mediacop wrote:Trying to decide how to maximize both zoom range and image quality. Should I buy a Z7 with an S lens of shorter zoom, or a z6 with a longer zoom?In other words, will I get better image quality at "200mm" by cropping the higher megapixel Z7 shot at 120mm. Or will I get better quality using the full frame of the Z6 and the 24-200?Thanks in advance.When the Z6 + 24-200 are paired to gether, you really have two things working against you... the AA Filter on the Z6 and the fact the 24-200 at 200mm is not terribly sharp. It's not horrible, but I think you will notice softness from the lens despite doing everything you can to maximize sharpness at the time of capture (ie. technique, settings, etc).If it was me, I would get the Z7 and the 24-120 and you can get the best of both worlds -- albeit a more expensive route. High resolution and a sharp lens (sharper than the 24-200 at least). Now that being said, since the 24-200 doesn't start to show any serious degredation in sharpness until about 135mm, it does still hav ean upper hand over the 24-120 if you find yourself shooting beyond 120mm.Also you have to consider lens speed. By the time you get to 120mm on the 24-200 you're probably at f/6.3 as your widest aperture, but on the 24-120 you're still at f/4. This obviously is aside from sharpness (although can impact it though) but something to consider as well in general.I have both and will have to test but personally, I wasn't that thrilled with the 24-200 @ 200mm on either my Z6 or Z7. It was "OK".But if i Had to rank these in order from best to worst here's how I'd rank them myself concerning use at the longer FLs:Z7 + 24-120 best: high resolution (plenty of room for cropping in) good sharpness throughout the zoom range; constant aperture;26 + 24-120 better: (may not appear as sharp as the Z7 due to lower resolution and the AA Filter may cause the appearance of slight blur in general)Z7 + 24-200 OK but might not resolve enough detail at 200mm so you might get some softness (or appearance of it)Z6 + 24-200 Problem here is low resolution with an AA filter, and lens at 200mm is at its weakest focal length probably.Basically as someone pointed out, you're trading dollars going with a Z6 + 24-120 versus a z7 + 24-200. For about $2500 (if you got a used Z7) you could get the Z7 used + 24-120 (new) probably.  In reality you are trading of optical quality for zoom range though.

When the Z6 + 24-200 are paired to gether, you really have two things working against you... the AA Filter on the Z6 and the fact the 24-200 at 200mm is not terribly sharp.You keep repeating this canard but its Wrong , proven with lots of samples .YOURS may have been soft due to a bad copy -- or you were testing it at closest focus distance where at 200 its not at its best but the lens in my experience is far from soft wideopen at 200mm at normal to infinity distances, pretty damn sharp i`d say ..OK I use a Z7 and Capture one RAW but soft lenses still show up and the 24-200 isn`t one of them

mediacop wrote:Trying to decide how to maximize both zoom range and image quality. Should I buy a Z7 with an S lens of shorter zoom, or a z6 with a longer zoom?In other words, will I get better image quality at "200mm" by cropping the higher megapixel Z7 shot at 120mm. Or will I get better quality using the full frame of the Z6 and the 24-200?Thanks in advance.It depends what your photographing! Is it brick walls on a tripod or actual real photography?I shoot a lot of street photography at night so the 24-120mm would be borderline unusable and the 24-200mm completely unusable, on either body.And so on.......

