p.5 #1 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
EB-1 wrote:
I don't see the obsession with weight though. How much does your entire bag weigh and how much difference is a few hundred grams unless you are climbing a mountain?
EBH
Yep, that's me.
I put in about 150 days a year climbing and skiing in high mountains for work and also put in some long days on commercial jobs, the new 24-70 is really nice and light and the 70-200 will be a very welcome replacement to my 70-180 and 70-200 2.8 Z mount lenses in both use cases.
In this photo I am at just over 20,000' feet in the Himalaya with my Z7II, 24-70 2.8 V1 and the 70-180 was in my pack.
p.5 #2 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
I am someone who has never owned one of the top flight 70-200’s of any generation (the 80-200/4.5AI just didn’t count despite being a fine lens).
I did own the original v1 Tamron 70-180 in E mount and used it on adapter with my Z6. IQ was pleasant and it was nice and compact. I kept telling myself I would buy one of those or a Nikon version if it ever came out but other things have always stayed as a priority.
It would be hard for me to justify the spend on this vs a 70-180 since I don’t so it for a living, but Nikon has made a really solid improvement on a core system lens and I am glad to see it. There is a world where I strongly consider one of these at some point anyway and the extra weight savings and lack of needing a third party collar/foot is a win in my book.
p.5 #3 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
draacor wrote:
I would also have loved to see Nikon make a 70-200 f4. Its not the weight for me its strictly the compactness. When i travel abroad i like to be able to carry all my gear in a single bag that doesnt break my back. I use the 70-200 often for on the field portraits as well as landscapes. I also have my 100-400. Both hefty lenses. Its nice if i could shed some lbs and size.
The 70-180 has made a 70-200/4 a difficult sell. It would have to be considerably smaller than the 70-180 to eclipse the utility of the f/2.8. I don’t see them able to pull that off.
p.5 #4 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
CKrueger wrote:
The 70-180 has made a 70-200/4 a difficult sell. It would have to be considerably smaller than the 70-180 to eclipse the utility of the f/2.8. I don’t see them able to pull that off.
Indeed. As a former 70-200mm f4 owner, I personally never fell in love with the lens. Its size wasn't that much less than that of my 70-200mm f2.8 even if it was clearly lighter.
I personally find the 70-180mm f2.8 to be a better option.
p.5 #5 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
Cliff L. wrote:
Well, in the case of the Sony FE 70-200mm f2.8 GM II, it was certainly better than the first Nikon Z 70-200mm f2.8 VR S. Other lenses may be different.
..... I guess I've just spent a lot more time in the field with this gear, and I've learned what works and what doesn't. Not everybody has the same needs.
I love condescending comments like this Cliff, thank you very much. I think you have put me in my place and now I understand what I don't understand.
Please,... impart more wisdom of your experience with me, I will treasure it and repeat it over and over again.
I'm not sure what you have done in the past, as I couldn't access your website... but rest assured, I've been shooting for a very long time and I don't baby the gear I use...
p.5 #6 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
CKrueger wrote:
The 70-180 has made a 70-200/4 a difficult sell. It would have to be considerably smaller than the 70-180 to eclipse the utility of the f/2.8. I don’t see them able to pull that off.
Why not? Smaller aperture lenses are generally smaller and lighter. It could use VR also.
For example the 2021 Canon 70-200/4 is 31mm shorter and 100g lighter in weight than the Tamron-Nikkor and ~11% longer reach (~23% more MP) at 200mm. Surely Nikon with all their super duper modern tech could make an even smaller, lighter and better lens in 2026, 5 years later.
p.5 #7 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
bernardl wrote:
As a former 70-200mm f4 owner, I personally never fell in love with the lens. Its size wasn't that much less than that of my 70-200mm f2.8 even if it was clearly lighter.
I personally find the 70-180mm f2.8 to be a better option.
I guess you're referring to the AF-S ED 70-200/4G VR.
