Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR vs Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
There aren’t any perfect competitors to the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 lens at the moment, so I’m going to be comparing it to some lenses with a more modest zoom range. The most obvious of these is the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4, which sells for $1000 on its own, or a few hundred dollars less as part of a kit with a Nikon Z camera. Considering that the 24-200mm costs $900 with the occasional $800 sale – and is also offered as a kit with some Nikon Z cameras – a lot of photographers are probably trying to decide between the two of them right now.
Let’s start by taking a look at the performance at 24mm. The 24-200mm is shown first and the 24-70mm is shown second in all of these comparisons.
24mm is the only focal length where both of these lenses have the same maximum aperture of f/4, which makes them easy to compare. The 24-70mm f/4 has better performance overall at 24mm, but not by a drastic amount. In the center, the two lenses are pretty comparable. The 24-70mm f/4 is a bit better in the midframe, especially at f/5.6. But the biggest difference is in the corners at f/4, where the 24-70mm f/4 is definitely the sharper lens. By the time you stop down to f/11, the two lenses are basically identical at 24mm.
Now let’s look at 35mm:
This performance is about as similar as I’ve ever seen on two different zoom lenses. The 24-70mm f/4 is ahead by the slightest amount in the corners and midframe overall, but but not in a way that’s likely to show up in any real-world photos. In short, both lenses look very good at 35mm (though keep in mind that the 24-70mm f/4 does so at a slightly wider aperture of f/4 rather than f/4.8).
Now onto 50mm:
The 24-200mm’s maximum aperture at this point is f/5.6, which is a full stop less than f/4. In terms of sharpness, the 24-70mm f/4 is ahead at f/5.6, but stopping down to f/8 makes the two lenses look almost indistinguishable.
Lastly, here’s 70mm:
The 24-200mm once again holds its own just barely behind the 24-70mm f/4 in sharpness. While the 24-70mm f/4 is clearly sharper in the center and midframe at f/5.6 than the 24-200mm, the 24-200mm is actually a bit sharper in the corners at that point. Stopping down to f/8 on both lenses once again gives you such similar sharpness performance that the two are indistinguishable, and the same is true through f/16.
All in all, throughout the shared zoom range, the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR holds its own surprisingly well against the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S. It’s almost never the sharper lens, but it’s so close that the differences will rarely be noticeable in real-world images regardless of focal length and aperture.
Still, the 24-70mm f/4 manages this performance with a larger, constant maximum aperture of f/4, and it’s also the slightly lighter lens (500 grams vs 570 grams). The reason to get the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 instead is if you need to go beyond 70mm. So, let’s take a look at how the 24-200mm compares against the Nikon F-mount 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR, a popular lens to use on the Z system with the FTZ adapter.
Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR vs Nikon F 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR
Since Nikon has yet to release a lightweight telephoto zoom for their full-frame Z cameras – other than the superzoom I’m currently reviewing – a lot of photographers have started using the F-mount AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR lens with the FTZ adapter to cover those focal lengths. It’s a famously good price-to-performance lens, but it does have a disadvantage of weight compared to the 24-200mm; it weighs 680 grams (1.50 lbs) on its own, or 815 grams (1.80 lbs) including the FTZ adapter.
Let’s take a look at how both lenses perform throughout their shared zoom range. As before, I’m showing the 24-200mm first and the 70-300mm second. Here they are at 70mm:
At this focal length, the two lenses are trading blows, but neither is clearly ahead. At f/5.6 (or f/6.0 on the superzoom), I slightly prefer the 70-300mm because of its small edge in the corners and midframe. At f/8, I prefer the 24-200mm because of its better center and midframe. Beyond that, the two lenses are close enough that they’ll look the same in practice.
Zooming in a bit, here’s 105mm on the 24-200mm versus 100mm on the 70-300mm:
Looking at the 24-200mm’s performance wide open at f/6.3 versus the 70-300mm’s performance at f/5.6, it’s hard to pick a winner. The 24-200mm is better in the center, while the 70-300mm is better in the midframe, and they’re basically the same in the corner. Stopping down to f/8 and f/11, the center and midframe performances are basically the same on both lenses, but the 70-300mm has surprisingly strong corner performance that makes it the winner. Overall, I prefer the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 slightly at this focal length.
Next up, here’s 135mm:
Now we’re starting to see some clearer benefits to the 70-300mm lens. Both lenses are similarly sharp in the center, but the midframe and corner performance is definitely better on the 70-300mm in the shared aperture range. It’s not a massive difference, but the advantage is clearly to the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6.