AdamT wrote:When the Z6 + 24-200 are paired to gether, you really have two things working against you... the AA Filter on the Z6 and the fact the 24-200 at 200mm is not terribly sharp.You keep repeating this canard but its Wrong , proven with lots of samples .YOURS may have been soft due to a bad copy -- or you were testing it at closest focus distance where at 200 its not at its best but the lens in my experience is far from soft wideopen at 200mm at normal to infinity distances, pretty damn sharp i`d say ..OK I use a Z7 and Capture one RAW but soft lenses still show up and the 24-200 isn`t one of themNo it was not shot at closest focus distance (was focusing something about 50 ft away) so well outside of the min focus distance.I could have a bad copy though, as I didn't know that the copy variation was as high as it was until probably after a year after reading into it more). As for the AA filter, it's noticeable but is more on the body than the lens obviously (noticeable where there might be high contrast edges, like edges of buildings or window frames).I'm not saying that the sharpness is night and day difference, but it would be noticeable in some cases, especially compared to an S lens. Maybe part of what I'm interpreting as sharpness issues could be loss of contrast so tones that are close appear as mush together (particularly in shadow tones). The images even at 200mm are still usable in most cases, but the OP seemed to be concerned with 200mm and I would say that when cropping or upscaling it to match a 24-120 at 120mm, the 120mm is probably going to win in terms of sharpness ,regardless of the circumstances. The sharpness I was referring to is similar to what is shown in CameraLab's 100% crops, so not unusable, but probably not something I would want to use say for landscapes either at 200mm (as the corners are what I would say quite soft; center sharpness can still be decent so it depends on what the OP is shooting).  If it's something like street where you have a central subject and you let the background fall off then it's probably OK, but if you're shooting landscapes, 200mm is probably going to disappoint a bit.However I would recommend the OP look at some reviews. Here's a few:https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24-200mm-f4-6-3-vr-review/2/https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-200mm-f4-6-3-vr/5(Both have sample images.)

No it was not shot at closest focus distance (was focusing something about 50 ft away) so well outside of the min focus distance.I could have a bad copy though, as I didn't know that the copy variation was as high as it was until probably after a year after reading into it more). As for the AA filter, it's noticeable but is more on the body than the lens obviously (noticeable where there might be high contrast edges, like edges of buildings or window frames).I think it must be a bad copy , the 24-200 even after a year never ceases to exceed my expectations, I`ve even used it for work shooting outdoor events knowing that the 200mm end will be tack sharp wideopen enough to seriously crop to death to extend "reach" ..I`ve not used one on a Z6 but if the AA filter is as heavy as the D750, D610, Sony A7-II etc then it`s like having a far softer lens on, pretty much the difference between an average zoom and a decent prime but you`d see it with an S lens too - I`m finding the lens not lacking contrast or Microcontrast either ..I DO notice that the 24-50 isn`t as sharp as the 24-200 or 24-70S , it`s even across the frame to the corners at all focal lenghs and the softness is consistent through the range too but its not "soft" , it`s like having a medium AA filter like the Sony APS_Cameras or the D7000 have .back to the 24-200 , I shoot compressed landscapes and OK ,its not as sharp at the edges as the middle (only silly reviewers are obsessed with Corners - Edges DO matter though ) but it`s more than good enough especially compared to budget 55-200s let alone other FF or APS_C superzooms which are comically bad as was the Nikon F 24-120 F4 at 120mm F5.6 .. only a decent 70-200 F4 o4 F2.8 will do it perfectly in a zoom so it exceeded my expectations there too .I find the only real weakness with the lens is the high level of CA at 24mm

Chrissi_82 wrote:Dan_168 wrote:After using the 24-200 on a few trips, I would not recommend that lens to anyone. at least mine is back in the closet now.Would you mind elaborating, please? I have used it in various conditions and I'm pretty happy with the results. I mean you'll get a higher quality with lenses that cost 4x as much - but it is a really solid performer for what it is IMHO (and that's the general consensus here in the forum).Well, it's not a " bad lens" but it's far far from a great lens also, it's just one of those typical super zoom, never gets very sharp at the edge, and it's of course very slow ( small max aperture), won't give you any pleasing bokeh, " good " or "bad" is a relative term, it also depends on what you are used to, if you are used to the 24-70 F4 kind of lens, then this is a very decent lens, but I am used to the Sony GM and Zeiss level of prime lens so to me it's definitely not a lens I would use on the daily basis, in many case is actually pretty useless with a such small aperture, can it take a good picture if you have enough light?, sure of course, but is it a lens I prefer to use everyday? absolutely not. but I do understand this is a low cost lens, so I guess if you factor in the cost and zoom range, I can call it a very good value lens, but I still wouldn't not consider an optically great lens. I personally would definitely sacrifice the flexibility of zoom for the edge to edge sharpness and better DOF control and better Bokeh of a prime, and that's exactly why my 24-200 is sitting the closet.

