24-200 f4-6.3

Just picked up this lens for my Z6. Still not sure what I think about it but wanted to share some thoughts. First, its not a magic lens, there is NOTHING that looks better than what I can get with the kit I already have. So what's it for? I have the 14-30 f4s, 24-70 f4s and 70-300 af-p f4.5-5.6 that is used with the FTZ adapter. That adapter is the hot spot I was trying to scratch away. Although I've always been happy with the results with that lens on the FTZ, its a pain to use especially if you are on a tripod and need a L bracket or base plate attached. The bracket/plate is compatible with the FTZ but you cant swap lenses from FTZ adapter to no FTZ without taking the bracket/plate off first and only then can you take the FTZ off. Makes swapping between native lenses to adapted lenses and back cumbersome, frustrating and annoying. So annoying in fact, I thought I could justify $900 for the 24-200 so I bought it. We've got a vacation later on this year for which I specifically got this lens in order to keep my kit as small as possible and to not hassle with that FTZ adapter/L bracket. The original thought was to replace the 24-70 and 70-300 permanently with this one lens, something I've read other reviewers doing. Now, I'm starting to think that's not at all what I want to do. I use that 201-300 a lot, plus 300 at f5.6 looks far better than 200 at 6.3 and then cropping the image. Also, the fact that 50mm is already at f5.6 on the 24-200 whereas there's twice as much light going through the 24-70 at 50mm f4. True, the 24-200 being a native lens gets all the VR the body/lens have to offer. This allows me to get 200mm shots at 1/6 shutter hand held. The 70-300 isn't too far behind though, I get 300mm shots at 1/15 shutter hand held. But that's no help when the shutter speed must be higher for moving subjects and then its the 70-300 for the win. For me, it all comes down to that dang FTZ adapter. I know Nikon recently released the FTZii which looks like it would alleviate the issues I have with the first gen FTZ. The new 100-400 looks ideal but not for $2700. Maybe a 2 body system is where I'll end up, 14-30 f4 on the Z6 and 24-200VR on a Z50 or Zfc. I don't have one of those Z crop bodies, but the money I save by not buying the 100-400 could buy both and still have a thousand bucks to spare! I've only had the lens for a couple days and only used it around the house. Hoping to stretch its legs out this weekend. It's still too new to make any final decisions but these are my initial thoughts.
Anyone else using this lens? Love it? Hate it? Why?
Anyone have the FTZii? Does it allow the L bracket to remain attached to the body while swapping the FTZii out for native glass?

I wondered about that lens. I have 14-30 f4 Z S, but I did upgrade to the 24-70 f2.8 and splurged on the 70-200 f2.8. Originally I considered the 24-200 when they were talking about it, but I buckled down and saved some money and off loaded my Tamron to KEH which all though not as profitable far less painful than a sale elsewhere. I cannot manage the stress selling things.

That 100-400 looks appealing, and it is lighter than my 200-500 f5.6, but I cannot bring myself to even saving for the lens. It is just too much cash. I just do not do enough bird or wildlife photos anymore. The lighter rig may change that, but it would take a bit to change my mind on it. I am kind of waiting to see what Nikon does now that the Z9 is out maybe a Z8 or a ZXIII. Who knows. But for now I am in good shape.

I am curious if you kept the lens and if you like it.

@Danno
Yup, I kept it and I like it, I don't love it though. There's no such thing as a perfect lens, eh? I think it will play into my long term plans better, however. Anything shot outside has been a pleasure to use this lens with. I typically stop down my landscape shots and its tough to tell the difference between the lenses at that point without extreme pixel peeping. Indoors, its a little more gray area. I've used it to shoot a volleyball tournament with poor gym lighting, telephoto photos and wide angle videos and I like it better than swapping lenses between the different focal lengths without much loss, if any, in either case. If the priority is not changing lenses, this lens is king.

