fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

• Fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

• Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 … 18 19 end

Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Ripolini
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Lance B wrote:
I did some quick newspaper taped to a flat board test shots from about 4mts with my Z7 using both the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR and the 70-200 f2.8S with both the 1.4x TC and 2x TC on both lenses at 200mm on each lens, tripod mounted. So, it was 200mm bare, 280mm with the 1.4x TC and 400mm with the 2x TC. I also did wide open and one stop down...

The question I posted few months ago seems even more valid now!
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1643046/0#15201261

I do not understand Nikon; Canon made a compact RF 70-200/2.8 L IS, which has some advantages over the EF-L version: it's more compact (about 9x15 cm) and ligthweight (1070 g). This makes sense for a ML user, who likes to travel light.
Nikon, IMHO, should have designed either a more compact version of the AF-S 70-200/2.8E FL, or a compact 70-200/4 S (not larger than the AF-P FX 70-300), or both ...
What they did? They made a clone lens, as large and heavy as the AF-S 70-200/2.8E FL, and with minimal - if any - improvement in sharpness

Aug 30, 2020 at 04:18 AM

Wezre
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

You do realize that the 70-200 2.8E was the sharpest lens ever produced in that focal length? How much more can they conceivably improve sharpness when the previous version was already insanely sharp across the frame? Also, there’s nothing stopping them from still releasing a compact 70-200 f/4. They needed to release this version of the lens first to make the pros and advanced amateurs happy and to help complete their trinity of 2.8 zooms.

Ripolini wrote:
The question I posted few months ago seems even more valid now!
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1643046/0#15201261

I do not understand Nikon; Canon made a compact RF 70-200/2.8 L IS, which has some advantages over the EF-L version: it's more compact (about 9x15 cm) and ligthweight (1070 g). This makes sense for a ML user, who likes to travel light.
Nikon, IMHO, should have designed either a more compact version of the AF-S 70-200/2.8E FL, or a compact 70-200/4 S (not larger than the AF-P FX 70-300), or both ...
What they did? They made a clone lens, as large and heavy as the AF-S 70-200/2.8E FL, and...Show more →

Aug 30, 2020 at 06:15 AM

Ripolini
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Wezre wrote:
You do realize that the 70-200 2.8E was the sharpest lens ever produced in that focal length? How much more can they conceivably improve sharpness when the previous version was already insanely sharp across the frame?

Have you read the link in my previous post? It refers to a post of mine dating back to 15th April.
Read.

Aug 30, 2020 at 06:22 AM

Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Ripolini wrote:
The question I posted few months ago seems even more valid now!
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1643046/0#15201261

I do not understand Nikon; Canon made a compact RF 70-200/2.8 L IS, which has some advantages over the EF-L version: it's more compact (about 9x15 cm) and ligthweight (1070 g). This makes sense for a ML user, who likes to travel light.
Nikon, IMHO, should have designed either a more compact version of the AF-S 70-200/2.8E FL, or a compact 70-200/4 S (not larger than the AF-P FX 70-300), or both ...
What they did? They made a clone lens, as large and heavy as the AF-S 70-200/2.8E FL, and...Show more →

The Nikon is better than the Canon, thats why. A retracting zoom obviously has compromises and thats why they didn't go that route. You want compact wait for a probable f4 version like the 24-70 f4 and 14-30 f4 which are smaller and lighter than their f2.8 counterparts which fits the smaller, lighter narrative that they represent. This is not what the f2.8 lenses represent, which is no compromise IQ and which have been delivered with the 24-70 f2.8 and now the 70-200 f2.8. Wouldn't be a good look if the Z 70-200 f2.8 was worse than the E FL VR as there'd be even less reason for people to buy one, they'd stick to their F mount E FL VR. Not only that, if they did make a retractable version we'd have the inevitable complaints about it being a dust pump.

The 70-200 f2.8S is obviously not for you so one wonders what there is to gain by your post. The lens is designed, produced and on sale so you either buy it or you don't, your bleating won't change that. It seems all you're doing is trying to justify a decision to not fork out the money.

Aug 30, 2020 at 06:24 AM

suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

I could not be happier with 70-200/2.8e FL personally. However, enough people complain that via FTZ adapter, F mount lens don't perform as well as on dslr. I am not sure how they figure that it is the adapter. May be Z6/Z7 is the limiting factor rather than FTZ adapter.
However, one big advantage for me seems to be TCx2. Mine unfortunately is not here yet but I should get it next week. My experience with TC20e iii is quite different from Lance. I went through 2 copies of TC20e iii and I am not happy at all with the result with 70-200/2.8 e FL. With 500/4e FL, it is ok at close distance but just so so at longer distance and I ended up rarely ever used TC x2. Now, it seems that 70-200/2.8S with TC2.0s at least seems to be much better.
Hopefully I will have a chance to compare my copy of 70-200/2.8S vs 70-200/2.8 e FL sometimes if I feel motivated enough.
Also I hope weather seal on the new TC is better. TC14e iii definitely is not weather sealed, at least not to the standard of D850 or 500/4e FL for sure from my own 'opps' experience.

Aug 30, 2020 at 06:41 AM

Wezre
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Yes. The reason to buy native lenses is for guaranteed compatibility moving forward. Sometime down the road Nikon may develop an IBIS system that works better with Z lenses than adapted lenses. The AF system also likely going to advance and work better with native lenses. As someone else said, what’s done is done. Either buy the lens or don’t.

