this month.

fingers crossed it’s true, will be awesome.
 
I'd be very happy with an improvement in af. Taking images today of my daughter under studio conditions and I could see the focusing drift in and out of focus while on the eye in both eyeaf and single point. Frustrating to the least.
 
Stephen L said:
The other side of the coin (being impartial to this) is that they may have decided that now is the time for a cut-off point - to cease full onwards capability of older lenses from a certain range to new bodies. Of course, we may end up with a third-party adapter which does just that, but not developed at Nikon's expense.
Click to expand...

Yes that's understandable I spose. But the screw drive lenses aren't that old, some are even still being sold new! Would it really have been that hard for Nikon to make such a thing? And charge say £150 max for the standard FTZ, and do a screw drive adapter for the £279 the FTZ sells at? It is grossly overpriced imo.
 
AZ6 said:
Yes that's understandable I spose. But the screw drive lenses aren't that old, some are even still being sold new! Would it really have been that hard for Nikon to make such a thing? And charge say £150 max for the standard FTZ, and do a screw drive adapter for the £279 the FTZ sells at? It is grossly overpriced imo.
Click to expand...
Sony sold two adapters for A mount to E mount. One was much like the FTZ adapter and another contained a full SLT focusing and screw drive set up so it’s definitely possible.
 
PeteStewardson said:
It seems NikonRumors are reporting Nikon are going to put out a new FW update with improved AF this month.

fingers crossed it’s true, will be awesome.
Click to expand...

I’m looking forward to seeing what the update brings! I bought the Z6 happy with the AF as it was at launch, but will never turn down an AF improvement!
 
I’m a bit skeptical about major AF improvements tbh as they’ve promised this previously and it hasn’t materialised. Fingers crossed though.
 
snerkler said:
I’m a bit skeptical about major AF improvements tbh as they’ve promised this previously and it hasn’t materialised. Fingers crossed though.
Click to expand...

well NikonRumors have promised it previously to no end. Each time Nikon have announced improvements we’ve had them. So just a waiting game to see. Z6 at the ready for a FW update
 
PeteStewardson said:
well NikonRumors have promised it previously to no end. Each time Nikon have announced improvements we’ve had them. So just a waiting game to see. Z6 at the ready for a FW update
Click to expand...
Well the firmware update is just a rumour, nothing from Nikon AFAIK. Obviously if Nikon announce it then it’s 100% concrete (y)
 
snerkler said:
Well the firmware update is just a rumour, nothing from Nikon AFAIK. Obviously if Nikon announce it then it’s 100% concrete (y)
Click to expand...

As Sony always announce theirs
 
I notice that the new Z 24-200 is now listed for pre-order at Amazon. Anyone put their name down for one yet? I have, but I’ll be watching out for pre-release tests.
 
Stephen L said:
I notice that the new Z 24-200 is now listed for pre-order at Amazon. Anyone put their name down for one yet? I have, but I’ll be watching out for pre-release tests.
Click to expand...

Not at launch price! If it’s good, I’ll be looking to buy around the end of the year if it’s come down a bit by then!
 
chris321 said:
Not at launch price! If it’s good, I’ll be looking to buy around the end of the year if it’s come down a bit by then!
Click to expand...
I would like to have something in place for May, when we are hoping to go away for a few days convalescence.
 
If the 24-200 really ups the ante in IQ for this sort of lens, I would indeed be interested in due course but am not going to make the mistake again of being an early adopter and spend more money than is necessary. More likely in a year's time or so. Would be great if it could replace both the 24-70 and the 70-300 but that's probably too much to hope for?
 
lunar22 said:
If the 24-200 really ups the ante in IQ for this sort of lens, I would indeed be interested in due course but am not going to make the mistake again of being an early adopter and spend more money than is necessary. More likely in a year's time or so. Would be great if it could replace both the 24-70 and the 70-300 but that's probably too much to hope for?
Click to expand...
For me, I don't think it will be able to replace the 24-70. At least, not full-time. Rather it will be treated as a 70-200 as I don't need anything longer. Regardless of the 70-300 being an excellent lens and value for money, it's simply too bulky for my wants. Now if it were a native Z mount 70-300 with more amenable dimensions (and a sensible price point) ...
 
Nikon getting there now. Well done Nikon
 
Screenshot 2020-02-18 at 08.36.34.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top