I was always reluctant to buy or even try this lens after reading it's a rehoused Tamron 70-180. I came across a used deal and finally gave it a shot.
As I couldn't find any official thread on this lens, I am sharing my first impressions in this new thread.
Pros -
Sharpness wide open
Microcontrast
Minimum Focus Distance
Size
Weight
Average -
AF though fast enough is not a rapid fire
Cons -
Below average bokeh for anything other than head shot or half body shots.
This lens is great option for anyone who doesn't shoot birds, animals or humans.
When it comes to flowers, insects, landscape, cityscape this lens is as good as Z 24-120 F4 in Nikon family. Both share many similarities, both prime like sharp with amazing closeup performance but leave bit to desire in defocussed areas. Key to like this lens is to fill the frame and avoid anything environmental.
If you already have a 85 or 135 for portrait needs, this budget 70-180 is a great addition.
An FM fellow published a thorough review of the Z 70-180 here: https://admiringlight.com/blog/review-nikon-nikkor-z-70-180mm-f-2-8/
About "amazing closeup performance", he reported that - even when the lens is stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 - the outer 50% of the frame is still very blurry. This is the typical performance of lenses that weren't designed for close-up photography, but forced to get there (i.e., by adding extension tubes or close-up attachment filters).
Landscape photographer Mike Prince didn't like the Z 70-180 and wrote: "I’ve rarely disliked a lens quite this quickly and it took only a morning to formulate that view. By the end of the week, I’d sold it. " (here: https://www.mikeprince.org/blog/nikon-z-70-180mm-f28-lens-review).
In short, I marvel at the most disparate comments I read about this lens so much so that I wonder if there is a remarkable sample variation, or if some testers are less demanding than others. Whatever the reason, I still use my AF-S ED 70-200/4G VR, despite the inconvenience of the FTZ.
Outstanding wrote:
This lens is great option for anyone who doesn't shoot birds, animals or humans.
Hm I disagree with the "..animals or humans" bit.
I've used this lens to take pictures of a friend's dogs and my sisters cats and have no complaints about the results. The AF is fast enough for running dogs, it's plenty sharp at f2.8 (though I mostly used f3.2) and never encountered an issue with the bokeh either.. so I can't see why exactly it would not be a good option for someone shooting animals or humans
I think for most people this lens makes much more sense than the 70-200mm. As amazing as the 70-200mm is, the price you pay in money, size and weight won't really show a lot of the time.
Ripolini wrote:
An FM fellow published a thorough review of the Z 70-180 here: https://admiringlight.com/blog/review-nikon-nikkor-z-70-180mm-f-2-8/
About "amazing closeup performance", he reported that - even when the lens is stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 - the outer 50% of the frame is still very blurry. This is the typical performance of lenses that weren't designed for close-up photography, but forced to get there (i.e., by adding extension tubes or close-up attachment filters).
Landscape photographer Mike Prince didn't like the Z 70-180 and wrote: "I’ve rarely disliked a lens quite this quickly and it took only a morning to formulate that view. By the end of the week, I’d sold it. " (here: https://www.mikeprince.org/blog/nikon-z-70-180mm-f28-lens-review).
In short, I marvel at the most disparate comments I read about this lens so much so that I wonder if there is a remarkable sample variation, or if some testers are less demanding than others. Whatever the reason, I still use my AF-S ED 70-200/4G VR, despite the inconvenience of the FTZ....Show more →
Thom is pretty positive about the 70-180 in his review, but does note a few things that make the 70-200S stand out.
The 70-180mm f/2.8 should make everyone look a bit more questioningly at our 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S lenses. Yes, the latter is clearly better optically wide open and outside the central area, plus it has in-lens VR. But it just looks big and heavy in my safari bag compared to the 70-180mm f/2.8. Moreover, the 1:2 capability of the 70-180mm f/2.8 opens up potential new uses (though not without limitations). Simply put, the 70-180mm f/2.8 travels more friendly without making any deal-killing compromise.
But compromise it does. If corners need to be tight and controlled, particularly wide open and closer up, the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S is the right option. If you need the best possible image stabilization, again the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S is the right option. But absent that, most folk should be happy with the 70-180mm f/2.8, as will their bank account....Show more →
I got the 70-200S before the 70-180 existed. For my (mostly non-professional) uses, I'd rather have the 70-180 but I don't think it's worth it to take the financial hit to switch lenses. The 70-200S is outstanding though and gives me some beautiful images when I use it.
I think the 70-180 is a great buy. It is sharp. The bokeh is ok. It might not be as good optically as the 70-200 but it really makes up for it in price and almost more importantly size and weight.
My old 70-200 VR2 was really taking a toll on me in the long hot summer days during wedding season, and the newest 70-200 Z mount isn't much lighter. The 70-180 is so much nicer to carry all day.
