Though I already have the Z-mount 70-200mm f/2.8 S, I decided to get this lens. It’s serves primarily as a lighter and more compact telephoto zoom lens that Nikon still has not made … a Z-mount Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 or 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6.
I have used the F-mount Nikkor 70-200mm f/4.0G and 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E with an FTZ for some years. But the FTZ makes both these F-mount zooms longer and heavier. When these F-mount zooms are used with an FTZ, the Nikon/Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 is still a shorter and lighter zoom. That it is also an f/2.8 zoom and sharper than both F-mount zooms explains why I finally decided to get this.
I paid $1400 for the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4.0G VR and got the 70-180mm f/2.8 at $1,047 so the 70-180mm f/2.8 cost even less. Being one-stop brighter as well as being slightly sharper at the same aperture setting, this Nikon / Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 has found a niche in my bag.
The lack of a VR does not adversely impact my use of this lens with a Z6. That becomes even less of a concern when I use it with the much-improved IBIS and AF of my Z6 III. If I have one complaint about this lens, it would be the fit and finish of the hood and its mount which makes mounting and removal of the hood a less than straight-forward twist to lock.
I am no longer looking forward to a Z-mount Nikkor 70-200mm f/4.0 unless Nikon makes that more compact, lighter with better optics than this 70-180mm f/2.8. I will however take a serious look when Nikon finally releases a Z-mount 70-300mm.
Philip
December 3, 2024 5:22 pm
One important point that wasn’t mentioned is that this lens has near macro ability with a 1:48 ability where the 70-200 2.8 is 1:2
Martin
September 21, 2024 6:46 pm
At the risk of diverging: has someone tried to adapt the Sony E mount Tamron 70-180 G2 to Z mount to check how it performs?
I am interested as I have good results doing it with a Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN and like the refined optics and handling of the G2 vs. the G1 version from Tamron/ Nikon’s version.
I use the Megadap ETZ21 Pro to adapt E mount lenses.
I have indeed done this. There is stabe on that lens and I find the Z8s stab does not sync with it. I have to turn off in camera stabe to get pics that I would consider OK for that lens. If you are tracking fast moving subjects coming at you this lens will NOT work well period. Better off with the gen 1 lens. I have both and the gen 1 works better in most situations.
Robert John
August 26, 2024 5:37 am
This lens is slighter lighter than the F-mount 70-200/f4. Good going.
Wondering if it could replace that lens – which I think has very good IQ and AF – and add a bit of the feel of a 135/f1.8?
I’ve never used a 70-200/f2.8, which is why I don’t know whether the f2.8 makes a significant difference from f4. I have found backgrounds to my f4 to be a bit on the ‘busy’ side and I find myself reducing clarity and sharpness and changing the contrast.
Thoughts anyone?
Nick
April 27, 2024 10:31 am
CA units Hi, Spencer. Thank you for the great, as always, review. Regarding CA: why the units are pixels? As far as I remember, the pixels are for 12 MP sensors. Even Imatest admits that measuring CA in pixels penalizes high-pixel-count cameras, and suggest using percentage of the distance from the image center to the ROI.
They’re pixels on the 45 megapixel sensor that we use as standard. If we tested with a bunch of different resolution sensors, percentage would be better, but we don’t, so we’re not penalizing any lenses with this approach. Also, I like that pixels on a 45 MP sensor makes it easy to visualize.
Larry Dreyer
March 11, 2024 3:48 pm
Thanks Spencer for another great review. I’m slowly migrating to mirrorless (already own the Z8 and 180-600mm lens) and did my own comparison between 70-180mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 S at a daytime lacrosse event in 38 degree sleet. The 70-180 performed so well, I ended up buying it. Not only was there no noticeable difference in photo quality, I was super impressed with the AF and the ease of use (i.e. weight and size). At f/2.8 ISO 200 and 1/1000th, I was able to get blurred backgrounds with my subject in sharp focus. My use case for the lens is day/night sports/action where I can get fairly close (i.e. lacrosse, soccer, volleyball, track & field and as a second lens for football from the 20yd line and in). And the 70-180mm fits the bill. So I agree with your review although I may rate it a little higher ;^).
