Cant agree about the comparisons to the compact primes, the compact primes will of course be super and have its benefits but this zoom is flexibility first. The 28mm f/2.8 prime can only “extend” with cropping. To get to fov off 50mm you crop almost 1.8x. That reduce resolution a lot and gives a DOF off about f/5.6. Thats close to the same depth off field as the zoom has in the long end, but then the zoom still have full frame sensor with full resolution, cant imagine prime resolution and iso can outweigh that. And the zoom can further safely crop to dx mode and a FOV equal to 75mm. The prime would then have a crop of 2.7… thats like a 1″ sensor with very little resolution. And of course the zoom has the 24mm in the wide end, 24 is noticeable wider than 28mm – like 1.4x as much areal. So I really dont see that the fixed prime can compete on flexibility, but I can clearly see the use for the prime and the need to consider one over the other. But – you will end up wanting both if you like to get small size FX setup ;) -enjoy. Regards www.instagram.com/kimbomstad/
Kim
November 25, 2021 10:23 am
Not sure I agree about the comparisons to the compact primes, the compact primes will off course be super useful and have the edge on quality and speed, but this zoom is a flexible “family and travel” lens. Comparing the 28mm f/2.8 it will have a fov equal to 43mm f/4.5 in dx crop, thats not so far from the depth off field the zoom has at its long end while it still lets you keep full resolution. Then you can crop that to get a equal to 75mm in dx range, and if you try to match this with the 28, you get almost 3 x crop and a f8 field off view with very little resolution left and I cant believe a the quality difference to the prime outweighs this resolution loss. And off course the zooms 24mm is noticeable wider than 28mm, almost 1.4x . But off course – we probably end up with more than this lens… but it looks promising for a easy to travel lens, just as the 24-200 has some nice benefits.
Sebastian Fornpost
August 25, 2021 6:17 am
I use this lens together with the Z 50-250 on a Z50. The wide angle range is not important for me (ca. 36mm FX-equivalent at the wide end of this combo is enough, at least for me). This combo is really light and small and sometimes I fetch the 50mm/f2 mc additionally.
No, for real estate you should have a 16mm range lens for photographing the interiors.
Keaton Rose
August 11, 2021 5:38 pm
I found it interesting that the review was a bit less than enthusiastic about the lens, and yet the sample images throughout were by and large outstanding.
I got this lens to have a small and light setup for hiking and street attempts, and I plan to add the 28 and 40mm compacts when they’re available to have something of a compact system to use on occasions when I don’t want to lug bigger and heavier alternatives around. I can see going out and about or on a trip with just the 24-50 and, say, the 40 f/2.8 and getting what I need out of that setup. We’ll see.
In the meantime, the 24-50 has served me well for what I’ve wanted out of it. And for the many occasions when I think I’ll need more range or a faster lens, I can always grab my 24-70 or one of my Z primes.
Michael
July 25, 2021 9:52 pm
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?
We test every Nikon Z lens, including DX, on the Nikon Z7 for Imatest. So, the central sharpness figures are comparable between the two. The 16-50mm’s “corner” numbers are measured in the same spot as the 24-50mm’s “midframe” numbers but are otherwise comparable.
The difference is that you don’t need to enlarge the image from a Z6 sensor as much for a given print size. Even though the two sensors have similar resolution, and the lenses may be comparably sharp, this difference in enlargement is enough to make the Z6 photos look a bit more detailed at a given print size. For maximum image quality, the better pick would be the Z6 with the 24-50mm, but not by much. (Plus there’s better high ISO performance and dynamic range.)
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.
It would definitely pair well with a lightweight telephoto zoom. Hopefully Nikon makes one soon. I’m surprised they haven’t yet.
bg5931
July 22, 2021 3:38 pm
Whether this lens is or is not useful very strongly depends on one’s aims. As a general all-purpose lens, it’s probably a failure. Crappy zoom range, dark aperture, not so sharp. But if the purpose is to shoot 45 MP stopped down in the backcountry, this lens may have its place. I do agree that small primes would be even better though – I am hoping for a 20/2.8 (or even f/4, I don’t mind) that’s sharp and flare resistant. That on a Z7 would be a fantastic minimal landscape combo.
