Did you know that numbers don’t mean anything for overall performance? Numbers only apply to single, narrow, monotonic aspects, not overall performance, so while numbers impress the innocent, all they do is distract from what’s really important: the overall performance about which I write. Thanks!

Thanks!!!!

Nothing but the best. Thanks!

Leicaman style 😉👌

He doesn’t need my money

It is! Just look at the latest photos I made a few weeks ago at www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2021-06-slo/index.htm#d01 thanks!

The 24-200 is a super lens. I love it!!! Thanks!

It’s all about getting the picture rather than missing it while changing lenses. The real world ever stops to wait for us to change lenses.

I so hope you love. I think they’re awesome!

Thanks!!!! Hope you LOVE yours!

I thought so. Thanks!

I know Im asking randomly but does anyone know a trick to get back into an instagram account..? I was dumb lost my account password. I would love any help you can give me

@Camdyn Abraham instablaster =)

@Tyler Salvador Thanks for your reply. I got to the site on google and im in the hacking process atm. I see it takes quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.

@Tyler Salvador HOLY **** IT ACTUALLY WORKED! Literally hacked my Instagram login within about 30 minutes by using the site. I had to pay 15 bucks but definitely worth it :) Thanks so much, you really help me out!

It’s only the less-skilled or less knowledgeable who misunderstand the mathematics involved and believe the old wives tales behind raw. The real deal is that all cameras shoot raw, and quite simply the internal processors process that data exactly the same way into final images saved as jpgs inside your camera with dedicated hardware much faster than doing exactly the same in software in a computer later. Same result faster in camera. Thanks! www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Ken, could you perhaps do a video on the Jpeg/Raw conundrum? I reckon it would cause a bit of a stir amongst the shutterocracy.

See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm ; it’s neither a conundrum nor mystery; just preference depending on workflow.

@@KenRockwellTV I thought I went back in time with that article. It's 12 years out of date!

@@KenRockwellTV That is HORRIBLE advise from someone who is a long time photographer. All things equal with proper exposure, saying that Jpeg is just as good as raw is like saying a final darkroom print is better than the negative and we should only process from the print. Yes Jpegs have come a long way but remember, they are lossy files and WILL deteriorate years down the line from opening and saving and exporting and exporting more. At least with the raw you have that "negative" to restore all the vital information going forward. Instead of telling people to ignore raw, especially those less knowledgable than you and I, cover all the basses and encourage shooting raw + jpeg. That way they have a nice jpeg to send out and post but also have a saved archival raw for those times they want to process creatively in the future when that jpeg is all but lost in detail from it's lossy nature... and maybe recover some DR for those exposure mistakes that everyone will do many times in their life. Let your viewers make that decision on their own. Thank you for the review of this lens, it was informative as I am looking for a backpacking setup, but please stay on topic. Continuously iInterjecting irrelevant opinions only tarnishes your credibility in the photo community circles.

Thank you!

Hope you love it! Thanks!

Hey Mike! What's your thought on the lens? I have been wanting to get an additional lens for my Z50 too.

@@scvguan I like it. The fact that it’s a slow lens is offset by the cameras ability to produce grainless images at relatively high ISOs. The fact that it’s stabilized works well with the Z 50. All and all a equivalent 35 - 300mm lens this size on this small of a camera is pretty hard to beat. Oh, it is really sharp too.

Exactly. When it’s slower like this it’s easy to make it as sharp or sharper; basic engineering. Thanks!

Right on. S doesn’t mean anything; just marketing fluff. Thanks!

Thank YOU! Love mine.

Yip, just as shear and same pictures as the poser lenses. The 28-300 VR works great on the FTZ. Thanks!

Thank YOU!

Exactly. Thanks!

Yeah the bokeh looks great from this lens when shooting at F1.2, lol

Thanks!

Thank you!

Hope you love it as much as I do. It does everything! Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV your thoughts are ones I trust. Have liked your reviews for years.

Try the 28-300VR as I do www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm on the FTZ

I tried this lens on my Z7 and I had trouble with getting consistent sharpness,and VR. Perhaps 46 megapixels is just too much for this earlier generation lens which wasn't designed for this high resolution. I am having better results with my 24-120mm F/4 which is purchased used. My 28-300 could have also been a bad copy.

It’s my preference. Look what I shot the other week with it: www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2021-06-slo/index.htm

@@KenRockwellTV Excellent. The lens seems to perform at its best in bright light.

Thanks! This channel is just for fun; my website is more current and way more detailed and complete.

Yes! I was hoping you’d love it as much as I do. Super handy and the photos are the same as with the larger lenses that do less. Thanks!

Thanks!!!! It’s a religious issue for me to stay to the point with zero BS. Thanks for noticing.

Better than just good; it’s great. Thanks!

