I recently returned from Africa. I used my Nikon AF 70-300MM lens on my Nikon Z50. It worked great for the most part, but missed a few shots while manually focussing. I’ve been looking for zoom lens and this seems like the perfect lens, as I don’t always have the space to carry more than a standard and zoom lens.
Dennis Ng
June 16, 2024 11:51 pm
Still struggle after buying the lens based on the first posted review of this site, with my z9. I do not have other full frame sold my z7. Trying on my zfc is hard as the 400mm is hard to focus and the viewfinder you do not know whether you are in focus. Hence the struggle to bring this and z9 to my upcoming trip to Malta. Plus a 360 for wild angle. Just a little heavy.
Sure, combined with the Z9, it’s definitely on the heavy side. A lot of that is the Z9’s fault, but not all of it – the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 is meaningfully lighter and smaller than this lens side-by-side.
Moira
June 16, 2024 11:23 pm
Thank you for your excellent, in depth review. I use an Z50 and see few comments in any reviews for this lens with the cropped sensor. What are your thoughts please?
If you need the very long zoom range, go for it – it’s got vibration reduction, so it would be a totally reasonable choice on DX when a 600mm focal length equivalent is needed. There isn’t a lighter Nikon Z lens that reaches so far.
That said, the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR and the 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 VR pair better with Nikon DX cameras in general. They’re lighter and brighter, and I would get one of those if you don’t need the 600mm equivalent focal length.
Darren
June 15, 2024 2:42 pm
Had the lens for a few weeks and have to say I like it. Light to carry and whilst its not the sharpest fully extended im still happy with the results it gets!
Below is a link to a photo of Bamburgh Castle taken 2,8 miles away in Seahouses: 1drv.ms/i/s!A…g?e=WugGc2
That’s awesome! Glad you’re enjoying it. The versatility is really unprecedented.
SSM
June 15, 2024 2:08 pm
Spencer, a great review and wonderful pictures. I used the Z 28-400mm and the Z 24-200mm side-by-side at 200mm. The Z 28-400mm was clearly sharper. It could be that my Z 24-200 mm was a bad copy. I have to mention that I was photographing paintings 25ft away. Perhaps the distance is a factor that could explain why my results were so different from yours.
Complex superzooms like these are the most liable to have sample variation. I doubt that any two samples of them will have identical results, and that doesn’t mean one copy is bad — just has different strong and weak areas. I think that’s the culprit here.
For what it’s worth, at 200mm, we’re about 30 feet away from the test chart.
Filip
June 15, 2024 7:46 am
I’ve seen this sentence “Although the lens does have vibration reduction, just like all of Nikon’s Z-series lenses” and I got stuck. My 24-70 or 14-24 don’t have VR so you couldn’t have meant VR in lens, and APS-C Nikon Z cameras have no IBIS, so you couldn’t have meant vibration reduction in combination with body wither. Unless you meant with full frame body. What did I miss?
Spencer, Thanks for the review! When I see the amazing collection of photos you created to demonstrate this lens, I don’t think about whether it is technically less capable than other Nikon zooms or primes covering similar ranges. It is more than good enough, and from what I see in this fine nature travelogue, you were inspired using it as a photography tool. Cheers!
FYI, I don’t own a Nikon or any other MILC. Maybe the Z6III will be the stimulus to do so…
Much appreciated! That’s how I felt when I was using it – I loved the zoom range and knew that it was going to be sharp enough for desktop prints. I took some of my favorite photos of the past few months with this lens and definitely don’t regret using it instead of something else.
alex
June 15, 2024 2:23 am
how does the image quality compare to the rx10 iv?
Although I didn’t test them side-by-side, we can make a few judgments about them pretty easily based on equivalence calculations.
First, the RX10 IV has a 20 megapixel 1-inch type sensor with an 8.9-220mm lens (24-600mm full-frame equivalent). The maximum aperture is f/2.4-4 (f/6.5-11 full-frame equivalent).
As a result, at a given equivalent focal length, you’re at about 1-1.5 stops of disadvantage compared to the Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8. (For example, at 400mm equivalent, you would be at f/8 on the Nikon and f/11 equivalent on the RX10 IV, for a 1-stop difference.) That’s not bad in the grand scheme of things. A lot of point-and-shoots have much dimmer zooms than that. Plus the focal length range on the RX10 IV is even wider than the Z 28-400mm.
