Full Version: Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR announced
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
It's a super-zoom, so by design not meant to be exciting, but some good news at least:

- not f/7.1 at the long end (phew!)
- not retractable
- hood included (Applause! Applause! Applause!)

Given the long zoom range combined with the small size, I have a strong feeling that in-camera distortion correction can not be switched off for this lens.

Aha. A hood. To cover 24-200 mm.

Right, there was nobody saying "an effective hood".

What do you think in general of Nikon Z's hoods?
(02-12-2020, 08:41 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: [ -> ]Aha. A hood. To cover 24-200 mm.
Right, there was nobody saying "an effective hood".

That wasn't the point. You'll admit that it's impossible to design an effective hood for any kind of super zoom, no matter what brand. It's not something you can blame on Nikon...

To me, a hood serves two functions: protection from stray light, but also a physical protection of the front lens.

The point was: unlike in other cases (the Z DX zooms, for example, and some AF-S DX zooms, too) it's at least included and not offered as a separate and overpriced additional purchase.

(02-12-2020, 08:41 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: [ -> ]What do you think in general of Nikon Z's hoods?

They're ok, in my eyes. Plastic, but not the cheap kind. Robust enough and do not easily show marks and scratches (like all the Canon hoods from a while ago). Nothing to get excited about (it's just a hood), but they do the job.
Finally Nikon and Canon are starting to have some lenses that are more or less comparable to eachother (35mm f1.8, and this Nikkor 24-200mm VR and the Canon RF 24-240mm IS).
The Canon lens offers a bit extra reach, but that results in a considerable weight advantage for the Nikkor: 750 grams for the Canon and 570 grams for the Nikkor. Size wise they are pretty similar.
Looking at the manufacturer's MTF charts, the Nikkor appears to be a bit better. Prices are comparable

All in all, it appears that Nikon has done quite a good job for this type of lens.
At first I misinterpreted the lens as another DX for the Z50. But now... Better than the old 28-300 for sure, and a nice travel lens. Kind of attractive. Although I predict it to be at least as worse distorting at 24 mm as the 14-30 at 14. But who cares these days...