Thank you!

Excellent; it’s my favorite for the Z system. Thanks! More at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm

Let me know how you love it. There are more recent photos I’ve made with it at www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2021-06-slo/index.htm

Thank you!

Haven’t checked. Most work OK. Thanks!

Thanks for the compliments!

Thank you!

28-300 is bigger than 24-200, but goes much longer. Z is NOT an upgrade from DSLR; just different and more expensive. Thanks !

@@KenRockwellTV there are advantages switching to Z body, it’s lighter, what you see is what you get, IBIS…. I use that F 28-300 for travel for years, it’s very heavy, your neck will thank you for switching to Z 24-200, I can turn on DX to reach 300, and 4mm in wide angle is not small.

What? Just get a Canon EOS-R series camera and the EF 24-240mm. The Z6 was awful for autofocus and more. If you insist on Nikon, stick with the Z 24-200. Cross-brand adapters rarely work well or reliably. Does this help?

Love it! Thanks!

I’ve never liked sigma. Stick with the lenses made by the camera maker s d you’ll do so much better, especially with compatibility with future purchases. Thanks!

See my sample images at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm#sampleimages

Only loss is a stop or so of speed - which few people use. Personally I prefer having all the focal lengths at my fingertips rather than missing photos while changing lenses.

50-250 and 16-50 are only two lenses you need with it. Caution that the 50-250 is too slow to focus for most action.

The Z 24-200mm is my favorite full frame lens for the z system. See more samples and the full written review at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm

No advantage, unless you’d rather use just the 24-200 rather than the other combo. Whatever you do, don’t get all three. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/assembling-a-system.htm

@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for referring me to that article! Had read it before but needed to be reminded again. I’m enjoying learning to get the most out of the kit lenses and although the 50mm f1.8 is great for the occasional low light videos and shallow depth of field shots I never carry all three. I may just get the upcoming 28mm f2.8 pancake lens for low light and light weight and that should give me enough options for the Z-50.

Great question, but in actual shooting they, like most lenses today, are just as sharp. Of course the real question which is the better camera system, since you can only use each on its brand of body. I greatly prefer the Canon system. www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/index.htm thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV thank you sir

Easy: Canon is WAY ahead. They were way ahead in 2018 www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/nikon-vs-canon-vs-sony-full-frame.htm and this summer came out with even better cameras that go way beyond anything from Sony or Nikon. Thanks

@@KenRockwellTV Awesome! Thanks! I appreciate your time 👍

@@KenRockwellTV are you not stretching it a bit saying Canon is way ahead of Sony? I guess the A1 was not yet released but still... I would also say Nikon is a lot of bang for the bucks if you take price into consideration which most people do. I think all systems are really good and you'll be happy with whatever you go with.

Excellent. THANKS!

JPGs capture shadows just fine. It’s all I ever shoot. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Raw definitely captures more info you can play with when editing. Of course it's a matter of personal preference, but for myself I shoot raw exclusively.

Thanks, Jim! My Z8 ought to arrive today and the Z 24-200 will probably be the lens I use 90% of the time.

@@KenRockwellTV We all look forward to your Z8 review. I am considering picking that up to backup my Z9.

Just being honest as always. Geesh, some camera makers really sometimes think we're idiots. Thanks!

Works exactly the same as it does on a DSLR. Here’s the full review www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

24-200Z does the same thing; my favorite nikon lens past few years.

@@KenRockwellTV Your review about this lens is one of the best reviews you ever made. Beatitfull samples shots.

Looks awesome. See samples shot on my 45 MP D850 at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm#sampleimages people who can’t get good photos with the 28-300 simply aren’t good photographers. Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV thank you Ken 👍

I've been using the 28-300 on my Z6 and now my Z6 II and I have had nothing but outstanding results. The only negative for me is the weight. With modern Nikons' ability to work with low light, even the slow speed of the lens is not a major problem; but I usually travel with this lens (the 28-300) and either a 35 or 50 S 1.8 for when the sun goes down. If you do low light/nighttime photography, there is probably no zoom lens that will let you get the shots that a fast prime will get; so figure it's a two-lens kit under just about any travel circumstances.

I find the 24-200 is great and I simply crop a little as needed rather than carry the 28-300. Thanks!

Photoshop CS6 from 2010 and iMovie. Thanks!

I get two to five stops of real world improvement. As always the details are at my written review at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm#stabilizer thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV but an answer the first question is not (explicitly) mentioned there, and anyway very hard to find... What happens if you turn on "lens VR" and "camera ibis" at the same time? Do they interact, with the lens and sensor taking over different axes of stabilization, like on Sony and Panasonic?

@@mipmipmipmipmipthat’s a good question but not answered.

There are loads of step rings out there. If you can’t find a direct 67-95, go 67-77 and 77-95. Search at eBay.

