This lens is simply great. I originally wanted to buy Z 24-120, but I would miss a long end.

I agree that this lens is really good (and very useful) for what it is.On a side-note - I like your image editing style.

BasilG wrote:I agree that this lens is really good (and very useful) for what it is.On a side-note - I like your image editing style.I definitely agree about the quality of his images and processing style.  It looks like f9 is the sweet spot for that lens.

I have the 24-200 and sometimes think of the 24-120 instead, holding off because of the long end as you state; but when I review the images I find that most are at the wide end as in your examples! I am not sure I need the long end or just want it available. Nice mood in those images.

landov wrote:This lens is simply great. I originally wanted to buy Z 24-120, but I would miss a long end.Great photos and glad you like it! I just picked up this lens for hiking/travel and same as you was also considering the 24-120. I already have the 24-70 f/4 when I only need the shorter range and if I'd be shooting wildlife I'll bring my 100-400. But I feel like cropping 120mm to 200mm is a  66% reduction in pixels taking the Z6 from 24mp to 8 mp. And I figure I'd still be cropping some at 200mm so really even lower. If I was mainly using it for people photography then I would have gotten the 24-120.A long time ago with my D7000 I had picked up the Sigma 18-250mm and I absolutely hated that lens, it turned me off of superzooms for a long time so hoping this one works out better

hikerdoc wrote:I have the 24-200 and sometimes think of the 24-120 instead, holding off because of the long end as you state; but when I review the images I find that most are at the wide end as in your examples! I am not sure I need the long end or just want it available. Nice mood in those images.But I had use 200mm quite often on my yesterday´s hike:

BasilG wrote:I agree that this lens is really good (and very useful)for what it is.A classic example of "damning with faint praise". LOLIt's an outstanding lens (as your photos show) as long as you don't read the forums or watch YouTube videos too much.

John Retsal wrote:BasilG wrote:I agree that this lens is really good (and very useful)for what it is.A classic example of "damning with faint praise". LOLIt's an outstanding lens (as your photos show) as long as you don't read the forums or watch YouTube videos too much.Well, first hand shooter of the 24-200 and when you do get into the longer FLs (beyond about 135 or so) you do start to get some corner sharpness issues and some of that softness can bleed into the mid-frame, but with proper processing, this can be mitigated a bit (although not really in the corners as much). So the reviews aren't entirely wrong, but at the same time, it's not like this stands out like a sore thumb either. Still usable images, it's just if you print large you may notice it a little bit in the corners but that's to be expected from a travel zoom like this.But still a good value for what it is. I too was thinking of the 24-120 (and will likely get one) but am probably going to keep my 24-200 for the extra FL when I want it. Took my 24-200 to Canada a month ago and was pleased with the results (however I did purposely stay below 105mm in most cases for the reason I mentioned), but in pinch, you have up to 200mm if you need it, and in most cases I'd like rather get something, even if that means using a FL that's not the sharpest, versus having to miss the shot altogether because the lens was too short.

Like previous comments, I've shot way more at 200mm than I expected.24-200 test, at 120 vs 200.Looking at the two images, I thought at first, "that's not an extreme crop.", but it's essentially a DX crop.at 120mm.~~~At 200mm.The 120mm image cropped to match. It's only 3760 wide. (good enough for online posting, though.)

Agreed. I had the 24-120 f4 VR with my Df before I bought the Z6ii and the 24-200mm, and I was surprised how often I zoomed out past 120mm with the 24-200mm. And it has VR so it is very useful on my Z50 as well. I can live with the slower aperture as the high ISO performance on the Z6ii and Z50 are so good.

John Retsal wrote:BasilG wrote:I agree that this lens is really good (and very useful)for what it is.A classic example of "damning with faint praise". LOLIt's an outstanding lens (as your photos show) as long as you don't read the forums or watch YouTube videos too much.It is outstanding for what it is - a 24-200 mm superzoom at very reasonable cost and rather light weight. It's not an outstanding 200 mm lens, but it's far better than not having 200 mm available. I have it, and like it, but suggesting that deficiencies are invisible unless pixels are peeped is not entirely accurate.

I agree wholeheartedly. I hiked with a D300 and 18-200 for years, then switched to the D800 and the F-mount 24-120, and hiked with that for years. The increase in image quality, plus the huge boost in resolution and ability to crop definitely made it worth losing the long end. But I switched to the Z 7ii and 24-200 two years ago, and that is definitely the best of both worlds -- extra range, plus great image quality (not to mention how much lighter the combination is). I have no interest in the new 24-120 at this point (though I do have the 24-70 2.8 for low light/highest quality).

I paired Z 24-200 with Z 28-75/2,8 for low-light.

Beautiful hiking-pictures! several of them with nicely composed fore- and backgrounds!

Very nice.  I just noticed all the photos are < 104mm so didn't take advantage of the extra reach though .....

101Colors wrote:Very nice. I just noticed all the photos are < 104mm so didn't take advantage of the extra reach though .....OP added a follow up with images at 200mm

landov wrote:I paired Z 24-200 with Z 28-75/2,8 for low-light.I'd be very interested in seeing some of your shots taken with that 28-75 / 2.8.

I took my Z5/24-200 combo on a shortbackpack this year in Point Reyes.But - the combo was really quite heavy, for backpacking anyway. For day hikes, it's fine.For my next backpack (who knows when that'll be!) I'll be going back to Olympus m43 gear.Mike Mundyhttp://mikereport.blogspot.com/

hikerdoc wrote:I have the 24-200 and sometimes think of the 24-120 instead, holding off because of the long end as you state; but when I review the images I find that most are at the wide end as in your examples! I am not sure I need the long end or just want it available. Nice mood in those images.When I hike I carry the 24-70 and the 100-400.  With a good backpack its not that bad as the 100-400 is pretty light.  In my experience I typically need more reach than 200mm on the telephoto end so the 24-200 is just not enough.  Seems to me the 24-200 would be more useful as a travel lens for cities, etc.