That lens has both internal zoom and internal focus. It has same size as other equivalent lenses (Canon EF-L 70-200/4 IS and Tamron 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD). The 70-180/2.8 isn't an internal zoom lens and therefore can be more compact, at the expense of lower mechanical stability. I am not sure its image quality is as good. I have read conflicting opinions.
My 70-200/4G still works like it did on the first day, after 13 years of use. I have reason to believe that it will continue to work for many years to come.
The 70-200/2.8 FL is a couple cm longer and 1 cm wider (and weighs about 600 grams more!). Differently from my 70-200/4, it doesn't fit (too long) the shoulder bag I use on travels. Therefore, from a practical point of view, it's too bulky (and heavy) for me.
P.S.: an even better alternative to the 70-200/4G is the Tamron 70-180 G2.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I love comments like this... It fits in line with those comments that Nikon is dying, they can't compete...
Hi Bruce,
I am not sure Cliff meant to say that Nikon is dying or can't compete.
He thinks that the Sony GM II is better than the 1st version of the Z 70-200/2.8 S.
It's a legitimate opinion, and we can disagree.
I have no experience with any of those f/2.8 zooms, but I feel that both are top quality professional tools.
It is quite normal to prefer one over the other based on one's own needs or sensibilities.
p.5 #8 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
Hi Bruce,
I am not sure Cliff meant to say that Nikon is dying or can't compete.
He thinks that the Sony GM II is better than the 1st version of the Z 70-200/2.8 S.
It's a legitimate opinion, and we can disagree.
I have no experience with any of those f/2.8 zooms, but I feel that both are top quality professional tools.
It is quite normal to prefer one over the other based on one's own needs or sensibilities.
At this exchange, I can't argue with the question of which lens is better or worse, however to the point of my comment, it was in reference to Arca-Swiss/dovetail foot on the new lens. The statement was made earlier that Nikon included a warning that all clasp release systems may not be 100% secure with the new foot. The statement was made... again... deriding Nikon for not making a good idea a perfect one. As for my comment, it was linked to the idea that I couldn't possible have the experience that Cliff has had. I find this condescending, I think my contributions of images throughout the coldest periods of MN, Iceland, Japan and the hottest places like deserts and tropical Costa Rica might suggest that I've actually had to deal with the shortcomings of gear throughout my nearly 40 years of taking pictures in nature.
As for which lens is better... Sony, Nikon, Canon, Leica, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji, Hasselblad... I really could care less. My excitement/questions about this new lens from Nikon relates to the improved AF speed and algorithms that make it lock on target. I've had the 70-200 f2.8 Vi, and it was plenty good... even with the 1.4x; with the 2x it was unimpressive and was why I sold it for the 100-400.
I guess in my mind... If Sony's 70-200 vII was better than Nikon's vI, that's to be expected. Furthermore, if Sony's vII is better than Nikon's vII, I'm good with that too. I don't use Sony cameras and I don't like how they fell in my hands, so Sony's ecosystem is of no interest to me. However, this is a Nikon thread about a new NIkon lens... not a thread about who makes the best 70-200...
p.5 #9 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
EB-1 wrote:
Unfortunately the 70-200/4 Z Nikkor is missing in action. That's the only 70-200 Nikkor I'd buy.
I agree with you although the chances of such an offering is slim. Am currently managing this zoom range with F-mount 70-200/4G, and 70-200/2.8E for low light only. For manual focus I also use the killer nFD 80-200/4L (yup, fluorite). No question the new Nikkor looks chock full of high tech—pretty.
p.5 #10 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
rico wrote:
I agree with you although the chances of such an offering is slim.