AdamT wrote:No it was not shot at closest focus distance (was focusing something about 50 ft away) so well outside of the min focus distance.I could have a bad copy though, as I didn't know that the copy variation was as high as it was until probably after a year after reading into it more). As for the AA filter, it's noticeable but is more on the body than the lens obviously (noticeable where there might be high contrast edges, like edges of buildings or window frames).I think it must be a bad copy , the 24-200 even after a year never ceases to exceed my expectations, I`ve even used it for work shooting outdoor events knowing that the 200mm end will be tack sharp wideopen enough to seriously crop to death to extend "reach" ..I`ve not used one on a Z6 but if the AA filter is as heavy as the D750, D610, Sony A7-II etc then it`s like having a far softer lens on, pretty much the difference between an average zoom and a decent prime but you`d see it with an S lens too - I`m finding the lens not lacking contrast or Microcontrast either ..I DO notice that the 24-50 isn`t as sharp as the 24-200 or 24-70S , it`s even across the frame to the corners at all focal lenghs and the softness is consistent through the range too but its not "soft" , it`s like having a medium AA filter like the Sony APS_Cameras or the D7000 have .back to the 24-200 , I shoot compressed landscapes and OK ,its not as sharp at the edges as the middle (only silly reviewers are obsessed with Corners - Edges DO matter though ) but it`s more than good enough especially compared to budget 55-200s let alone other FF or APS_C superzooms which are comically bad as was the Nikon F 24-120 F4 at 120mm F5.6 .. only a decent 70-200 F4 o4 F2.8 will do it perfectly in a zoom so it exceeded my expectations there too .I find the only real weakness with the lens is the high level of CA at 24mmIt may be defective. It's actually being sold anyway since I got the 24-120 decided not to keep the 24-200 after all (might get a 70-300 despite that meaning a two-lens setup to get a similar FR).  200mm is the longest FL I have currently and while I'm not a wildlife shooter, I do want something longer that doesn't cost an arm and a leg so will probably get the 70-300 as a substitute for what I'm giving up on the 24-200.However I may have also sort of said things in a confusing way. My experience sounds a lot like your experience in terms of shooting landscapes. Center sharpness is good, but the mid/corners didn't fare so well. Maybe I'm super anal about sharpness when it comes to landscapes as I generally strive for corner to corner sharpness, which we know is probably not possible even with the best lenses, there is probably some level of softness in the very corners). In the one particular instance where I noticed significant blur I may have also left VR turned on while on a tripod too, can't remember, but it was a photo that at viewing distance was OK, but zooming it, it was not great starting at the mid frame.Either way, for the OP, I think it's going to be a choice of convenience and focal range over ultimate sharpness. I mean the Z7 + 24-120 would be the ideal combo in this case IMO (if the OP doesn't feel they are going to need the range from 120-200mm). But then again, on a Z7 you can probably crop in and get an equivalent angle of view -- although I personally dislike the idea of cropping in post as a means to make up for what could have been captured in the camera, but this might be an exception as the resulting cropped image may still be sharper than the full res image on the Z6 at 200mm.

emax wrote:Dan_168 wrote:After using the 24-200 on a few trips, I would not recommend that lens to anyone. at least mine is back in the closet now.I'm sorry that your copy is not up to standard.My 24-200 has exceeded my expectations, and is my go-to travel and casual photography lens.Perhaps we have a different standard.

mediacop wrote:Trying to decide how to maximize both zoom range and image quality. Should I buy a Z7 with an S lens of shorter zoom, or a z6 with a longer zoom?In other words, will I get better image quality at "200mm" by cropping the higher megapixel Z7 shot at 120mm. Or will I get better quality using the full frame of the Z6 and the 24-200?Thanks in advance.I have Z 7 II, Z 6 II, 24-200 and 24-120. I use 24-120 on Z6 II for party/gatherings shootings and Z 7 II with 24-200 for the walking around. 24-200 paired with Z 7 II cropping capability comes quite handy. Often 200 mm is not enough.This image has been cropped by almost 2 times. And I find the sharpness of this lens quite acceptable.Another example

sirhawkeye64 wrote:It may be defective. It's actually being sold anyway..."Why I stay away from the used market" in a nutshell.