I am debating if to get the 70-200 f/2.8 or this lens. This is mostly for wildlilfe at low light hours. I have a z 100-400 and a 1.4TC and they are awesome, also I have the 24-120 f4, but sometimes in early/late hours it is hard to capture wildlife and thought this would be great due to light weight. But again, it is a mental thing, Nikon lens vs “Nikon” lens.
I have the same combo + 1,4TC. That gives me 100-250 f/4 + 400 f/4,5 or 70-180 f/2,8 + 560 f/6,3
Dan Williams
November 13, 2023 12:24 pm
Great Review, Spencer! I had been waiting for this one for a while and I think you have pushed me off the fence. I gotta say, your shot of Cathedral Rock in Sedona, AZ is the best capture of that location I have ever seen. Thanks for all the excellent work and if Photography Life ever offers a workshop in the Southwest I’ll be all over it!
I really appreciate it, thanks, Dan! We may do a workshop there at some point. I loved Sedona.
Clemens
November 13, 2023 7:31 am
Thanks a lot, Spencer. Did you test the impact of VR (or rather the absence of it) as compared to the 70-200? I was wondering how many stops of difference it would make on a camera with IBIS like the Z8. Best wishes, Clemens
The lack of it doesn’t make a huge difference in practice – less than a stop in most instances on the Zf/Z8/Z9, I’d say about 1/2 stop.
jean pierre (pete) guaron
November 11, 2023 8:54 pm
I don’t need to cover beyond 180 with this lens – after that, I accept the extra weight & size, and shoot with my 180-600. And these days, the difference between the performance of zooms like this range of Nikon’s, and prime lenses, is mainly something for pro’s to worry about. I couldn’t print all my photos larger than A4 if I wanted to – I’d have nowhere to put them all. Below that size, and using even a reasonably high quality Epson ink jet, the differences in sharpness are inconsequential, for my work. I doubt very much whether you’d ever be able to see them! And even if it’s “possible” to, I think it’s most unlikely that you would, with smaller prints – ink jet printers (regardless of quality) have their limitations, too!
Though I already have the Z-mount 70-200mm f/2.8 S, I decided to get this lens. It’s serves primarily as a lighter and more compact telephoto zoom lens that Nikon still has not made … a Z-mount Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 or 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6.
I have used the F-mount Nikkor 70-200mm f/4.0G and 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E with an FTZ for some years. But the FTZ makes both these F-mount zooms longer and heavier. When these F-mount zooms are used with an FTZ, the Nikon/Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 is still a shorter and lighter zoom. That it is also an f/2.8 zoom and sharper than both F-mount zooms explains why I finally decided to get this.
I paid $1400 for the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4.0G VR and got the 70-180mm f/2.8 at $1,047 so the 70-180mm f/2.8 cost even less. Being one-stop brighter as well as being slightly sharper at the same aperture setting, this Nikon / Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 has found a niche in my bag.
The lack of a VR does not adversely impact my use of this lens with a Z6. That becomes even less of a concern when I use it with the much-improved IBIS and AF of my Z6 III. If I have one complaint about this lens, it would be the fit and finish of the hood and its mount which makes mounting and removal of the hood a less than straight-forward twist to lock.
I am no longer looking forward to a Z-mount Nikkor 70-200mm f/4.0 unless Nikon makes that more compact, lighter with better optics than this 70-180mm f/2.8. I will however take a serious look when Nikon finally releases a Z-mount 70-300mm.
One important point that wasn’t mentioned is that this lens has near macro ability with a 1:48 ability where the 70-200 2.8 is 1:2
At the risk of diverging: has someone tried to adapt the Sony E mount Tamron 70-180 G2 to Z mount to check how it performs?
I am interested as I have good results doing it with a Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN and like the refined optics and handling of the G2 vs. the G1 version from Tamron/ Nikon’s version.
I use the Megadap ETZ21 Pro to adapt E mount lenses.
I have indeed done this. There is stabe on that lens and I find the Z8s stab does not sync with it. I have to turn off in camera stabe to get pics that I would consider OK for that lens. If you are tracking fast moving subjects coming at you this lens will NOT work well period. Better off with the gen 1 lens. I have both and the gen 1 works better in most situations.
