Day out with 24-200mm lens

[billtils]

I'm now reluctantly facing at least some age-related realities (it was my 81st birthday a couple of days ago) and I traded most of my heavier lenses for a Nikon 24-200 lens. The ones that went included my all-time favourite, the 300PF prime but much and all as I loved it, facing reality moved it up to the top of the list - I hope whoever buys it treats it well and enjoys it as much as I did. I kept the Z24-70S kit lens and the Z105S macro/portrait ones.

The relatively recent Z24-200 seemed a good candidate as a lightweight do all for most of what I want, with reviews that ranged from "Must buy" to "Not the best but OK as a general purpose lens", and a break in the recent bad weather was enough to take me out and about.

Here are a few examples that I think verify the reviews (basically good enough). All are hand held, manual shutter and aperture, auto ISO, centre weighted metering, spot focusing.


Three not so little pigs (110mm, f/7.1, 1/60s, ISO 280)







Falls of Bruar (42mm, f/11, 1/125s, ISO 125)







Misty Morning at Loch Faskally (69mm, f/10, 1/100s, ISO 100)

[Chataignier]

Mmm, real pigs, lots of flavour.
Nice landscapes too.

[Manfred M]

I bought a 28-300mm lens in 2018 to use as my travel lens in order to cut the bulk and weight when I travel.

I did test it against my "pro" lenses and in a perfect world (use of a heavy duty tripod on a relatively windless day) and if I pixel peep, no it is not as sharp as the pro lenses. But no one can tell, especially if we downsize the image for posting on the web.

I have two large (3ft x 4ft) prints taken with that lens hanging in my living room. When they were on display at a local gallery, a number of people commented on how sharp my work was. Sharpness usually has more to do with how the shot is handled in post than any inherent lens sharpness.

Enjoy your new lens! As you have shown, it lets you get out and take some good shots.

[billtils]

Thanks David and Manfred.

Here's a slightly different shot of the same place taken last June with the 24-70S, 68mm, f/10, 1/125s, ISO 200

[mugge]

Enjoy your new lens. I, however, have just turned 75 and have just purchased a hefty Sony 70-200 2.8. Very heavy to log about but I love this lens. I am currently using it as a street lens. I have it set it at f4 and iso on auto.

I like the compressed look that this setting gives me. But it is heavy and after four or five hours my back hurts. Still!
Cheers Ole

[billtils]

G'day Ollie

You're still just a stripling laddie - wait for a couple of years and then see how you feel . (At least you'll have something worth trading in).

Out of interest, I've not ever done anything that could be classified as "Street" but the subject of one of my club's competitions will be Street for the coming season (it's chosen by random draw and was added this season), but speaking to one of the members who does a lot was told an unobtrusive lens is best ...

[mugge]

G'day Ollie

You're still just a stripling laddie - wait for a couple of years and then see how you feel . (At least you'll have something worth trading in).

Out of interest, I've not ever done anything that could be classified as "Street" but the subject of one of my club's competitions will be Street for the coming season (it's chosen by random draw and was added this season), but speaking to one of the members who does a lot was told an unobtrusive lens is best ...

I am quite aware of that. Try using a 200mm lens for street phtography. Find a foreground like a person on a bike for example and then have the background these huge buildings.

An unobtrusive lens is fine and normal for a street photographer. Try something else also. Mix it up a bit, that is the fun of photography. In other words break the mould of the common street photogapher with his 35mm lens.

[William W]

Hello Bill,

I love that you bought a zoom with a sensationally wide compass. Enjoy it.

"Misty Morning at Loch Faskally" creates a mood for me, very nice.

Unsolicited advice: please don't become complacent and replace first finding the best Camera View Point with standing still and "zooming".

***

. . . but speaking to one of the members who does a lot [of street photography] was told an unobtrusive lens is best ...

Disagree with your club mate.

It's not really the lens which needs to unobtrusive: it's the photographer who needs to not appear intrusive.

WW

[billtils]

An unobtrusive lens is fine and normal for a street photographer. Try something else also. Mix it up a bit, that is the fun of photography. In other words break the mould of the common street photogapher with his 35mm lens.

Thanks for the advice Ole, the 24-200 is about the same size as the 24-70 and reasonably unobtrusive. Looking forward to some fun shots

[billtils]

Hello Bill,

I love that you bought a zoom with a sensationally wide compass. Enjoy it.

"Misty Morning at Loch Faskally" creates a mood for me, very nice.

Unsolicited advice: please don't become complacent and replace first finding the best Camera View Point with standing still and "zooming".

***



Disagree with your club mate.

It's not really the lens which needs to unobtrusive: it's the photographer who needs to not appear intrusive.

WW

[billtils]

Thanks Bill. I've always had at least one prime in my bag and am reasonably used to searching for the best viewpoint (sometimes referred to as " foot zoom") so am reasonably confident about avoiding "zoom laziness", and your point about "unobtrusive" is noted.

[Manfred M]

Disagree with your club mate.

It's not really the lens which needs to unobtrusive: it's the photographer who needs to not appear intrusive.

WW

I agree 100% Bill. A lot of street photographers that I know prefer focal lengths between 35mm and 50mm. The main advantage of shorter focal lengths is that the photographer can get close to their subject and not worry too much about someone walking in front of them. The downside of a shorter focal length lens is its perspective; the backgrounds tend to be quite busy.