Dan_168 wrote:emax wrote:Dan_168 wrote:After using the 24-200 on a few trips, I would not recommend that lens to anyone. at least mine is back in the closet now.I'm sorry that your copy is not up to standard.My 24-200 has exceeded my expectations, and is my go-to travel and casual photography lens.Perhaps we have a different standard.There seems to be a higher than usual copy to copy variation. My lens probably is also one that falls within the pecentage of variation as I don't feel mine is sharp as people claim it "should" be at the long end. I might send it in to Nikon, although I'm also just contemplating selling it too.  Maybe I'll send mine in, see if anything changes, and if not, I"ll sell it.

Dan_168 wrote:Well, it's not a " bad lens" but it's far far from a great lens also, it's just one of those typical super zoom, never gets very sharp at the edge, and it's of course very slow ( small max aperture), won't give you any pleasing bokeh (...)but I do understand this is a low cost lens, so I guess if you factor in the cost and zoom range, I can call it a very good value lens, but I still wouldn't not consider an optically great lens.Thank you for clarifying. I guess that's something we can agree on  (although it's probably one of the better super zooms). Obviously you'll get much better results with the 24-120 and the 70-200 compared to the 24-200. But the latter has just this great flexibility and personally, I'd view it as a really great travel lens. There recently was even a thread where someone wanted to use it for a friend's wedding - and while the result would probably not be a feather in the cap of a professional, it sounded doable. Regarding the weight, I'm not sure if it would be such a difference compared to the 2 lens combo - for the 2 lenses, you would lose several kg of cash more which would offset the weight of the lenses.I view the lens as very good value for the versatility it offers.

Dan_168 wrote:mediacop wrote:Trying to decide how to maximize both zoom range and image quality. Should I buy a Z7 with an S lens of shorter zoom, or a z6 with a longer zoom?In other words, will I get better image quality at "200mm" by cropping the higher megapixel Z7 shot at 120mm. Or will I get better quality using the full frame of the Z6 and the 24-200?Thanks in advance.After using the 24-200 on a few trips, I would not recommend that lens to anyone. at least mine is back in the closet now.Why not?I find this lens to be very useful for hiking and travel. In fact I often go out and about with this one lens.You might like to sell it to somebody who will get a lot of positive use out of the lens.

Go for the Z7 and a 24-200. I find this a brilliant combination for travel and hiking.Contrary to the lens sharpness snobbery that you get thrown in your face on photo forums like this one, this lens provides images that have very good image quality, perhaps not prime lens quality, but plenty good enough if you do not do extreme pixel peeping.I often travel or hike with just this one lens, and the practical advantages far outweigh any "lens quality" arguments.I have the 24 -120 for my F mount D850. I find the extra reach out to 200 very useful in lots of situations.From the Apennines, you can see the church spire at Porto Venere in Liguria, if you pixel peep

JasonTheBirder wrote:mediacop wrote:Trying to decide how to maximize both zoom range and image quality. Should I buy a Z7 with an S lens of shorter zoom, or a z6 with a longer zoom?In other words, will I get better image quality at "200mm" by cropping the higher megapixel Z7 shot at 120mm. Or will I get better quality using the full frame of the Z6 and the 24-200?In sufficiently bright light it will be close I think. Cropping the Z7 to 24mp is about a 1.37 crop whereas 200/120 = 1.666... It's a bit of a difference that doesn't take into account the IQ differences. Nonetheless, I think for most purposes the Z6 + 24-200 will be slightly better than cropping the Z7, and that difference will only be magnified when the light starts to dim.That being said in the shorter ranges you will be much happier with the Z7 and 24-120 since the 24-120 really is a pretty nice lens. I would definitely go with that.Seems like a crazy way to look at the question of which one to buy.  I think you may be splitting hairs.  I'm not looking for a flame war but........"and that difference will only be magnified when the light starts to dim."The 24-200 will be at f6.3 1 beyond 85mm.  So you'll be at a higher ISO to compensate regardless if you think the Z6 has better low light performance or not.