I'm reminded how much I dislike variable aperture lenses, especially one that goes to f6.3 when using my flash with it. I don't know if its just my flash (Promaster 200SL) but it doesn't read all apertures. For example, at about 70mm, the lens is at f6. My flash doesn't read f6 though and thinks it should be f25. But if I dial it down to f6.3, the flash also reads f6.3. I wasn't expecting this and it's just something I'll have to keep in mind for future shots. I was used to shooting a 24-120 f4 lens on my DSLR and 18-140 f3.5-5.6 before that. When I got the Z6, I decided to give the 24-70 f4 a try but I've always felt restricted without the extra mm's at the long end, usually going out with my 14-30 and 70-300 leaving the 24-70 at home. The 70-300 with the FTZ adapter doesn't fit well in my pack without disassembling the FTZ adapter first though, so it's all about trade-offs and understanding what the priority is. For me, I'd rather have all the mm's at once and only swap lenses when I need a different aperture. The next lens for me will be a native 50 (ish) prime and patiently waiting (and saving) for the 200-600.

Curious if you've thought about adding the 2x teleconverter to your 70-200 f2.8? That'd give you the same 400 f5.6 as the pricy 100-400. Also, what'd you think about selling through KEH? I too hate the stress of selling things and have kept it all hidden in the camera closet to avoid dealing with the growing mountain of gear I rarely ever use any more.

TwistedThrottle said:

@Danno


Curious if you've thought about adding the 2x teleconverter to your 70-200 f2.8? That'd give you the same 400 f5.6 as the pricy 100-400. Also, what'd you think about selling through KEH? I too hate the stress of selling things and have kept it all hidden in the camera closet to avoid dealing with the growing mountain of gear I rarely ever use any more.

Click to expand...

Fancy you mention that... I have not done it yet, but I think that will be my next purchase. I have seen some good results with it on the 70-200 f2.8 and it would be a light weight option for me. I have always been a bit reluctant to use them but it makes sense to me right now. It is pretty reasonable and just want to give it some prayerful consideration. If you go for the 50 f1.8 you will not be disappointed. I have it and I really like it. My two primes are the 50 and 85 f1.8 and I love them. They are hard to beat.

Just want to chime in with my experience using the FTZ-II adapter. For starters, you will need to be sure you have updated firmware on camera. The FTZ-II did not work on my Z5 at all until I updated it. The adapter is not perfectly round, it has a little bit of a heavy belly underneath. No interference physically with the tripod foot on my 70-200mm f2.8G VR or with my Sigma 150-600mm C. It mostly fits like a typical 2X teleconverter would. Also the FTZ-II is in sort of a short supply currently. I had to wait an extra day to get mine after taking home the Z5.

Thanks for the info [MENTION=48483]BF Hammer[/MENTION] - I hunt for those updates, each one has provided a noticeable difference in the Z6 performance! I had to update my Z6 when the update came out for the 105.
The "problem" I have with the FTZ is strictly with the compatibility with switching from native lenses to the FTZ adapter. With the OG FTZ, if a L bracket, or even just a plate is attached to the camera, it must be removed before the FTZ can be attached or removed. As in my case, changing from the 24-70f4s to the 70-300f4.5-5.6e via FTZ. The bump at the bottom of the V1 FTZ prevents removal or attachment of all the plates and L brackets I have, they're are too wide and the FTZ can not rotate to be swapped without first removing the plate from the camera. I've been really happy with the 24-200 while I travel or I just want one lens, but I like using the 300 when I can and the slight inconvenience of the bracket issue hasn't cropped up too much, at least not enough to justify the cost of a second adapter... Yet.

My FTZ-II is still attached today from a test run with my Sigma 150-600mm in the backyard. I just now attached a Sirui plate, which is wider than a normal Arca-Swiss plate. It juts out under the FTZ half-way, and there is good clearance. I can easily detach the FTZ-II with the plate in place on the Z5 body.

