I'm wondering if I should get this new 24-105mm lens, or 24-200.
Now when just bought 17-28mm for family trips, I may need a little tele for some moments.
Thing is I never used tele lens, so I dont even know if I would need one.
During all my trips in last 20 years I used wide lens, only few times used 70mm on 24-70/4.
I'm planning two big trips in next few years - one to Japan, one to US.
I dont know if I'm going to need 200mm? I have no idea what kind of views would force me to change to tele.
What do you guys think? From your expierience, on those kind of family travel trips, do you need long tele like 200mm? Is it useful?
Please do not mention 24-120/4, its too big and heavy for me and my Zf. I know you all love it, I don't like heavy lens. I just have purchased 17-28/2.8 and think that this is already pretty heavy and bulky for me.
The Nikon 24-200 is 570g vs. 630g on the 24-120 so no signficant difference. The 24-105 is only 350g so if weight is your primary consideration, there you go. I have the 24-120 and like it on the Zf. I would also throw in a 40mm or another small prime.
As @jrscls mentioned 24-120 and 24-200 just slightly different.
I do believe 24-120 image and build quality way better than the other two. I was happy to shoot with this lens in GuangZhou (ZF), Taipei (ZF) and San Diego trips in the last several months.
If you are not gonna shoot after late afternoon, the aperture of both 24-200 and 24-105 is okay.
105mm should be enough for most of the places in Japan. I had 24-70 with me in Tokyo 2 years ago, it was alright.
In U.S, it is really depends on where you go and if you will like to have some wildlife shooting experience.
zi464 wrote:
As @jrscls@ 24-120 and 24-200 just slightly different.
I do believe 24-120 image and build quality way better than the other two. I was happy to shoot with this lens in GuangZhou (ZF), Taipei (ZF) and San Diego trips in the last several months.
If you are not gonna shoot after late afternoon, the aperture of both 24-200 and 24-105 is okay.
105mm should be enough for most of the places in Japan. I had 24-70 with me in Tokyo 2 years ago, it was alright.
In U.S, it is really depends on where you go and if you will like to have some wildlife shooting experience. ...Show more →
Dont think there will be some wildlife, but who knows what comes out from the bushes in those huge Parks
For US plan is to go to: Seattle (Microsoft), Roslyn (Northern Exposure location), then San Francisco (town and then Alcatraz), Yosemite and Sequoia Parks, LA (Holywood), Las Vegas and Grand Canyon. I may need to go to our travel sub-forum and ask US locals to give me suggestions on locations, maybe thee is something else I should go to and dont have a clue about some beautiful places. This is going to be our first trip to US, might be last, so going to plan 3 weeks there and cover best places on west coast.
If I was going on safari, I would take 24-200mm definitely, but for those locations above, I have a feeling that 24-105mm would be enough. If I needed longer, then 24-200mm would be my choice, simply based on a price and portability. I'm not a pro photographer, just a family "dad" with a camera I know that all pros here, purists will push 24-120/4 or other lens.
phinix wrote:
I'm wondering if I should get this new 24-105mm lens, or 24-200.
Now when just bought 17-28mm for family trips, I may need a little tele for some moments.
Thing is I never used tele lens, so I dont even know if I would need one.
During all my trips in last 20 years I used wide lens, only few times used 70mm on 24-70/4.
According to full-res files of the 24-200 I've seen in DPReview, that lens has a rather poor performance, in particular at the short end. I haven't seen any test or full-res picture taken with the 25-105. If you are a less demanding photographer, probably the 24-200 could be useful.
The Z 24-70/4 S is a faster and better lens and I bet it's better than the 24-105 too.
phinix wrote:
I'm planning two big trips in next few years - one to Japan, one to US.
I dont know if I'm going to need 200mm? I have no idea what kind of views would force me to change to tele.
What do you guys think? From your expierience, on those kind of family travel trips, do you need long tele like 200mm? Is it useful?
