This lens scored similarly to the 16-50 DX. Does that mean sharpness between a Z50 with its kit lens and a full frame Z with this lens will be equal? If so picture quality advantage goes to this lens over the DX lens because its FF.
What would be the better pick between a Z50 with 16-50 and a Z6 with the 24-50?
Mario
July 23, 2021 2:53 am
I think this lens‘ strength will come out when a lightweight telezoom will be available. Other than that, I found the 24-50 zoom range more usable than I had anticipated. I often take this lens if otherwise I would have taken only my phone. Maybe that’s a comparison that could be added to the list. Not because we don’t know how it would come out, but because it’s the way some might use this lens.
Steven Horne
July 22, 2021 11:08 am
How can you call Lightroom’s failure a shortcoming of this lens? Nikon has nothing to do with Adobe. Other software programs such as Dx0 Photolab have no problem turning the lens profile on and off.
It may not be Nikon’s fault, but it’s still a drawback when using this lens. We’ve added a similar “con” to most Nikon Z lens reviews so far – I’m not just targeting the 24-50. That said, some Z lenses (the primes and f/2.8 zooms) don’t have that same drawback if you’re using the Z6 II or Z7 II.
Chuck Steenburgh
July 22, 2021 8:58 am
You hit the nail on the head: I got this lens precisely because it is light and short. On my Z5, it makes a perfect hiking rig. Landscapes and especially waterfalls don’t require a larger aperture in most cases, and even the limited zoom range, to my mind, is an advantage over the as-yet vaporware pancake lenses for the Z system.
As an aside, I have never understood the appeal of a tiny mirrorless body coupled to an enormous mirrorless lens. With further advances in materials and optics, hopefully we’ll see smaller mirrorless lenses become available.
Glad you’ve found it to be such a good lens for your hiking setup! Until the 28mm and 40mm eventually ship, it’s the lightest FX lens in Nikon’s Z lineup. I wish Nikon had prioritized the primes instead, but anyone who needs maximum compactness in the meantime should at least consider the 24-50mm.
John Sanders
July 22, 2021 7:50 am
Humor: I found it’s best use is to stick it on the camera when I’m sitting in my recliner and working through the menu settings. Because it’s so light! I agree with you that a release of a small 2.8 prime would have been a better choice for my preferences. And I really don’t like collapsing lenses. While keeping my Z6ll and 24-200, 14-30, and primes I’ve returned to Fuji TX4 for a smaller travel kit (although the weight is only slightly less due to Fuji’s excellent metal construction).
The biggest issue with the 24-50mm f/4-6.3 for my photography isn’t the image quality or even the zoom range, but instead the narrow maximum aperture. Half the reason why I’d want to use such a light lens is so that I could handhold it all day – but this lens can’t be handheld in dark conditions without raising the ISO too high. Hence why I wish Nikon released the compact primes first instead.
Gene
July 22, 2021 7:46 am
It was love at first touch when I picked up a Z5 with this lens attached. I knew I finally found my entry to FF shooting. The overall size and price of the kit was critical. The trade-offs vs larger lenses pale in comparison to the still-great IQ (almost breathtaking when displayed on a good 55″ screen) and enhanced portability. Contrary to most, I actually appreciate the collapsible feature of the lens and thank Nikon for this every time I pull the camera out of a very small bag and open it up while flipping the power on. And, the 52mm front threading allows me to use all filters I have for my F-mount lenses (another money-saver). The best camera (and lens) is the one you have with you (not the one you left behind). Nikon has delivered a kit I have no qualms about taking with me just about anywhere.
Very happy to hear it, Gene. With what you’re saying about size and price, are you considering getting either of the compact prime lenses when they ship later this year? I’m thinking about getting the 40mm f/2 for basically the same reasons as why you like the 24-50mm.
Ben
July 22, 2021 7:12 am
I could definitely see this lens being handy as a backup lens to a prime when traveling very light. I have the 16-50 DX version that I’ll carry with my Z50 and one prime lens. The prime lens is on the camera 97% of the time, but incase the focal length isn’t working out the 16-50 is a great fall back. I would imagine this would be similar.
Yes, that’s a good point. Someone who’s after a highly compact system could be very happy with the 28mm f/2.8 when it eventually ships, plus this lens for backup in case 28mm isn’t quite the right focal length.
