I lucked out a couple of weeks ago and found a 24-200mm on eBay from a US dealer purchasing it. Of course I found a second-hand copy five minutes later from another trusted seller for a hundred less, but oh, well. The prelim impressions I've read elsewhere seemed favorable so I figured that even if the lens was a dud for me, eBay would come to the rescue.
Though I have some stellar lenses to shoot with my Z 6, I need something for travel since I'm getting older and more lazy combined with ever restrictive baggage standards when flying opens up again. In addition, I'm a long-time user of all-in-one lenses, some were good, others better. a few not so good. On full-frame, it was the latter that seemed the rule. My few years shooting m43 cameras, the all-in-ones were quite good IMO and the image quality was quite good. The main complaint I had working with m43 were that low-light, the images were not quite there and processing the files took a lot of work.
Shooting Nikon digital for nearly 20 years, it was time to return to files that gushed quality now that they had both mirrorless, smaller bodies and work-horse lenses that fit my style and the ability to transition from my existing lens collection as the gaps are filled with Z replacements.
For my D800 bodies, my lens of choice is a 24-120. Not a highly-rated lens but with good craft, it covers most of my needs except ultra wide. I tried a 28-300 and though it was similar in range to a 14-150 on my m43, it was simply too large and heavy to lug around and try to shoot hand-held to me. Otherwise, it's not a bad lens for an all-in-one. A 14-150 on an m43 is a very hand-holdable lens for me though a tripod is the best way no matter what the lens.
I would have continued with the m43 and had my eyes on that Oly 12-100, but after a fall that destroyed one body (and blew out my knee) and having another body fail a few months later with other m43 body failures along the way, combined with the realization that better tools were available, it was time to upgrade back to Nikon.
The size and weight of the 24-200mm seems about right for me and my style of work in the field which is akin to a run-and-gun approach. The speed of the lens is one little quibble. However, on the Z 6, it's still a useable range and reasonable compromise in keeping the size and weight quite reasonable.
I've only been out a couple times with the combo due to the pandemic. When I'm out, I shoot a second Z 6 with usually a 14-30 (less flare and weight than my 14-24) and now have what seems to me a perfect pairing for my next journey. The 24-200 will replace my 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 for walk-around and travel where size/weight/portability are a major factor.
Regarding image quality, this lens in quite competent. It covers a fairly useful range and with 24 mp on the Z 6, it's hard for me to find too many issues when the ink hits the paper. I've used it at each end and in the middle and images are totally fine. I've tried it wide open and stopping it down (with diffraction control enabled) and the images are fine, other than the usual sensor dust issues once the lens is stopped to f/11 or smaller.
Perhaps on a Z 7 any warts with the 24-200mm would be apparent, but on a Z 6, it's hard to find much wrong. Perhaps if I valued numbers and pixel peeping, I wouldn't like it but my criteria is more pragmatic than theoretical and analytical.
Here are a few images shot with it and a few of the details:
Pond grass-130mm f/13. Highway-200mm f/9.5. Cemetery-34mm f/8. Old store: 160mm f/6.7.
As my editor would state (this lens) meets the mark of adequacy and I might add, does a pretty good job for what it is. If this is a lens one desires, I can recommend that it's worth trying to find one and get it, but be patient!