I look at things in a similar light to the highly regarded British street photographer, Martin Parr. He moved from a full frame DSLR to a full-frame mirrorless camera and often uses a 70 - 200mm lens in his street work. The upside is that longer focal lengths let the photographer isolate their subject better. The downside is that one can miss a significant number of shots due to people walking between the camera and the subject.

As for being unobtrusive, I call that "hiding in plain sight". If you spend enough time in an area doing street photography, you become part of the background and your potential subjects don't notice that you are there.

[Sportback]

Hello from France

I've been reading the op with interest as I will be spending a couple of weeks later this year....in Scotland! To this end, I found a 24-200 which I've been trying over the last couple of weeks, and I must say I'm pretty impressed.

OK, so it's not a 24-70 f/2.8 but it's radically smaller and lighter and my 'holiday' kit can now be reduced to two lenses (this and the 14-30 which I love dearly) which will make it a lot easier on my shoulder!

I'll post some images when A: I have some, and B: I found out how to...

Ian

[pnodrog]

I have z 24-200mm lense for sale... Yes it's a bit sharper and lighter than my old 28-300mm with FTZ adapter but as a general walk about I prefer the range the 28-300mm gives me. Nikon have just release a z 28-400mm lense that is lighter, sharper, longer and unfortunately slower than the 28-300mm but even so it's off to the shops I will go...

[billtils]

Are you suffering from GAS?

But seriously it looks to be a nice lens to have if only I hadn't just bought the 24-200 ...

[pnodrog]

Are you suffering from GAS?

But seriously it looks to be a nice lens to have if only I hadn't just bought the 24-200 ...

Yes, at the moment I may well be suffering from GAS. After about 40 years of nikon F mount I am converting to Z mount and trying to settle on a set up that is in harmony with my aging body. I have failed to do it with my golf gear but I am making a desperate effort to do so with my photographic equipment. After all I have been told I can't take my money with me when I depart. Not a wise comment to make to me....

[Sportback]

I'm not so sure....the 400 end seems a bit long for a 'travel' lens (in that I personally would have difficulty keeping it from moving...)

The 24-200 (and I speak for myself) is a far better bet in terms of compactness and quality AND a slightly wider aperture - although with post prod and hi-ISO corrections being so effective nowadays, I suppose this is less of a concern in reality.

[Manfred M]

Enjoy Paul.

I've been shooting with the F-mount 28 - 300mm lens (which is not renowned for being the fastest or sharpest lens on the planet), but running around with the very long in the tooth D810, I have still won lots of kudos (awards) with that combination. I have done some large prints (36" x 44" / 91cm x 112cm) prints that people keep asking me about how I got them so sharp. These are hand-held shots too.

Answer - good camera technique and strong post-processing skills. The perceived "sharpness" of an image is largely independent of the lens used and frankly pretty well any modern lens will get you amazingly sharp images (if you know what you are doing...).

I'm looking at heading in the opposite direction. Most of my work these days end up in large format prints, so I am waiting for Fujifilm to release the replacement for the GFX100s ii. There is a pretty good chance that I will end up going medium format as most of my shooting these days is in the studio or on location. The image quality from the GFX 100s is amazing and when I look at the images from the GFX 100ii that was released last year, with a newer sensor and faster processor, I have no doubt that these images are going to be great. I expect I will have to replace my computer as well. It is pushing 9 years old and working with 102MP files may bring it to its knees. I have the money set aside for both the camera and computer. The camera is rumoured to be announced in less than a month.

I plan to keep shooting with the D810 and 28-300mm lens while travelling as a single full-frame camera body and single zoom lens has worked out quite well. Once the body dies, I suspect I will move over to a Nikon Z like you have, but likely with an adaptor and the F-mount lenses I already own.

[pnodrog]

Manfred like you I have done very well with plenty of images taken with a Nikkor 28-300mm (mainly on a D800).

A lot of photographers forget or are unaware that upto about A3 size or on a 4k screen they will have great difficulty in telling the difference between the 28-300mm and say an expensive f2.8 70-200mm lens. As a photographer I am sometimes aware of some minor differences that the lenses would have but those viewing a photograph are judging its impact and overall interest. If they like a photo, they like it without pixel peeping. If you can shoot at f5.6 or f8 for photographs that are not going to printed larger than about A3 then hugely expensive and heavy lenses simply aren't needed.

Another story if you do need a fast lens due to lighting or for aesthetic reasons but very seldom is their superior image quality of any particular benefit. Fast expensive lenses certainly do not make an unskilled photographers images any better.

[Manfred M]

Another story if you do need a fast lens due to lighting or for aesthetic reasons but very seldom is their superior image quality of any particular benefit. Fast expensive lenses certainly do not make an unskilled photographers images any better.

Agreed! The main reason I have fast, pro lenses is to shoot them (close to) wide open and use shallow depth of field for creative reasons. Their wider maximum aperture also allows for more light gathering, so I can use a lower ISO setting, which gives better dynamic range, image bit depth and signal to noise ratio (i.e. less digital noise).

To see image quality differences, requires pixel peeping. As most photographers who share their work online use small (usually in the order of 1920 pixels wide x 1080 pixels high), 8-bit JPEGS, they throw away most of the data that their cameras have recorded.

I generally make large prints (A2 / 16" x 20") prints, and even there the only way we can tell the difference is to look at the images very closely. If I have an identically sized image made under "good" conditions with a high end lens and the 28-300mm lens, a skilled and trained observer can see the difference. If the image stands alone, not really.