Please do not mention 24-120/4, its too big and heavy for me and my Zf. I know you all love it, I don't like heavy lens. I just have purchased 17-28/2.8 and think that this is already pretty heavy and bulky for me....Show more →
I travel with a 24-70/4 S and an AF-S 70-200/4G VR (+ FTZ), so I recommend a longer focal length.
It's up to you to decide whether you need/like a telephoto lens or not.
phinix wrote:
Dont think there will be some wildlife, but who knows what comes out from the bushes in those huge Parks
For US plan is to go to: Seattle (Microsoft), Roslyn (Northern Exposure location), then San Francisco (town and then Alcatraz), Yosemite and Sequoia Parks, LA (Holywood), Las Vegas and Grand Canyon. I may need to go to our travel sub-forum and ask US locals to give me suggestions on locations, maybe thee is something else I should go to and dont have a clue about some beautiful places. This is going to be our first trip to US, might be last, so going to plan 3 weeks there and cover best places on west coast.
If I was going on safari, I would take 24-200mm definitely, but for those locations above, I have a feeling that 24-105mm would be enough. If I needed longer, then 24-200mm would be my choice, simply based on a price and portability. I'm not a pro photographer, just a family "dad" with a camera I know that all pros here, purists will push 24-120/4 or other lens....Show more →
Except Roslyn, I‘ve been all the other places.
You may see black bears in those national parks but 200mm is not gonna help, I would have a binoculars if I was you.
In your situation, 105mm should be more than enough in Japan and U.S.
Or get a used 24-70 / F4 .
zi464 wrote:
Except Roslyn, I‘ve been all the other places.
You may see black bears in those national parks but 200mm is not gonna help, I would have a binoculars if I was you.
In your situation, 105mm should be more than enough in Japan and U.S.
Or get a used 24-70 / F4 .
Thanks - 105mm should be enough for those trips, I assume all photos would be outdoors in good light, so those darker end of that lens should be fine.
I had 24-70/4 before - very good IQ, but I hated that retracting thing - every time I took it out I had to first re-tract it in order to take photos - in busy place like Marakesh it drove me crazy. That is why I bought 17-28mm instead of 14-30mm which has same mechanism
mak543 wrote:
Why not the 24-70/4? It's not the lightest, but it's the smallest, and it provides better IQ than both 24-200 and 24-105.
I have since sold off my Z gear and gone all dSLRs and af/af-s lenses. But, when I was shooting my Z5 the only Z lens I had was the 24-70 f/4. It was sharp across the board and can be had used relatively inexpensive.
But beyond nerding out over sharpness measurements, the 24-200mm is simply good enough to not get in the way of good photos. You can certainly spot some weaknesses when pixel peeping at 24mm and >100mm but not to a degree where it breaks an image.
fjablo wrote:
Some are giving the 24-200mm a harder time than it deserves imo.
I was worried about the quality of a zoom with that range because I used to run a camera store in the 80's and 90's and zooms at that time were not anywhere near as good as they are now. Almost night and day. When I went to digital with a D700 my go to walk around lens was the 24-120 f4 VR lens. I am using the 24-200 as my main walk around lens with my Z6II and except for low light situations. I find it to be very sharp.
phinix wrote:
I'm wondering if I should get this new 24-105mm lens, or 24-200.
I haven't seen tests for the 24-105 yet, but I don't think it will be better than the 24-200.
If the quality of the 24-200 is acceptable to you (see the tests below), I prefer its wider focal length range.
But beyond nerding out over sharpness measurements, the 24-200mm is simply good enough to not get in the way of good photos. You can certainly spot some weaknesses when pixel peeping at 24mm and >100mm but not to a degree where it breaks an image.
theopwildebeest wrote:
Your album is more evidence that a photographer makes more difference to an image than the lens used.
And more specifically that highly competent post processing is sometimes needed to overcome a "lesser" lens's shortcomings. Once you have evocative compositions with competent processing, the camera and lens almost never matter anymore.
I know that all pros here, purists will push 24-120/4 or other lens.