Note that at base ISO, the differences will be more significant than 1-1.5 stops. The base ISO of 100 on the RX10 IV is akin to about ISO 720 on a full-frame camera where noise and dynamic range are concerned (see photographylife.com/equiv…re-and-iso). This is a difference of about 2.7 stops. The RX10 IV can’t shoot at a lower ISO than 100, so it can’t get to the same level of performance as a full-frame camera at base ISO unless you start merging images together.
Also, all of this ignores the sharpness differences between the two lenses, as well as the difference between 20 megapixels on the RX10 IV and 24+ megapixels on Nikon’s full-frame cameras. Those differences would have an effect, too. Without testing the cameras side-by-side, I can’t say exactly how much, but my expectation is that the Nikon would be sharper at a pixel level (if nothing else, due to the smaller zoom range).
Thanks! While the RX-10 IV would not be technically as good, as you so clearly explained, the form factor is much smaller than the 28-400 on any Nikon body, plus the 24-600 range is larger.
In the eyes and hands of a capable photographer, I am curious if it is “good enough” for a travelogue presentation like yours, where the light was often good?
Yeah, I know, this is somewhat subjective, and some will not settle for anything less than the very best quality as their first priority, which the perfectionist in me can appreciate!
But, as an “always with you” travel companion, the RX-10 IV has its appeal.
To me, a 1-inch type sensor is the smallest one that’s capable of giving “good enough” results without resorting to image averaging techniques. That’s the sensor size on my Mavic 2 Pro drone, and I’m happy making about 12×18″ prints from that camera at base ISO. Given that, the RX10 IV seems like a promising choice for a small do-it-all camera.
PramodVijayasimhan
June 14, 2024 11:13 pm
Being a long term follower of this site ( though I rarely comment 😊) , I’m very glad to have gone through this wonderful review and excellent sample images as well. Thanks for the efforts and bringing it as early as possible 🙏
After reading all the comments, i would like to share my humble opinion, in case that helps someone else. I have a Z 70-200 , 2xTC , 14-30, 35,50 & 85mm 1.8 primes. I had an F-mount 24-120 when I had my D850. I loved it as my walk around combo. But , sometimes I felt the 120mm range wasn’t sufficient & the background blur too felt insufficient in some cases. So , even if Z24-120 is a very good lens, i skipped it for a Z24-200. It’s mostly glued to my Z6ii. If needed, i carry one or two primes with it.Last year for a travel trip , i took all my lenses but ended up using only 24-200 majority of the time as I had to drive too and the weather conditions were cold and misty. I used 70-200 + 2x TC for shooting some far away wildlife. With the flexibility of the zoom range of 24-200 , i could quickly shoot landscapes, street photography, portraits , flowers and everything. Few vodeos too. When I bought this lens , i was bit worried about it’s f/6.3 aperture, sharpness and everything else. But , once I started shooting, i simply enjoyed the process. I’m glad that I got many good images which wouldn’t have been practically possible if I were to keep changing lenses. So , the best use case of these types of super zoom lenses for travel photography. But , i have to be honest that I was torn between choosing Z24-120 and 24-200.But , what have me confidence to make a final decision is that I knew Scott Kelby was using F-mount 28-300 & now using RF24-240 for his travel photography. Z 24-200 in my opinion and as per reviews too is better than 24-240 from both Canon & Sony in pretty much all departments. I’m very happy with my 24-200 and the image quality it deliveres. Generally speaking i don’t find much issues with the sharpness. If I needed a bit more sharpness and contrast to make it look like a 24-120 , i could run it through some 3Rd party softwares. Best thing I like about Z6ii + 24-200 is that it fits well in a small bag like the Nikon bags that used to come with some Dx DSLRs.
So , when it comes to super zooms , it’s more about convenience and the wide variety of photos you can make especially in a limited time especially while travelling with family or friends or with a group. I have thought of buying another Z6ii so that I could have a Z24-120 on one and Z70-200 on the other and use Z14-30 when needed. This would have certainly give me a far better image quality. But more than the extra weight, sometimes it’s not pratical to hang around with this set-up and shoot as the local people in those areas won’t be feeling comfortable. Walking a lot or hiking gets difficult. But if I could & wanted the best IQ I could have , i would have had three Z6ii, each one fitted with 14-30,24-120 & 70-200. I could add the 2xTC whenever I needed bit more range. With this set-up , i don’t need to swap lenses. I was seriously thinking of getting used Z6ii for the same. But after happily using the Z24-200 , i literally dropped this idea. But , once in a while I still feel tempted.
