honestly i am so over carrying a giant bag of glass everywhere i go. it is exhausting and i feel like i miss half the shots because im busy fumbling with rear caps and trying not to get dust on the sensor. my logic was that having a bunch of primes would make me a better photographer or give me that pro look but honestly? it just makes me annoyed and i end up leaving the camera at home half the time because i dont want to deal with the bulk.
i was thinking about just getting one single do it all lens for my Z6ii and calling it a day. i have this hiking trip to the scottish highlands coming up in three weeks and i really dont want to be changing lenses in the rain or wind while my partner waits for me to catch up. i looked at the 24-200mm but im worried the aperture is gonna be too slow for those moody low light shots in the glens or inside old buildings. then i thought about the 24-120mm f/4 S which everyone raves about but is it really enough reach for landscape stuff?
my budget is topped out at like 1200 bucks max so i cant go crazy with the f/2.8 zooms. i just want something that stays on the camera 90% of the time and doesnt make me regret leaving the house. what is actually the best all-arounder that wont make me feel like im compromising too much on quality? i'm just so done with the gear shuffle...
Unfortunately, the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR is a disappointment once the light fades. It gets slow way too fast, making those moody shots a noisy mess. I had issues with it even in overcast weather tbh. Since there isnt a fast superzoom in your budget, maybe the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 works for the light, but you definitely lose that reach...
> i looked at the 24-200mm but im worried the aperture is gonna be too slow i brought the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S on a rainy trek last year and it basically never left my camera. the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR is okay for bright days, but that f/6.3 is risky when light drops in the glens. the 24-120 is sharper and having that constant f/4 is just safer for moody weather. its the most reliable pick for your budget.
Helpful thread 👍
Unfortunately, the superzooms like the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR are kind of a letdown once you're under heavy clouds. I tried taking mine into a deep valley once and honestly the results were just mushy since I had to crank the ISO to 6400 just to get a decent shutter speed at f/6.3. It is frustrating when MTF charts look okay on paper but the real-world micro-contrast just isnt there in the shadows. For your Scotland trip, you really need the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S. Here is why it beats the reach trade-off:
- Constant f/4 means you arent fighting your exposure settings every time you zoom.
- S-line coating handles flare from wet surfaces way better.
- Weather sealing is miles ahead for that Highland mist. Reach at 120mm on a Z6ii sensor still gives you cropping room compared to the soft edges youd get at 200mm. It is just more reliable when the weather turns on you.