Canon is way better. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/nikon-vs-canon-vs-sony-full-frame.htm and www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/index.htm

@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for your quick reply Ken! I have to tell you that I'm a kind of pixelpeeper so the decision is sort of important to me. I saw your photo's of a model made with the Canon R with the 24-105 lens. Amazing sharp. You still recommend the EOS R after reading this? Greetings from Holland

EOS-R was the first. It’s still a good ‘little-bit-of-everything’ medium level camera, but I prefer the newest Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6 for state of the art, or the RP for compact and inexpensive.

Of course! Those other things just weigh down creativity.

I use the 14-30mm www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/mirrorless/lenses/14-30mm.htm

@@KenRockwellTV thanks! seems 14-30 and 24-200 are a solid combo. may not even need a "fast prime" for night shots. i'm gonna wait for Z6-III to come out and try to snatch a used Z6-II and these two lenses

Fast primes for night shots haven’t been a thing since the days of film. Here are some photos a shot with exactly this combination of 24- 240 and 14-30 mm lenses

www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2022-04-slo/index.htm

@@KenRockwellTV you know what? you're right. I'm still thinking like when I had the D3000 that was really bad at high iso. new cameras should have no problem. especially full frame

No! The Canon EOS R6 is a superior camera and Canon is a superior system. Why would you go to the trouble and expense to downgrade?

@@KenRockwellTV agree may be I’ll rethink...thank you Ken

I never use a 70-200 anymore after having this lens. Why would you want a 70-200 that only covers one-third of this lens' range? f/2.8 was for back in the days of film when even ISO 200 film was pretty grainy and only got worse at ISO 400 and 800. Today Digital looks great at this eand higher ISOs, to for me f/2.8 is unnecessary . Both lenses are as sharp as each other.

@Ken Rockwell thank you very much really I was confused specifically that the f2.8 70 200 is around 2.6k bucks. And i already have the 24-200. So the f.8 for 70 300 isn't worth the extra money just to get the f2.8 from 70 to 200 . Another question: if you have to choose between Z 100 400 S and 70 200 f2.8 + TC 2.0 X what do you choose? Please advise

Of course, but it might be $125,000 and weigh 75 pounds. Profession television lenses often go to 600mm and f/1.8 - with a 6mm wide end!! Canon and Schneider and Fujinon already make these www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/883370-REG/Fujinon_xa88x12_5esm_XA88X12_5BESM_HDTV_Lens_for.html?BI=287&KBID=1037

@@KenRockwellTV wow, thanks Ken

Why wait? Canon or Sony each have at least two each. Nikon is so far behind - and has so few resources today - that I doubt it’s a good idea to put any money into them. It’s not 1987 anymore when they were a leader.

I prefer this 24-240, Nikon makes the other lens for people who want it. Thanks!

I love mine, hope you do, too! It's much bigger, but saves having to swap and carry different lenses.

Of course! Look at the Fuji 56/1.2 apd, Canon 85/1.2 DS and similar. www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/85mm-f12-ds.htm

@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for the tips! As much as I hate to say it as a die-hard Nikon shooter, if I were to switch over to mirrorless today, I'd almost certainly go with Canon. :/

I would too! I d preferred Canon since 2013!!! See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/nikon-vs-canon-vs-sony-full-frame.htm

@@KenRockwellTV One truly nit-picky thing that makes me dislike Canon: their vertical front dials. The horizontal front dials on both Nikon and Sony are so much easier on my mildly arthritic knuckles. But ibuprofen is always an option.... ;) (Aaaand, I've launched on a tangent. Sorry!)

Because I LOVE WILD COLORS!!!!! I am INSANE!!! Thanks!

200mm and get as close as you need. Stop down to keep things in focus.

Thank you & happy new year For sharp macro what F number when shooting watches for example or flower? I like your macro shot of the wrist watch

I use f/22 to f/32 at macro distances, and even then it’s a lot of work to try to keep things flat and in focus.

It’s all simple engineering: the more you ask a lens to do, the more expensive and soft it gets. If you let the lens be slow like this lens, it’s easy to get it super sharp and huge zoom range. If you need f/2.8 it gets expensive and still can only cover a narrow range. This is why this lens is so sharp and inexpensive and light: because it’s not fast. Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV thanks Ken All the best

Tamron I avoid as it may not work with cameras you buy in the future.

Z 24-200 is slow. How about the 28-300mm VR on your FTZ adapter? Otherwise if you like the DX 18-200, why change?

@@KenRockwellTV That has been my question because I like the 18-200 3.5 but always thought it struggled in low light. I was just thinking by using the z lens, it may give me some better shots in those low light encounters in the church.

I also have a Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 I use with the adaptor ... It does great from a distance... I just have a light situation in the church and it is a large church.

