The Nikon Z 24-200 f/4-6.3 - A Review

 

Not many photographers like zooms unconditionally. It is more a love and hate relationship. That is especially true for a 11-times superzoom like this one, which is moreover on the cheaper side compared to other full frame lenses.

How shall I begin? Let me start with the zoom range. Clearly, this is a comfortable all-in-one lens, good enough for almost everything. But, on the wide end it will not be sufficient for lovers of extremely wide compositions, and on the long end it will not be long enough for distant wildlife and birders. Everything else goes. I take it for travelling, hiking or biking. 

The lens slows down early to f/6 at about 70mm. But you need to be aware that this is on full frame. Most zooms I used for APS-C started at f/4 in that range, which is about the same. And I shot them at f/8 most of the time anyway to get the best results on those older designs, something which is no longer necessary with this Nikon Z lens. Yet, one has to admit that this is not a fast lens.

Aou can isolate subjects perfectly well, albeit not creamily smooth like a f/2.8 telephoto lens would. The weight, size and the price of this lens is not in that range. For those beauty portraits I would still use a faster prime. If you want a smooth background, you get it for close subjects using the long end wide open. The lens is surprisingly good for micro photography.

How about sharpness? The new lens designs have in common that they are sharp in the center, even wide open. This is no exception. Between 35mm and 105mm it is on the level of good primes, at least in the center. To get good corner sharpness, you will have to stop down one or two stops. This will lose center sharpness, however. If you use it at f/8, almost all primes will not do better in real life photography. 

In any case, this is a far better lens than any APS-C zoom I have used so far. I will suffice as a replacement of your current lens, prime or not, if you are at f/8 or above and between 35mm and 105mm. The 35mm focal length is excellent even at f/5.6, which the fastest aperture at 35mm.

How about the long end? You already saw some pictures on this page, taken at 200mm. Only if you compare to the finest zooms, you will notice the difference. E.g., birders will like something better for the fine feathers and with more reach to prepare for small distant animals.

But we should be aware that 24 Megapixel are plenty enough for cropping, and the lens is still on a good level at 200mm. If you are on the Z7, even better. The image above is heavily cropped from 200mm. I'd say it is at 500mm equivalent. This is enough proof that the most excellent lens is not always needed.

How about the wide end at 24mm? Here, you definitely want to stop down.  The most prominent problem at 24mm, is color fringing in the corners. Avoid any situations where this would matter. 

If you really want to isolate subjects at 24mm, you need a faster lens anyway. If you are in low light, but want a wide angle, use a tripod and stop down. If you need to shoot handheld at night, but are afraid of higher ISO, this is not the lens for you.

Having written this, I remember a picture that I took at ISO1600 handheld at night. It is at 58mm, which is in the good range. But I would say it proves that you can do a lot more than you think. I know, however, that some photographers want fast action in low light situation, but evenly lit and with crispy lights and shadows. Then you need a faster lens. 

So, what are the problems of this lens? There are two main reasons, not to use the lens.

• You are shooting in situations where the absolute best quality is needed. The lens has, especially on the wide and wide open, a tendency for purple fringing on dark edges against bright backgrounds. And, of course, a high-quality lens like the Nikon Z 105 MC is still visible superior in terms of sharpness and contrast.
• You need a prime lens for what it offers and this zoom does not. A simple example is a macro lens. Although you can take micros with this lens at the long end, a macro offers a different world. As mentioned, fast primes can isolate objects and yield smooth backgrounds more easily than this allrounder.

On the other side, there are good reasons to use this wonderful zoom.

• If you want a one-lens setup, it is hard to beat a zoom. You can try a 50mm nifty-fifty and may gain an open aperture. But you lose many situations where a wider composition or a telephoto is simply needed. However, I often visit a museum with 50mm or the 105mm macro. So, you can do without a zoom. But for simple travelling, it is the more versatile tool.
• You do not want to spend money on a specialized prime. E.g., you may want to have the option to zoom to the telephoto range, while still have the normal 24-70mm range. This is the cheapest option to cover a lot of photography on the Nikon Z system.
• It is by far good enough for most photographers and most images.

For a final verdict, I recommend this lens fully. What are the alternatives?

• The 24-70mm f/4 is optically a better, smaller, lighter, and cheaper. If you have it as a kit, consider buying a telephoto zoom instead of switching. I have that lens too and use it often to walk around when I do not need the range above 70mm. If you are mostly using the 24mm end, the 24-70mm f/4 is a better choice for you. It is sharper off-center, and it can focus much closer. This is good for intimate close shots.
• The 24-70mm f/2.8, however, is in another league, both in quality and price. It is also a lot larger.
• The 24-120mm f/4 is also optically slightly better and offers f/4 at 120mm, but a lot more expensive. It is also larger and heavier. However, I think it is the best alternative if you can afford it. But for everyday photography, I'd say there is no real reason to switch from the 24-200.

Finally, a nice bird image I took with a tripod and a remote shutter from the smartphone app. You cannot do that handheld since these birds are shy. This is at 200mm again, cropped in.