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.
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!
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
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!
Filip
November 10, 2023 9:52 pm
Hi Spencer, thank you for this and other reviews. I wanted to comment the part where you mentioned missing focus limiter switch, custom function button, focus distance. Custom function button I understand but the rest I would really prefer to have in the body. Z lenses transfer focal length and focus distance to the body definitely too – why does Nikon not allow in firmware to have this information in viewfinder? I’m not a big fan of a focus limiter switch with its preconfigured distances – why not allow setting the distances by focusing on two spots, store them in the body and then only focus between those two? Again a firmware feature. And none of these features requires any CPU power at all so could be added to all the bodies. Don’t you think that this would make sense?
Jpickles
November 10, 2023 8:34 pm
Looks decent but so did the 28-75 2.8 on paper which after using I thought was too soft for my use and ended up selling it. So I’m now skeptical right or wrong with tamron altogether. I gave it a shot and felt like I was burned. My 24-70 f4 is just a better performer all around despite being slower. Like others I’d rather have a Nikon made 70-200 f4.
Rick
November 10, 2023 1:25 pm
The exterior focusing barrel doesn’t seem to be an issue for Canon’s 70-200 f?2.8 R lens. Or am I not aware of something? Personally, I would have liked to have seen Nikon follow the formula. I like Canon’s more compact size, and it’s a bit lighter than the older EF design.
To clarify, none of these lenses are external focusing, to the best of my knowledge. Most of them are external zooming, however. The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 is external zooming.
One exception I’m aware of is that the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4 has an internal zoom – I’m sure that some other company’s 70-200mm f/4 lenses are the same, too.
Among the Nikon Z telephoto zooms, so far only the 180-600mm is internal zooming.
We just published our initial field review of it today! And we’ll be adding to that review as time goes by.
Nick
November 9, 2023 4:56 am
I would definitely enjoy this lens, but find myself having a hard time justifying it for an extra 60mm and stop of light over the excellent and flexible 24-120, which would be paired better with the much more expensive 100-400.
But really, I am just a bit disappointed that a) Tamron released a significantly improved 70-180 G2 for Sony after this release for Nikon, and b) that Nikon still doesn’t have a more affordable and lighter 70-200 F4.
Agreed, this lens pairs more naturally with the 24-70mm f/4 or the 28-75mm f/2.8.
And I don’t disagree with the two disappointments you raised, either! I’ve been hoping for a 70-200mm f/4 since day one of the Z system. It was my favorite F-mount lens.
Looks like a very good pairing with the Sony 20-70/f4. Of course, that means getting a Sony camera. Which will then allow you to get the G2. And the A7iv is some way beyond the Z6ii. I suspect that if telephoto primes aren’t your thing, Sony might well have the edge nowadays.
Emax
November 8, 2023 11:12 am
Nice review, Spencer.
I’ve been using the Nikon 70-200/4 VR as my primary telephoto for the past 10 years (the last 2 years via the FTZ on my Z7), with very good results.
Now, I’m pondering replacing that lens with the 70-180/2.8 due to its faster maximum aperture and its relative compactness.
Do you see any downside to making the switch, other than having to spend the money?
You’ll see an improvement in size and even image quality by doing so. The only meaningful downside is that the 70-180mm is an externally zooming lens with fewer controls than the AF-S 70-200mm f/4. And, maybe unlikely, but Nikon could always release a Z-mount 70-200mm f/4 that makes you want to switch again before long, if a Z 70-200mm f/4 is what you’re really after.
A Z-mount 70-200 f/4 VR would make things interesting, as it would be more useful than the 70-180 on a non-IBIS body such as the Z50. It might also accept a tripod collar, like the F-mount version does.
I suspect I’ll pick up a 70-180 in the near future.
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.
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!
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
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!
Hi Spencer, thank you for this and other reviews. I wanted to comment the part where you mentioned missing focus limiter switch, custom function button, focus distance. Custom function button I understand but the rest I would really prefer to have in the body. Z lenses transfer focal length and focus distance to the body definitely too – why does Nikon not allow in firmware to have this information in viewfinder? I’m not a big fan of a focus limiter switch with its preconfigured distances – why not allow setting the distances by focusing on two spots, store them in the body and then only focus between those two? Again a firmware feature. And none of these features requires any CPU power at all so could be added to all the bodies. Don’t you think that this would make sense?
Looks decent but so did the 28-75 2.8 on paper which after using I thought was too soft for my use and ended up selling it. So I’m now skeptical right or wrong with tamron altogether. I gave it a shot and felt like I was burned. My 24-70 f4 is just a better performer all around despite being slower. Like others I’d rather have a Nikon made 70-200 f4.
The exterior focusing barrel doesn’t seem to be an issue for Canon’s 70-200 f?2.8 R lens. Or am I not aware of something?
Personally, I would have liked to have seen Nikon follow the formula. I like Canon’s more compact size, and it’s a bit lighter than the older EF design.
To clarify, none of these lenses are external focusing, to the best of my knowledge. Most of them are external zooming, however. The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 is external zooming.
One exception I’m aware of is that the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4 has an internal zoom – I’m sure that some other company’s 70-200mm f/4 lenses are the same, too.
Among the Nikon Z telephoto zooms, so far only the 180-600mm is internal zooming.
Z 70-200 S f/2.8 doesn’t extend when zooming either
True, apologies for missing that one.
Is the Nikon Zf review coming shortly?
We just published our initial field review of it today! And we’ll be adding to that review as time goes by.
I would definitely enjoy this lens, but find myself having a hard time justifying it for an extra 60mm and stop of light over the excellent and flexible 24-120, which would be paired better with the much more expensive 100-400.
But really, I am just a bit disappointed that a) Tamron released a significantly improved 70-180 G2 for Sony after this release for Nikon, and b) that Nikon still doesn’t have a more affordable and lighter 70-200 F4.
Agreed, this lens pairs more naturally with the 24-70mm f/4 or the 28-75mm f/2.8.
And I don’t disagree with the two disappointments you raised, either! I’ve been hoping for a 70-200mm f/4 since day one of the Z system. It was my favorite F-mount lens.
Looks like a very good pairing with the Sony 20-70/f4. Of course, that means getting a Sony camera. Which will then allow you to get the G2. And the A7iv is some way beyond the Z6ii.
I suspect that if telephoto primes aren’t your thing, Sony might well have the edge nowadays.
Nice review, Spencer.
I’ve been using the Nikon 70-200/4 VR as my primary telephoto for the past 10 years (the last 2 years via the FTZ on my Z7), with very good results.
Now, I’m pondering replacing that lens with the 70-180/2.8 due to its faster maximum aperture and its relative compactness.
Do you see any downside to making the switch, other than having to spend the money?
Thanks.
You’ll see an improvement in size and even image quality by doing so. The only meaningful downside is that the 70-180mm is an externally zooming lens with fewer controls than the AF-S 70-200mm f/4. And, maybe unlikely, but Nikon could always release a Z-mount 70-200mm f/4 that makes you want to switch again before long, if a Z 70-200mm f/4 is what you’re really after.
A Z-mount 70-200 f/4 VR would make things interesting, as it would be more useful than the 70-180 on a non-IBIS body such as the Z50. It might also accept a tripod collar, like the F-mount version does.
I suspect I’ll pick up a 70-180 in the near future.
Thanks for your response.