briantilley wrote:Dan_168 wrote:After using the 24-200 on a few trips, I would not recommend that lens to anyone. at least mine is back in the closet now.I what way have you found the 24-200mm lacking?For me, it'san excellent combination of quite decent image quality and zoom range in a small and light package, with the benefit of in-lens VR.Hi!I just spent a few hours for the first time with my wife's lowly 24-200 mounted on her Z5I agree with you that"it's an excellent combination of quite decent image quality and zoom range in a small and light package, with the benefit of in-lens VR."and would not simply cast this off as just another super zoom"Here is an image from today of a red tail hawk that I happened to spot in a field near my workplace:~100% crop (Click on Image for Higher Rez):Yes, I can see the difference between what I would have gotten with other tele options that I've used (e,g, 70-200 f/2,8, 200VR, 500PF, 500 f/4 VR). Particularly with subject isolation and bokeh. Also with subject rendering.70-200 f/2.8E Fl:500PF:200 VR:But I've also used a number of "super zooms" and the 24-200 is near the top of that heap.Best Regards,RB

goactive wrote:By the Z6 and both lens for close to the same price as the Z7The question would be resolved if Nikon had produced a 70-200/f4 lens.

Sebastian2424 wrote:You may get comparable image PIXEL quality cropping the 24-120 on Z7 but have you considered composition as critical part of photography. It’s not the same thing composing in camera vs “composing” by cropping a lot in post.If you are looking for zoom versatility there is only one option (24-200 on Z6 or Z7) unless you want to carry two lenses. Throw in a prime or two for the times when you need quality in low light.If you shoot in DX mode with the 24-120F4S, you can get the compose and subject filling benefits as well.  The lens has much higher MTF ratings and fixed F4 above 70mm well allow you to shoot at lower ISO's.  Not to mention better AF.

skyrunr wrote:Sebastian2424 wrote:You may get comparable image PIXEL quality cropping the 24-120 on Z7 but have you considered composition as critical part of photography. It’s not the same thing composing in camera vs “composing” by cropping a lot in post.If you are looking for zoom versatility there is only one option (24-200 on Z6 or Z7) unless you want to carry two lenses. Throw in a prime or two for the times when you need quality in low light.If you shoot in DX mode with the 24-120F4S, you can get the compose and subject filling benefits as well. The lens has much higher MTF ratings and fixed F4 above 70mm well allow you to shoot at lower ISO's. Not to mention better AF.Yes, I agree on in-camera composition in DX on 45MP Z7 (different compression though).Yes, I wish AF on my 24-200mm was faster in low light but that’s the trade off I have to live with for 120-200 range one lens to carry option.When I upgrade from Z6 to a higher MP camera I’ll rent the 24-120 to see if I’d be happy with switching to DX mode.

Thank you again everyone for this thoughtful exchange of ideas.  I am going to go with the Z7 (ii, iii?) and the 24-120 for the following reasons:I agree with the philosophy of getting and keeping the best glass you can afford.  For me the 24-120 strikes an excellent balance between the 24-200 and the 24-70 f2.8.I am a "loose shooter" meaning that I like to compose in post and thus always give my subjects a bit of breathing room while shooting.  This helps me with both static and moving subjects.  Therefore, I think the extra resolution of the Z7 and the slightly (?) better sharpness/subject isolation (120mm at f4)/low light performance of the 24-120 will better fit my style.If I need a longer focal length, I will save up for S glass to fit the bill.