TwistedThrottle said:

Thanks for the info @BF Hammer - I hunt for those updates, each one has provided a noticeable difference in the Z6 performance! I had to update my Z6 when the update came out for the 105.
The "problem" I have with the FTZ is strictly with the compatibility with switching from native lenses to the FTZ adapter. With the OG FTZ, if a L bracket, or even just a plate is attached to the camera, it must be removed before the FTZ can be attached or removed. As in my case, changing from the 24-70f4s to the 70-300f4.5-5.6e via FTZ. The bump at the bottom of the V1 FTZ prevents removal or attachment of all the plates and L brackets I have, they're are too wide and the FTZ can not rotate to be swapped without first removing the plate from the camera. I've been really happy with the 24-200 while I travel or I just want one lens, but I like using the 300 when I can and the slight inconvenience of the bracket issue hasn't cropped up too much, at least not enough to justify the cost of a second adapter... Yet.

Click to expand...

I found a Z6 L-bracket that appears to have the clearance with the FTZ solved. At least one Amazon review comments that it will work with FTZ. But it will not fit a Z6-II or Z7-II.





SUNWAYFOTO PNL-Z6

The RRS B7 plate I had on the Z5 I had briefly worked just fine with the original FTZ... I could let the plate go fairly cheap, I have just the plate, not the optional piece that makes it an L bracket... From RRS's description:

*To install or uninstall the Nikon FTZ from the bayonet, the camera and plate must not be locked into a clamp. Once installed, the camera, FTZ, and plate all lock into and out of clamps as normal.

Click to expand...

Roscoe

TwistedThrottle said:

@Danno

Curious if you've thought about adding the 2x teleconverter to your 70-200 f2.8? That'd give you the same 400 f5.6 as the pricy 100-400. Also, what'd you think about selling through KEH? I too hate the stress of selling things and have kept it all hidden in the camera closet to avoid dealing with the growing mountain of gear I rarely ever use any more.

Click to expand...

Well... First off, I can carry this lens and Tele-converter and i have to say that is wonderful. I do lose 100 mm of length but I am thinking I can live with that because the 2X Tele-Converter is like adding another lens to the bag. This is not my best moon shot because i was shooting through a bit of haze but I was not disappointed given the conditions and I was just happy being able to handle the lens. I am not quite ready to sell the 200-500 f5.6, but I am closer than I thought I might be. It does make me wonder if I should add a Z7ll and shoot DX when I use the 2X Converter... No I am not serious about buying a Z7. But it is an interesting thought. Oz

Lookin good, @Danno
Glad to hear the teleconverter is easier to pack around, the shot looks great! The Z7II would be awesome to have- I've been thinking about the same thing but I ain't got the coin for one of those til the new stuff starts driving the prices down. I'd be most interested in the next body that incorporates the stacked sensors that the Z9 has as well as the ability to reduce file sizes without degrading the data but in a smaller package. I am bumping up against resolution issues with some of the landscape scenes I like shooting with the Z6 (and 24-200 specifically). Few and far between, most everything else has been great, but something that's just enough of a naggle to mention. I wonder though if its an issue with the sensor or the tele lenses I have not being nano coated. Z6 & 24-70 f4s gives stellar images with great detail. Same shot with 24-200 looses its crispness slightly, which I guess reinforces its special purpose of "allarounder".

TwistedThrottle said:

Lookin good, @Danno
Z6 & 24-70 f4s gives stellar images with great detail. Same shot with 24-200 looses its crispness slightly, which I guess reinforces its special purpose of "allarounder".

Click to expand...

It would be quite shocking if that weren't the case....

Roscoe

@TwistedThrottle, I think you might be right about the all around 24-200 lens. It seems at the price point required some compromises. It can be a very good lens but not necessarily a great lens.

I agree with you on waiting for the next body. I am waiting to see a Z8 or Z7lll. I would like to see the stacked sensor and improved focus system from the Z9 incorporated.