Rodney Campbell's Blog

Mystic

Time for the 6 stop Lee LittleStopper to drag out the shutter with the waves still crashing over the rocky shoreline

These slick rounded boulders providing some interesting foreground interest to peek out of the “mist”

Stranded

Getting the feet wet for this vertical composition with the waves rushing around

Morning Rush

Some great wave wash over the nice black rocks along the shoreline… Now to just time things right…

This is looking north along the coastline towards Tweed Heads way over in the distance on the right

Note: These photographs (especially the wider shots) look much better when larger. To see larger versions in an inline overlay slideshow gallery viewer click any of the images.

Peaked

A single attempt at a long exposure from the rocky shoreline looking towards the Fingal Head causeway and Cook Island in the distance

Note: These photographs (especially the wider shots) look much better when larger. To see larger versions in an inline overlay slideshow gallery viewer click any of the images.

A reader was interested in the performance of the new compact all-in-one Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR lens from the perspective of a landscape photographer. He was particularly interested in how it might stack up to say a 70-200/2.8 when compared @ 200mm

So herein lies some sample images taken of a distant cityscape scene (it has nice sharp lines to compare)

I’ve tested three lenses:

• The Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR – 570g & 77x114mm
• The Nikon AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR – 800g & 83x115mm
• The Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II – 1530g & 87x206mm

All shooting the same scene using a Nikon Z7 body on a tripod and using a remote shutter release. All three were compared @ 200mm at f/8 and focused on the same area in the midground tree’s

Nikon Z 24-200 @ 200

Nikon F 28-300 @ 200

Nikon F 70-200 @ 200

Note: These photographs (especially the wider shots) look much better when larger. To see larger versions in an inline overlay slideshow gallery viewer click any of the images.

I’ve also included a shot below with the 28-300 set to 300mm. To show the extra “reach” you might get with the 28-300 when shooting subjects near infinity. I already covered the massive difference induced by focal breathing when shooting closer subjects with this lens in another post: Testing Nikon 28-300 @ 300mm Vs the Nikon Z 24-200 @ 200mm – Focus Breathing. In short the 24-200 @ 200mm has a greater “reach” than the 28-300 for closer subjects

Nikon F 28-300 @ 300

When looking at the full size images it’s hard to see a lot of difference between the three lenses @ 200mm

So we’ll have to dig deeper for any apparent differences for landscape work. What follows are some 100% crops of two areas of the image for comparison

The first trio are on the buildings towards the centre of the frame. The second set are on the trees in the far bottom left corner of the frame

Looking at the centre shots full size on my monitor there isn’t a whole lot in it. The differences are pretty subtle and very much pixel peeping. The 24-200 and 70-200 are a little sharper than the 28-300 – e.g. when looking at the lettering on the building. If anything the 24-200 is perhaps even the tiniest bit sharper than the 70-200

Nikon Z 24-200 @ 200

Nikon F 28-300 @ 200

Nikon F 70-200 @ 200

The 100% crops from the extreme corner however tells a different story. There the 28-300 is well behind. The 24-200 and 70-200 are closer together but the 70-200 wins this round with the sharpest corners

It seriously would want to however… the 70-200 is a pro f/2.8 lens being stopped down 3 whole stops to f/8 vs the 24-200 only being stopped down from f/6.3 to f/8. It’s almost three times the price and also three times the weight

Nikon Z 24-200 @ 200

Nikon F 28-300 @ 200

Nikon F 70-200 @ 200

In the end I’d say I’d be more than happy to use the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR for (longer focal length) landscape work. It’s not quite as composed at the 70-200 in the extreme corners but it definitely holds up very well

It gives me the convenience of the 24-200mm focal range all in one small and light package. Especially when compared to the 24-70 + 70-200 combo (570g vs 2430g – not even including the FTZ )