Correct - so I expose properly and I thus save time and storage, and thus make more and better pictures by shooting JPGs. JPGs are for experienced shooters who could get 38 perfect shots on a roll of 36 exposure slide film. It’s easy to change WB and exposure with JPGs; just like slides the only thing from which you can’t recover is gross overexposure. Raw is for learners who needed to shoot negatives so they’d have the freedom to screw up and stay sloppy. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm thanks!

Yes! It’s my favorite lens. See the proof at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm#sampleimages thanks!

I never buy Tamron or sigma - too kinky for me. They don’t give me any confidence about lasting more than ten years before jining them. I’d get this Z lens; it works great. Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV Gotcha, well I shoot the Sony so will keep on that ecosystem for now =)

Then the Sony 24-240 also works great. See www.kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/24-240mm.htm

No. No Nikon lenses merit the “L” grade or sport a red band. If you want a quality domestically-made lens you have to stick with Canon as I do. Nikon’s best lenses have gold “ED” bands but most of those lenses are in Nikon’s glorious past. Thanks for asking.

@@KenRockwellTV Thank You.

Exactly. Those lenses are the best; just that old people who still remember the crappy zooms of the 1990s and before can’t fathom that 10:1 zooms actually work well. Thanks!

Exactly. Thanks!!!!

No need for raw if you’re good enough to get it right the first time. I can edit and recover highlights and shadows just fine from JPGs. See www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-comparison.htm

Grumpy is an icon to us all; the one guy not afraid to say it like it is, at least when is came to Nikon. Nikon makes such junk today by comparison he probably realized that it wasn’t worth his while anymore.

No; it lacks the S designation because Nikon wants people who can spend more money to spend more money on more expensive lenses - even though the pictures are THE SAME! Look at my sample files at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm#sampleimages S is just for what business people call “market segmentation” (extracting as much money from customers of different incomes as possible), it has NO other meaning. Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for that.

I way prefer the 24-200mm. Your preference may vary.

Ooooh, fun idea. Did you like that?

@@KenRockwellTV Definitely!

"S" is just BS; it has no real meaning. Look at my pictures from this lens, works AWESOME!!!! www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm#sampleimages

Always. Never had any problem selling my BASIC JPG images for thousands of dollars each. Thanks!

Presumably the best German expert for digital photography, Anders Uschold, also shoots and even tests in JPG; in this video (one in a very interesting series) he explains the advantages of shooting JPG and some disadvantages of shooting RAW: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nLx7n6letcvHYZc.html.

The zoom lock indicator is bright orange.

Thanks!

Anodised 7000 aluminium alloy is much harder than brass, it is stronger and wears less

Thanks!

Christmas ought to be a great time for deals, if you can afford to lose all the photos you can't take till you actually get it. Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV It's just a do it all lens, I use the camera now with manual lenses plus I have the Fuji xe2 and pro1 as well as the D610 and D850. I have G.A.S.

@@KenRockwellTV One more thing, JPEG-shoot it right the first time....

Thanks, but I try to do better for real photos www.kenrockwell.com/gallery.htm

@@KenRockwellTV do you think Nikon will design primes specifically for their crop sensor Zs?

I doubt it.

This is my favorite Z lens. Thanks!!

Thanks!

It’s all original work. Since I don’t watch anything or anyone else on KZfaq I won’t fall into the trap of making the same boring look-alike stuff everyone else does. Thanks!

The photo is done when the shutter closes. Thanks!

The Nikon Z 24-200mm VR is an optically stabilized lens. Details at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm Thanks!

Yes, makes same images most of the time. Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV Although... it can't hold a candle to my 85mm f1.4 G when set to 85mm. Guess I'll keep that "old" glass. if I know I'm going to shoot portraits then the 85 f1.4 G is my preference - it's a spectacular lens - especially when used with a big sensor. Terrible focal length for walking around but when 85mm is the field of view you need - it's amazing.

What name will you use; Rock or Roxanne or? Hee hee. You’re the best!

@@KenRockwellTV No, I'll name her Ken. Kenneth would just be cruel. 😉

They’ve been getting crappy ever since the series e of the 1970s. Been downhill ever since, even though the optics get better and better. Thanks!

@@KenRockwellTV - Ever since the 1970's? You've got to be kidding. One lens I was going to sell that I decided to keep is my Nikon 70-210 constant f/4. That lens is a very plain Jane lens, but it's otherwise a beast. Stellar optics, but you'd never know it unless you have a crappy lens to compare it to, which I do.

Z6 and Z7 are long since obsolete. They had awful autofocus and sold for more than the vastly superior II versions. Thanks!

It will. Thanks!

Zzzzzzzzz. Thanks!

Eh? Thanks!

This aged well