MAX
July 22, 2021 6:28 am
Excellent Review. I liked the lens but it is not pocketable .Had to sell it. I wish Nikon will come up with a lens with the size of Leica 18 2.8. All metal and solid. Fast AF and very good optical properties. More importantly , no silly collabsible desighn that basically ruin the experience with any lens,. Try this lens with any Leica APC camera . It is a joy to use and 100% pocketable.
You are comparing this to a lens that costs 1,595 dollars right now ? I will let you think a little about how stupid your comparison is. And everything Leica makes is overpriced shit. Year 2021 and their “AF” is on par with a junk camera from 1986. Get back to me when you capture something in sports or anything moving faster than a snail with Leica. And no, one pic does not count, thats pure luck.
Hey come down . I am not comparing your favourite brand camera to Leica . They are not even comparable. I can’t compare a workhouse reliable Toyota car to Rolls-Royce. I have said “ I wish “ in a reference to size . Portability is key while on the move and the 24-50 didn’t cut it . Simple as that
Thanks, Max. I don’t think even the upcoming 28mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2 will be quite as small and light as the Leica 18mm f/2.8, although that’s admittedly an aps-c lens. The Nikon Z system can be very compact, but if truly “pocketable” is your hope, you may need to go with a different system.
Redmn42
July 22, 2021 5:44 am
I lack any love for plastic mounts regardless of what is in front of them. Plastics that are in contact with metals will always scratch and shave off bits with time. It’s physics and is unavoidable. It’s zoom range is rather pitiful too so thanks but I’ll pass this one.
I speak 3 languages not including my own. Not native English speaker. Now, how many do you speak ?
Justa1972
July 22, 2021 3:41 am
I have one of these as I wanted a really lightweight option to take hiking when I can’t be bothered to take my 24-200. I have been pleasantly surprised by how good the 24-50 is and haven’t really noticed a difference between it and the 24-200. Easily sharp enough for most purposes !
Very glad to hear it! The two lenses are close enough in image quality that any differences may be hard to see outside a lab setting. As a lighter, non-telephoto-capable alternative to the 24-200mm, the 24-50mm is worth considering.
Is the Imatest score comparable across cameras?
This lens scored similarly to the 16-50 DX. Does that mean sharpness between a Z50 with its kit lens and a full frame Z with this lens will be equal? If so picture quality advantage goes to this lens over the DX lens because its FF.
What would be the better pick between a Z50 with 16-50 and a Z6 with the 24-50?
I think this lens‘ strength will come out when a lightweight telezoom will be available.
Other than that, I found the 24-50 zoom range more usable than I had anticipated.
I often take this lens if otherwise I would have taken only my phone.
Maybe that’s a comparison that could be added to the list. Not because we don’t know how it would come out, but because it’s the way some might use this lens.
How can you call Lightroom’s failure a shortcoming of this lens? Nikon has nothing to do with Adobe. Other software programs such as Dx0 Photolab have no problem turning the lens profile on and off.
It may not be Nikon’s fault, but it’s still a drawback when using this lens. We’ve added a similar “con” to most Nikon Z lens reviews so far – I’m not just targeting the 24-50. That said, some Z lenses (the primes and f/2.8 zooms) don’t have that same drawback if you’re using the Z6 II or Z7 II.
You hit the nail on the head: I got this lens precisely because it is light and short. On my Z5, it makes a perfect hiking rig. Landscapes and especially waterfalls don’t require a larger aperture in most cases, and even the limited zoom range, to my mind, is an advantage over the as-yet vaporware pancake lenses for the Z system.
As an aside, I have never understood the appeal of a tiny mirrorless body coupled to an enormous mirrorless lens. With further advances in materials and optics, hopefully we’ll see smaller mirrorless lenses become available.
Glad you’ve found it to be such a good lens for your hiking setup! Until the 28mm and 40mm eventually ship, it’s the lightest FX lens in Nikon’s Z lineup. I wish Nikon had prioritized the primes instead, but anyone who needs maximum compactness in the meantime should at least consider the 24-50mm.
