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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.