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.
Cant agree about the comparisons to the compact primes, the compact primes will of course be super and have its benefits but this zoom is flexibility first.
The 28mm f/2.8 prime can only “extend” with cropping. To get to fov off 50mm you crop almost 1.8x. That reduce resolution a lot and gives a DOF off about f/5.6. Thats close to the same depth off field as the zoom has in the long end, but then the zoom still have full frame sensor with full resolution, cant imagine prime resolution and iso can outweigh that. And the zoom can further safely crop to dx mode and a FOV equal to 75mm. The prime would then have a crop of 2.7… thats like a 1″ sensor with very little resolution. And of course the zoom has the 24mm in the wide end, 24 is noticeable wider than 28mm – like 1.4x as much areal. So I really dont see that the fixed prime can compete on flexibility, but I can clearly see the use for the prime and the need to consider one over the other. But – you will end up wanting both if you like to get small size FX setup ;) -enjoy. Regards www.instagram.com/kimbomstad/
Not sure I agree about the comparisons to the compact primes, the compact primes will off course be super useful and have the edge on quality and speed, but this zoom is a flexible “family and travel” lens. Comparing the 28mm f/2.8 it will have a fov equal to 43mm f/4.5 in dx crop, thats not so far from the depth off field the zoom has at its long end while it still lets you keep full resolution. Then you can crop that to get a equal to 75mm in dx range, and if you try to match this with the 28, you get almost 3 x crop and a f8 field off view with very little resolution left and I cant believe a the quality difference to the prime outweighs this resolution loss. And off course the zooms 24mm is noticeable wider than 28mm, almost 1.4x . But off course – we probably end up with more than this lens… but it looks promising for a easy to travel lens, just as the 24-200 has some nice benefits.
I use this lens together with the Z 50-250 on a Z50. The wide angle range is not important for me (ca. 36mm FX-equivalent at the wide end of this combo is enough, at least for me).
This combo is really light and small and sometimes I fetch the 50mm/f2 mc additionally.
50mm/f2.8, sorry
I’m looking to get into real estate photography. Will this be a cheap solution until I get more paid jobs and can afford a better lens?
No, for real estate you should have a 16mm range lens for photographing the interiors.
I found it interesting that the review was a bit less than enthusiastic about the lens, and yet the sample images throughout were by and large outstanding.
I got this lens to have a small and light setup for hiking and street attempts, and I plan to add the 28 and 40mm compacts when they’re available to have something of a compact system to use on occasions when I don’t want to lug bigger and heavier alternatives around. I can see going out and about or on a trip with just the 24-50 and, say, the 40 f/2.8 and getting what I need out of that setup. We’ll see.
In the meantime, the 24-50 has served me well for what I’ve wanted out of it. And for the many occasions when I think I’ll need more range or a faster lens, I can always grab my 24-70 or one of my Z primes.
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?
We test every Nikon Z lens, including DX, on the Nikon Z7 for Imatest. So, the central sharpness figures are comparable between the two. The 16-50mm’s “corner” numbers are measured in the same spot as the 24-50mm’s “midframe” numbers but are otherwise comparable.
The difference is that you don’t need to enlarge the image from a Z6 sensor as much for a given print size. Even though the two sensors have similar resolution, and the lenses may be comparably sharp, this difference in enlargement is enough to make the Z6 photos look a bit more detailed at a given print size. For maximum image quality, the better pick would be the Z6 with the 24-50mm, but not by much. (Plus there’s better high ISO performance and dynamic range.)
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.
It would definitely pair well with a lightweight telephoto zoom. Hopefully Nikon makes one soon. I’m surprised they haven’t yet.
Whether this lens is or is not useful very strongly depends on one’s aims. As a general all-purpose lens, it’s probably a failure. Crappy zoom range, dark aperture, not so sharp. But if the purpose is to shoot 45 MP stopped down in the backcountry, this lens may have its place. I do agree that small primes would be even better though – I am hoping for a 20/2.8 (or even f/4, I don’t mind) that’s sharp and flare resistant. That on a Z7 would be a fantastic minimal landscape combo.
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.
Never change a lens in a small hiking setup is also a plus IMHO