Humor: I found it’s best use is to stick it on the camera when I’m sitting in my recliner and working through the menu settings. Because it’s so light! I agree with you that a release of a small 2.8 prime would have been a better choice for my preferences. And I really don’t like collapsing lenses. While keeping my Z6ll and 24-200, 14-30, and primes I’ve returned to Fuji TX4 for a smaller travel kit (although the weight is only slightly less due to Fuji’s excellent metal construction).
The biggest issue with the 24-50mm f/4-6.3 for my photography isn’t the image quality or even the zoom range, but instead the narrow maximum aperture. Half the reason why I’d want to use such a light lens is so that I could handhold it all day – but this lens can’t be handheld in dark conditions without raising the ISO too high. Hence why I wish Nikon released the compact primes first instead.
It was love at first touch when I picked up a Z5 with this lens attached. I knew I finally found my entry to FF shooting. The overall size and price of the kit was critical. The trade-offs vs larger lenses pale in comparison to the still-great IQ (almost breathtaking when displayed on a good 55″ screen) and enhanced portability.
Contrary to most, I actually appreciate the collapsible feature of the lens and thank Nikon for this every time I pull the camera out of a very small bag and open it up while flipping the power on. And, the 52mm front threading allows me to use all filters I have for my F-mount lenses (another money-saver).
The best camera (and lens) is the one you have with you (not the one you left behind). Nikon has delivered a kit I have no qualms about taking with me just about anywhere.
Very happy to hear it, Gene. With what you’re saying about size and price, are you considering getting either of the compact prime lenses when they ship later this year? I’m thinking about getting the 40mm f/2 for basically the same reasons as why you like the 24-50mm.
I could definitely see this lens being handy as a backup lens to a prime when traveling very light. I have the 16-50 DX version that I’ll carry with my Z50 and one prime lens. The prime lens is on the camera 97% of the time, but incase the focal length isn’t working out the 16-50 is a great fall back. I would imagine this would be similar.
Yes, that’s a good point. Someone who’s after a highly compact system could be very happy with the 28mm f/2.8 when it eventually ships, plus this lens for backup in case 28mm isn’t quite the right focal length.
Excellent Review. I liked the lens but it is not pocketable .Had to sell it.
I wish Nikon will come up with a lens with the size of Leica 18 2.8. All metal and solid. Fast AF and very good optical properties. More importantly , no silly collabsible desighn that basically ruin the experience with any lens,. Try this lens with any Leica APC camera . It is a joy to use and 100% pocketable.
You are comparing this to a lens that costs 1,595 dollars right now ? I will let you think a little about how stupid your comparison is.
And everything Leica makes is overpriced shit. Year 2021 and their “AF” is on par with a junk camera from 1986. Get back to me when you capture something in sports or anything moving faster than a snail with Leica. And no, one pic does not count, thats pure luck.
Hey come down . I am not comparing your favourite brand camera to Leica . They are not even comparable. I can’t compare a workhouse reliable Toyota car to Rolls-Royce.
I have said “ I wish “ in a reference to size .
Portability is key while on the move and the 24-50 didn’t cut it . Simple as that
Thanks, Max. I don’t think even the upcoming 28mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2 will be quite as small and light as the Leica 18mm f/2.8, although that’s admittedly an aps-c lens. The Nikon Z system can be very compact, but if truly “pocketable” is your hope, you may need to go with a different system.
I lack any love for plastic mounts regardless of what is in front of them. Plastics that are in contact with metals will always scratch and shave off bits with time. It’s physics and is unavoidable. It’s zoom range is rather pitiful too so thanks but I’ll pass this one.
“Its* zoom range”
Get back to me when you know proper grammar.
Why do you have to be such a jerk in the comments? No need to call anyone stupid.
Chuck, I apply Hanlon’s razor:
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
I speak 3 languages not including my own. Not native English speaker. Now, how many do you speak ?
I have one of these as I wanted a really lightweight option to take hiking when I can’t be bothered to take my 24-200. I have been pleasantly surprised by how good the 24-50 is and haven’t really noticed a difference between it and the 24-200. Easily sharp enough for most purposes !
Very glad to hear it! The two lenses are close enough in image quality that any differences may be hard to see outside a lab setting. As a lighter, non-telephoto-capable alternative to the 24-200mm, the 24-50mm is worth considering.