This lens is slighter lighter than the F-mount 70-200/f4. Good going.
Wondering if it could replace that lens – which I think has very good IQ and AF – and add a bit of the feel of a 135/f1.8?
I’ve never used a 70-200/f2.8, which is why I don’t know whether the f2.8 makes a significant difference from f4. I have found backgrounds to my f4 to be a bit on the ‘busy’ side and I find myself reducing clarity and sharpness and changing the contrast.
Thoughts anyone?
CA units
Hi, Spencer. Thank you for the great, as always, review. Regarding CA: why the units are pixels? As far as I remember, the pixels are for 12 MP sensors. Even Imatest admits that measuring CA in pixels penalizes high-pixel-count cameras, and suggest using percentage of the distance from the image center to the ROI.
They’re pixels on the 45 megapixel sensor that we use as standard. If we tested with a bunch of different resolution sensors, percentage would be better, but we don’t, so we’re not penalizing any lenses with this approach. Also, I like that pixels on a 45 MP sensor makes it easy to visualize.
Thanks Spencer for another great review. I’m slowly migrating to mirrorless (already own the Z8 and 180-600mm lens) and did my own comparison between 70-180mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 S at a daytime lacrosse event in 38 degree sleet. The 70-180 performed so well, I ended up buying it. Not only was there no noticeable difference in photo quality, I was super impressed with the AF and the ease of use (i.e. weight and size). At f/2.8 ISO 200 and 1/1000th, I was able to get blurred backgrounds with my subject in sharp focus. My use case for the lens is day/night sports/action where I can get fairly close (i.e. lacrosse, soccer, volleyball, track & field and as a second lens for football from the 20yd line and in). And the 70-180mm fits the bill. So I agree with your review although I may rate it a little higher ;^).
Glad you’re enjoying it so much!
I am debating if to get the 70-200 f/2.8 or this lens. This is mostly for wildlilfe at low light hours. I have a z 100-400 and a 1.4TC and they are awesome, also I have the 24-120 f4, but sometimes in early/late hours it is hard to capture wildlife and thought this would be great due to light weight. But again, it is a mental thing, Nikon lens vs “Nikon” lens.
What did you decide?
Bought the 70-180 f/2.8 and also the 400 f/4.5. I might now sell my 100-400.
That seems like a good plan! This lens plus the 400mm f/4.5 makes an excellent combo.
Thom Hogan recommends those two lenses on a Z6iii for a light-weight safari bag. Sounds like you’re onto a winner.
I have the same combo + 1,4TC. That gives me 100-250 f/4 + 400 f/4,5 or 70-180 f/2,8 + 560 f/6,3
Great Review, Spencer! I had been waiting for this one for a while and I think you have pushed me off the fence. I gotta say, your shot of Cathedral Rock in Sedona, AZ is the best capture of that location I have ever seen. Thanks for all the excellent work and if Photography Life ever offers a workshop in the Southwest I’ll be all over it!
I really appreciate it, thanks, Dan! We may do a workshop there at some point. I loved Sedona.
Thanks a lot, Spencer. Did you test the impact of VR (or rather the absence of it) as compared to the 70-200? I was wondering how many stops of difference it would make on a camera with IBIS like the Z8. Best wishes, Clemens
The lack of it doesn’t make a huge difference in practice – less than a stop in most instances on the Zf/Z8/Z9, I’d say about 1/2 stop.
I don’t need to cover beyond 180 with this lens – after that, I accept the extra weight & size, and shoot with my 180-600. And these days, the difference between the performance of zooms like this range of Nikon’s, and prime lenses, is mainly something for pro’s to worry about. I couldn’t print all my photos larger than A4 if I wanted to – I’d have nowhere to put them all. Below that size, and using even a reasonably high quality Epson ink jet, the differences in sharpness are inconsequential, for my work. I doubt very much whether you’d ever be able to see them! And even if it’s “possible” to, I think it’s most unlikely that you would, with smaller prints – ink jet printers (regardless of quality) have their limitations, too!