You're probably right. However, it's a shame that Nikon has a trio of non-S f/2.8 zooms (the Tamrikons), a trio of f/2.8 S zooms, and a half-baked trio of f/4 S zooms (14-30; 24-70 & 24-120). The 24-120 is an “all-rounder,” so I would consider it a lens in its own right, not part of a trio consisting of a wide-angle zoom, a standard zoom, and a telephoto zoom.
p.5 #11 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
i've had the Sony 70-200/2.8 II when i had a brief fling with Sony (i ultimately sold them all because i couldn't get used to the ergonomics of their cameras even with the improvements of the A7IV)
the Nikon 70-200/2.8 Z is actually sharper than the Sony 70-200/2.8 II on some areas during my tests (and vice-versa) but you have to zoom 300% ..which in all practical purposes they're basically the same in terms of sharpness.
The Sony is lighter though and at least I could feel the difference...this is why I'm looking forward to the 70-200 Z II because on paper it's about the same weight as the Sony. I prefer the Sony hood design tho.
p.5 #12 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
Ripolini wrote:
You're probably right. However, it's a shame that Nikon has a trio of non-S f/2.8 zooms (the Tamrikons), a trio of f/2.8 S zooms, and a half-baked trio of f/4 S zooms (14-30; 24-70 & 24-120). The 24-120 is an “all-rounder,” so I would consider it a lens in its own right, not part of a trio consisting of a wide-angle zoom, a standard zoom, and a telephoto zoom.
I agree, a good 70-200 f4 like Canon's would be great. That lens is a tank. Someone can sa the 70-180 covers that but it really doesnt. Its not as weather sealed, doesnt have the same coatings, and doesnt go to 200.
p.5 #14 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
draacor wrote:
Someone can sa the 70-180 covers that but it really doesnt. Its not as weather sealed, doesnt have the same coatings, and doesnt go to 200.
Not that I go swimming with my zooms but having weather resistance is a good thing. The Nikkors 70-200 G, E, and Z models are internal focus, internal zoom, so far less chance of ingress by water and dust. Less compact than the Canon R but that's the world of trade-offs. I am a bit torn on the collapsing feature since I adore the so-called kit Z 24-70/4S and it does fit better when collapsed into my bag.
p.5 #15 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
draacor wrote:
I agree, a good 70-200 f4 like Canon's would be great. That lens is a tank. Someone can sa the 70-180 covers that but it really doesnt. Its not as weather sealed, doesnt have the same coatings, and doesnt go to 200.
Well the 70-200 f4's role in the line up was being the cheaper, lighter, constant aperture alternative to the 70-200 f2.8 for under $1.5k. The 70-180 also fulfils the same role as the cheaper, lighter, constant aperture alternative to the 70-200 f2.8 for under $1.5k.
p.5 #16 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
I'm wondering when/if Nikon (and Sony) release the lighter version of 100-400. Sony already started the rumors, but no date yet. Nikon may follow. Anyone else want lighter travel wildlife lens?
p.5 #17 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
unchecked wrote:
Well the 70-200 f4's role in the line up was being the cheaper, lighter, constant aperture alternative to the 70-200 f2.8 for under $1.5k. The 70-180 also fulfils the same role as the cheaper, lighter, constant aperture alternative to the 70-200 f2.8 for under $1.5k.
I bet the Nikon Z 70-200/4 S zoom people wish is an S lens (higher overall quality, including better performance with TCs) and, last but not least, with VR.
For those who want a compact 70-180/2.8 that is more economical than the 70-200/2.8 S (v1 or v2), the Tamron Z 70-180/2.8 Di III VC VX D G2 (uh!) could be more appealing as it is slightly better optically than previous version, and equipped with a stabilizer. The Tamron G2 also has the same price as the Nikon Z 70-180. Why buy the Nikon? To use TCs to produce mediocre images ("Can use teleconverters – albeit at clear loss of sharpness": source: https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-70-180mm-f2-8-review/4/)?
Therefore, I believe there is room in Nikon's lineup for a semi-pro, lightweight, high-quality 70-200/4 S VR lens that can work with at least the 1.4X TC with minimal loss of sharpness.The 70-180/2.8 lenses mentioned above are priced at around 1000-1100 € (in UE). Such a 70-200/4 S VR lens could cost 60-70% more if it delivers on its promises (higher build and optical quality, very good performance with TCs).
p.5 #18 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
Ripolini wrote:
I bet the Nikon Z 70-200/4 S zoom people wish is an S lens (higher overall quality, including better performance with TCs) and, last but not least, with VR.