Finally, here’s 200mm:
200mm is the weakest focal length on the 24-200mm f/4-6.3, so I’m not surprised to see the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 beat it here. That said, central performance is once again comparable, and it’s only the midframe and corners where the 70-300mm is noticeably ahead.
Overall, the 70-300mm is the sharper of the two lenses throughout the zoom range, but the differences aren’t huge until 200mm. Whether they’re big enough to convince you to use an adapted lens – or wait until a Nikon Z 70-300mm – is up to you.
Now let’s take a look at one of Nikon’s famous wide-to-telephoto zooms for the F-mount, the Nikon F 24-120mm f/4, to see if Nikon has made any progress since then with the Z 24-200mm.
Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR vs Nikon F 24-120mm f/4
Plenty of Nikon DSLR users may be shooting with the F-mount 24-120mm f/4 and wondering if the grass is greener on the mirrorless side of things. While the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 isn’t a perfectly comparable lens because of its longer zoom range and variable aperture, the two lenses certainly target a similar type of photographer. Here’s how both lenses perform at 24mm:
The Nikon Z lens is slightly ahead overall in the center, midframe, and corners. The differences aren’t drastic, but they definitely lean in the 24-200mm’s favor.
Here’s 35mm:
35mm is the sharpest focal length for both of these lenses, although the Nikon Z lens is still ahead overall. At f/5.6, it’s a good deal sharper in all three regions of the frame but especially the corners. By f/8, the corner performance is surprisingly similar, but the center and midframe are still better on the 24-200mm. At f/11 and f/16, the two lenses are comparable.
Here’s 50mm:
Although the Nikon Z 24-200mm lens weakens very slightly at 50mm, the Nikon F 24-120mm f/4 weakens substantially. The Z lens is ahead at every aperture, especially in the corners of the frame.
Here’s 70mm:
The story is pretty similar here at 70mm, with the Nikon Z lens again ahead at every aperture, especially in the corners (though at f/11 and f/16 the images are indistinguishable). The Nikon F 24-120mm f/4 is still acceptable at this focal length, but it’s not as sharp as I’d like.
Here’s 105mm:
Center sharpness is pretty comparable at 105mm, even with a slight edge to the 24-120mm, but the F-mount lens’s corners have just completely fallen off into oblivion. They don’t reach their maximum sharpness until f/11 and f/16, and performance even at f/8 is barely acceptable. By comparison, even though the Nikon Z 24-200mm is losing some sharpness at 105mm, it still looks totally usable.
Finally, although it’s not a totally equivalent focal length, here’s 135mm on the Z lens and 120mm on the F lens:
At this point, I would be really hesitant to use the 24-120mm f/4 at anything other than f/11 and f/16, where I still wouldn’t be happy with it. The Nikon Z lens is far from stellar at 135mm, but it’s certainly better than the Nikon F lens. By way of comparison, the Z lens’s corners at their worst are better than the 24-120mm’s corners at their best.
Overall, the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 is clearly a sharper lens than the Nikon F 24-120mm f/4 in their shared zoom and aperture range. If you’re a fan of the 24-120mm f/4 and thinking of jumping ship to the Z system, you definitely won’t lose any sharpness by doing so. We’ve always been fans of the Nikon F 24-120mm f/4 here at Photography Life, but it’s clear that lens technology has gotten better since it was introduced in 2010.
While I’m not comparing the Nikon Z lens against the F-mount 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR in this review to save space, you can see that lens’s performance results here if you want to compare for yourself. Unsurprisingly, the Z lens is ahead at all focal lengths, usually by more than it beats the 24-120mm f/4.
To finish things up, let’s do one brief comparison to see how the Nikon Z superzoom compares against one of the sharpest primes on the market, the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S.
Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR vs Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S
I’ve shown that the sharpest focal length on the Nikon Z 24-200mm is 35mm, at which is has surprisingly good performance. But how does it compare to the sharpest 35mm lens we’ve ever tested, the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S? Here they both are at 35mm:
Clearly, the prime lens is capable of way higher sharpness numbers than the superzoom. But I have to give the 24-200mm some credit. In the shared aperture range from f/5.6 onward, the differences are smaller than I’d have thought. They’re still big, but the superzoom can at least be mentioned in the same sentence as the 35mm prime without being laughed off stage.
That said, I’m sure you can see what I mean when I say that superzooms have tradeoffs. In exchange for all those focal lengths, you’re giving up size, weight, maximum aperture, and image quality compared to a simple 35mm prime. That tradeoff may be worth it to a lot of photographers, but it really depends on your needs.
On the next page of this review, I’ll sum everything up and give my answer to whether the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR is worth buying. So, click the menu below to go to the next page of this review, “Verdict.”
Table of Contents