After using the F-mount 24-120 , i wanted more range.But , after using 24-200, sometimes I wished it had a 300mm reach. This lead me thinking about getting the F-mount 28-300.But i didn’t want to have the extra size and weight of it adding the adapter. Then I thought of getting either Sony or Panasonic super zoom camera’s with 1inch sensor or microfourthrids with Olympus 12-200. So it was a great surprise and gladness when Nikon came up with the Z 28-400. After going through all the video reviews and written reviews and almost all the pics taken with it that’s available in Flickr and other sites , i have decided to get one when I have enough budget. i don’t find any serious problems with sharpness and everything. Ofcourse i wished it was a 24-400 f/4-6.3 VR even if it would have been bit more bigger and heavier too. At first , i was bit disappointed that it doesn’t come with all the lens coatings the Z24-200mm comes with. But I’m surprised it performs well when it comes to flaring and all. But Z24-200 still shows a clear advantage of having those coatings which I personally believe Z28-400 should have had too for the asking price.
While there are some clear negatives as noted in this review, i think the overall IQ is still very good and very pleasing too. It has enough 3D pop to have that subject seperation even if 400mm f/8 couldn’t blur our the backgrounds as shown in the sample bird pics. I was worried if we would miss that 3D pop with such a huge range. Considering all all that Nikon did a fabulous job. After watching this review too youtu.be/n1Dra…ure=shared , i feel more confident & comfortable to get a Z28-400. This too is encouraging as well especially for general videos uses – youtu.be/2fVVZ…ure=shared And one more plus point is it’s close up capabilities both at wide and far end & the inbetween focal lengths. I see myself adding my 77mm close-up lens or extension tubes to get some macro shots. It seems to work very well with Z8. Had Nikon gave us a Dx Z500/Z90 that has a 40MP like in the Fuji , we could have had a very good 42-600mm equivalent as well. Pair it with a Z DX 12-28, we get a more compact travel package. So , despite it few flaws that are inivitable for such a long range , i think it’s a clear winner especially if we consider adding some sharpness and details using some 3Rd party softwares.
Rage1968
June 14, 2024 1:03 pm
This confirms that the z 24-120 f/4 for general purpose is the best in class ;-)
I recently returned from Africa. I used my Nikon AF 70-300MM lens on my Nikon Z50. It worked great for the most part, but missed a few shots while manually focussing. I’ve been looking for zoom lens and this seems like the perfect lens, as I don’t always have the space to carry more than a standard and zoom lens.
Still struggle after buying the lens based on the first posted review of this site, with my z9. I do not have other full frame sold my z7. Trying on my zfc is hard as the 400mm is hard to focus and the viewfinder you do not know whether you are in focus. Hence the struggle to bring this and z9 to my upcoming trip to Malta. Plus a 360 for wild angle. Just a little heavy.
Sure, combined with the Z9, it’s definitely on the heavy side. A lot of that is the Z9’s fault, but not all of it – the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 is meaningfully lighter and smaller than this lens side-by-side.
Thank you for your excellent, in depth review. I use an Z50 and see few comments in any reviews for this lens with the cropped sensor. What are your thoughts please?
If you need the very long zoom range, go for it – it’s got vibration reduction, so it would be a totally reasonable choice on DX when a 600mm focal length equivalent is needed. There isn’t a lighter Nikon Z lens that reaches so far.
That said, the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR and the 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 VR pair better with Nikon DX cameras in general. They’re lighter and brighter, and I would get one of those if you don’t need the 600mm equivalent focal length.
Had the lens for a few weeks and have to say I like it. Light to carry and whilst its not the sharpest fully extended im still happy with the results it gets!
Below is a link to a photo of Bamburgh Castle taken 2,8 miles away in Seahouses:
1drv.ms/i/s!A…g?e=WugGc2
The next link is a photo of a swan I took at about 80mm:
1drv.ms/i/s!A…Q?e=8dZQ1T
That’s awesome! Glad you’re enjoying it. The versatility is really unprecedented.
Spencer, a great review and wonderful pictures. I used the Z 28-400mm and the Z 24-200mm side-by-side at 200mm. The Z 28-400mm was clearly sharper. It could be that my Z 24-200 mm was a bad copy. I have to mention that I was photographing paintings 25ft away. Perhaps the distance is a factor that could explain why my results were so different from yours.
Complex superzooms like these are the most liable to have sample variation. I doubt that any two samples of them will have identical results, and that doesn’t mean one copy is bad — just has different strong and weak areas. I think that’s the culprit here.