For those who want a compact 70-180/2.8 that is more economical than the 70-200/2.8 S (v1 or v2), the Tamron Z 70-180/2.8 Di III VC VX D G2 (uh!) could be more appealing as it is slightly better optically than previous version, and equipped with a stabilizer. The Tamron G2 also has the same price as the Nikon Z 70-180. Why buy the Nikon? To use TCs to produce mediocre images ("Can use teleconverters – albeit at clear loss of sharpness": source: https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-70-180mm-f2-8-review/4/)?
Therefore, I believe there is room in Nikon's lineup for a semi-pro, lightweight, high-quality 70-200/4 S VR lens that can work with at least the 1.4X TC with minimal loss of sharpness.The 70-180/2.8 lenses mentioned above are priced at around 1000-1100 € (in UE). Such a 70-200/4 S VR lens could cost 60-70% more if it delivers on its promises (higher build and optical quality, very good performance with TCs)....Show more →
I think many people would like a compact 70-200/4 but while Nikon's previous implementation was in many ways nice, it had some flaws. The FL f/2.8 version was clearly its superior optically and all the f/2.8 70-200's autofocused better than the f/4 version, this limited the applications where the f/4 version was the right choice. I did enjoy using it for studio portraits where the lighter weight made working hours at awkward positions easier.
I think what many people would want is smaller size, lower weight for the kind of applications where having a light bag is useful and important, but still the lens would need to have really good image quality. This would certainly be possible but the risk is that Nikon would want to leave a gap in the image quality and autofocus speed between f/4 and f/2.8 versions to make the f/2.8 version (which now is very expensive) more attractive and to justify the high price. Given that there is an f/2.8 Tamron/Nikon version also, that is less expensive, I suspect Nikon will stick to two f/2.8 options instead. This is neither a good or bad thing, it's their choice how they want their product lineup to be. I have this suspicion that the f/2.8 versions will always have an autofocus advantage over possible f/4 versions.
Canon do have a very very compact f/4 version in addition to two f/2.8 versions. But they have way bigger market share than Nikon so they can afford more options.
p.5 #19 · NIKON Z 70–200mm f/2.8 VR S II Released
Ripolini wrote:
I bet the Nikon Z 70-200/4 S zoom people wish is an S lens (higher overall quality, including better performance with TCs) and, last but not least, with VR.
For those who want a compact 70-180/2.8 that is more economical than the 70-200/2.8 S (v1 or v2), the Tamron Z 70-180/2.8 Di III VC VX D G2 (uh!) could be more appealing as it is slightly better optically than previous version, and equipped with a stabilizer. The Tamron G2 also has the same price as the Nikon Z 70-180. Why buy the Nikon? To use TCs to produce mediocre images ("Can use teleconverters – albeit at clear loss of sharpness": source: https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-70-180mm-f2-8-review/4/)?
Therefore, I believe there is room in Nikon's lineup for a semi-pro, lightweight, high-quality 70-200/4 S VR lens that can work with at least the 1.4X TC with minimal loss of sharpness.The 70-180/2.8 lenses mentioned above are priced at around 1000-1100 € (in UE). Such a 70-200/4 S VR lens could cost 60-70% more if it delivers on its promises (higher build and optical quality, very good performance with TCs)....Show more →
I don't know if there's much room left for that middle lens when there are cheaper, faster lenses sitting under it. A 70-200 f4 made sense for someone who don't have the money to get the 70-200 f2.8. In a world where both the 70-180 and the Tamron G2 exists and now with a potential discounted version 1 (which is plenty good itself), people who would have otherwise gotten the 70-200 f4 would already have gotten any of those lenses. Whatever's left of the potential buying universe is going to be really small and really specific, that it must start at 70, end at 200, and must be f4 throughout.