For what it’s worth, at 200mm, we’re about 30 feet away from the test chart.
I’ve seen this sentence “Although the lens does have vibration reduction, just like all of Nikon’s Z-series lenses” and I got stuck. My 24-70 or 14-24 don’t have VR so you couldn’t have meant VR in lens, and APS-C Nikon Z cameras have no IBIS, so you couldn’t have meant vibration reduction in combination with body wither. Unless you meant with full frame body. What did I miss?
It’s not a well-worded sentence and I did just change it, but you didn’t quote the full sentence, which was –
“Although the lens does have vibration reduction, just like all of Nikon’s Z-series lenses, there is no physical VR switch on the lens itself.”
My intention was to say that, like all of Nikon’s Z-series lenses, there is no physical VR switch on the lens.
Oh, sorry, that wasn’t intention. The full sentence does make sense.
All good!
Spencer,
Thanks for the review! When I see the amazing collection of photos you created to demonstrate this lens, I don’t think about whether it is technically less capable than other Nikon zooms or primes covering similar ranges. It is more than good enough, and from what I see in this fine nature travelogue, you were inspired using it as a photography tool. Cheers!
FYI, I don’t own a Nikon or any other MILC. Maybe the Z6III will be the stimulus to do so…
Much appreciated! That’s how I felt when I was using it – I loved the zoom range and knew that it was going to be sharp enough for desktop prints. I took some of my favorite photos of the past few months with this lens and definitely don’t regret using it instead of something else.
how does the image quality compare to the rx10 iv?
Good Question!
Although I didn’t test them side-by-side, we can make a few judgments about them pretty easily based on equivalence calculations.
First, the RX10 IV has a 20 megapixel 1-inch type sensor with an 8.9-220mm lens (24-600mm full-frame equivalent). The maximum aperture is f/2.4-4 (f/6.5-11 full-frame equivalent).
As a result, at a given equivalent focal length, you’re at about 1-1.5 stops of disadvantage compared to the Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8. (For example, at 400mm equivalent, you would be at f/8 on the Nikon and f/11 equivalent on the RX10 IV, for a 1-stop difference.) That’s not bad in the grand scheme of things. A lot of point-and-shoots have much dimmer zooms than that. Plus the focal length range on the RX10 IV is even wider than the Z 28-400mm.
Note that at base ISO, the differences will be more significant than 1-1.5 stops. The base ISO of 100 on the RX10 IV is akin to about ISO 720 on a full-frame camera where noise and dynamic range are concerned (see photographylife.com/equiv…re-and-iso). This is a difference of about 2.7 stops. The RX10 IV can’t shoot at a lower ISO than 100, so it can’t get to the same level of performance as a full-frame camera at base ISO unless you start merging images together.
Also, all of this ignores the sharpness differences between the two lenses, as well as the difference between 20 megapixels on the RX10 IV and 24+ megapixels on Nikon’s full-frame cameras. Those differences would have an effect, too. Without testing the cameras side-by-side, I can’t say exactly how much, but my expectation is that the Nikon would be sharper at a pixel level (if nothing else, due to the smaller zoom range).
Thanks! While the RX-10 IV would not be technically as good, as you so clearly explained, the form factor is much smaller than the 28-400 on any Nikon body, plus the 24-600 range is larger.
In the eyes and hands of a capable photographer, I am curious if it is “good enough” for a travelogue presentation like yours, where the light was often good?
Yeah, I know, this is somewhat subjective, and some will not settle for anything less than the very best quality as their first priority, which the perfectionist in me can appreciate!
But, as an “always with you” travel companion, the RX-10 IV has its appeal.
To me, a 1-inch type sensor is the smallest one that’s capable of giving “good enough” results without resorting to image averaging techniques. That’s the sensor size on my Mavic 2 Pro drone, and I’m happy making about 12×18″ prints from that camera at base ISO. Given that, the RX10 IV seems like a promising choice for a small do-it-all camera.
Being a long term follower of this site ( though I rarely comment 😊) , I’m very glad to have gone through this wonderful review and excellent sample images as well. Thanks for the efforts and bringing it as early as possible 🙏
After reading all the comments, i would like to share my humble opinion, in case that helps someone else. I have a Z 70-200 , 2xTC , 14-30, 35,50 & 85mm 1.8 primes. I had an F-mount 24-120 when I had my D850. I loved it as my walk around combo. But , sometimes I felt the 120mm range wasn’t sufficient & the background blur too felt insufficient in some cases. So , even if Z24-120 is a very good lens, i skipped it for a Z24-200. It’s mostly glued to my Z6ii. If needed, i carry one or two primes with it.Last year for a travel trip , i took all my lenses but ended up using only 24-200 majority of the time as I had to drive too and the weather conditions were cold and misty. I used 70-200 + 2x TC for shooting some far away wildlife. With the flexibility of the zoom range of 24-200 , i could quickly shoot landscapes, street photography, portraits , flowers and everything. Few vodeos too. When I bought this lens , i was bit worried about it’s f/6.3 aperture, sharpness and everything else. But , once I started shooting, i simply enjoyed the process. I’m glad that I got many good images which wouldn’t have been practically possible if I were to keep changing lenses. So , the best use case of these types of super zoom lenses for travel photography. But , i have to be honest that I was torn between choosing Z24-120 and 24-200.But , what have me confidence to make a final decision is that I knew Scott Kelby was using F-mount 28-300 & now using RF24-240 for his travel photography. Z 24-200 in my opinion and as per reviews too is better than 24-240 from both Canon & Sony in pretty much all departments. I’m very happy with my 24-200 and the image quality it deliveres. Generally speaking i don’t find much issues with the sharpness. If I needed a bit more sharpness and contrast to make it look like a 24-120 , i could run it through some 3Rd party softwares. Best thing I like about Z6ii + 24-200 is that it fits well in a small bag like the Nikon bags that used to come with some Dx DSLRs.
So , when it comes to super zooms , it’s more about convenience and the wide variety of photos you can make especially in a limited time especially while travelling with family or friends or with a group. I have thought of buying another Z6ii so that I could have a Z24-120 on one and Z70-200 on the other and use Z14-30 when needed. This would have certainly give me a far better image quality. But more than the extra weight, sometimes it’s not pratical to hang around with this set-up and shoot as the local people in those areas won’t be feeling comfortable. Walking a lot or hiking gets difficult. But if I could & wanted the best IQ I could have , i would have had three Z6ii, each one fitted with 14-30,24-120 & 70-200. I could add the 2xTC whenever I needed bit more range. With this set-up , i don’t need to swap lenses. I was seriously thinking of getting used Z6ii for the same. But after happily using the Z24-200 , i literally dropped this idea. But , once in a while I still feel tempted.
After using the F-mount 24-120 , i wanted more range.But , after using 24-200, sometimes I wished it had a 300mm reach. This lead me thinking about getting the F-mount 28-300.But i didn’t want to have the extra size and weight of it adding the adapter. Then I thought of getting either Sony or Panasonic super zoom camera’s with 1inch sensor or microfourthrids with Olympus 12-200. So it was a great surprise and gladness when Nikon came up with the Z 28-400. After going through all the video reviews and written reviews and almost all the pics taken with it that’s available in Flickr and other sites , i have decided to get one when I have enough budget. i don’t find any serious problems with sharpness and everything. Ofcourse i wished it was a 24-400 f/4-6.3 VR even if it would have been bit more bigger and heavier too. At first , i was bit disappointed that it doesn’t come with all the lens coatings the Z24-200mm comes with. But I’m surprised it performs well when it comes to flaring and all. But Z24-200 still shows a clear advantage of having those coatings which I personally believe Z28-400 should have had too for the asking price.
While there are some clear negatives as noted in this review, i think the overall IQ is still very good and very pleasing too. It has enough 3D pop to have that subject seperation even if 400mm f/8 couldn’t blur our the backgrounds as shown in the sample bird pics. I was worried if we would miss that 3D pop with such a huge range. Considering all all that Nikon did a fabulous job. After watching this review too youtu.be/n1Dra…ure=shared , i feel more confident & comfortable to get a Z28-400. This too is encouraging as well especially for general videos uses – youtu.be/2fVVZ…ure=shared
And one more plus point is it’s close up capabilities both at wide and far end & the inbetween focal lengths. I see myself adding my 77mm close-up lens or extension tubes to get some macro shots. It seems to work very well with Z8. Had Nikon gave us a Dx Z500/Z90 that has a 40MP like in the Fuji , we could have had a very good 42-600mm equivalent as well. Pair it with a Z DX 12-28, we get a more compact travel package.
So , despite it few flaws that are inivitable for such a long range , i think it’s a clear winner especially if we consider adding some sharpness and details using some 3Rd party softwares.
This confirms that the z 24-120 f/4 for general purpose is the best in class ;-)
Ha! if you don’t need longer than 120, that lens really is hard to beat.