Ripolini wrote:
Have you read the link in my previous post? It refers to a post of mine dating back to 15th April.
Read.

Aug 30, 2020 at 07:24 AM

chambeshi
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

It is enlightening to compare what we know since those posts in April, see thread link above. The biggest change is the state of the Teleconverters between the S-Z system vs E-F system versions of these 70-200 f2.8 zooms.

In short - cheese the Chalk in F-mount TCs or a fine Z- Cheese

Now piling on top of all the the positives to be the Z version are the Z TCs - and as a pair to be precise. This difference alone will probably sell many copies of the 70-200 f2.8S. (the delay in release was well worth it, if Nikon decided to optimize the new Z zoom with the new TCs, where Canon failed.)

Not only does the 70-200 f2.8S eclipse owning/carrying a spectrum of primes shorter than 200mm focal length, but also a 300 f4 PF and/or 400 f5.6. The TC combos are also lighter, and more compact than a 1.4kg 70-200 plus 740g 300 PF, or a less sharp 80-400 G. The jury will decide when we see 300 PF (also with TC14E III) and 80-400 G compared to Z-TC combos of the 70-200 f2.8S.

And Brad Hill now also has this lens. I expect he will compare it against the 120-300 f2.8+TC14 and the 180-400 f4E TC14... I hope Lance soon tests his 140-400 f5.6 S (TC2) against the 400 f2.8E at matching aperture.

Aug 30, 2020 at 07:26 AM

Ripolini
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Lance B wrote:
The Nikon is better than the Canon, thats why. A retracting zoom obviously has compromises and thats why they didn't go that route.

Lance, probably I wasn't clear enough.
A Canon shooter having a R body can decide to use EITHER the (state-of-the-art) EF-L 70-200/2.8 IS II OR the more compact RF 70-200/2.8.
Neither you nor me can decide to use a smaller, lighter 70-200/2.8 on our Z cameras. Simple as that.
About the RF 70-200/2.8, "despite the reduced proportions, overall image quality was not sacrificed (a bit more peripheral shading) and even improved in some regards (better flare resistance)" (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-70-200mm-F2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx). So, I do not know how you can tell a retracting zoom has compromises. Perform a side-by-side test (e.g. Z7+70-200/2.8 S & R5 + RF 70-200/2.8) before reporting personal opinions as facts.

Lance B wrote
The 70-200 f2.8S is obviously not for you so one wonders what there is to gain by your post. The lens is designed, produced and on sale so you either buy it or you don't, your bleating won't change that. It seems all you're doing is trying to justify a decision to not fork out the money.

hey hey, be quiet. Do you get a percentage on every 70-200 S lens Nikon sells?
I made a reasoning.
You do not agree? OK. No problem. Try to elaborate your thoughts if you can; you're not allowed to say that I am bleating or I do not want to spend money in that lens. You're not allowed to speak about my money and how I prefer to spend it. Hope I have not to repeat it again.
Can I criticize Nikon or do I have to ask you the permission?
YOU said that YOU made a test and that YOU noted that the differences between the FL and S versions are minimal. Is that test meaningless? OK, why did you make it? And, most important, why did you tell us about it? Silly.
I would prefer discussing with photographers rather than Nikon fanboys. Thanx.

chambeshi wrote:
... I hope Lance soon tests his 140-400 f5.6 S (TC2) against the 400 f2.8E at matching aperture.

Photographers invest in a 400/2.8 because they need f/2.8.
Personally, I'm not interested in a comparison between a (excellent) 400/2.8 and a 70-200+2X combo. I know the winner.
It could be interesting to compare the 80-400G to the 70-200+2X combo: similar size, weight and max aperture.

Aug 30, 2020 at 07:46 AM

Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Sigh. You want me to be quiet? The truth doesn't agree with your point of view? Last time I looked I am free to put across my point of view. I did not tell *you* to be quiet, just that there is no point in voicing your criticism as the lens is already made and no amount of whining about it will change that. But one has to ask, what do you think you will accomplish by criticizing Nikon for not making a retracing 70-200 f2.8? Is Nikon going to redesign it and make a retracting version as well? Scrap the current version and make a retracting version? No, so it is a pointless exercise.

Also, accusing me of being a fanboy in order to halt logical discussion. Sad, very sad. Don't label people names just because your argument doesn't stack up, argue the point, not call names to stifle discussion. The saying is, "play the ball not the person".

As for me doing a test to show the differences between the 70-200 f2.8 E FL VR and the new 70-200 f2.8S, I would think people would be interested regardless of the result. If I am such a "fanboy" as you want to think then I would have said the new 70-200 f2.8S was much better and everyone should buy one, but I didn't so, there goes your fanboy theory. The point you're missing is that the native Z mount lens has advantages one of which is no need for the FTZ, but it is still a better lens and a better lens using the TC's.

Now, from what I know, the new Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 can't take TC's. So, how does that bode for those that want this feature? So, there are two strikes against the Canon RF mount, a potential dust pump and it can't take TC's. I would rather have the lens that Nikon has given us: Sharper, takes TC's and is not a potential dust pump.

I think the best thing for you would be to buy into the Canon ML system as they appear to have what you want. Don't need to worry about posting here criticizing Nikon as you can go with Canon and their fabulous retracting 70-200 f2.8!

Edited on Aug 30, 2020 at 08:54 PM · View previous versions

Aug 30, 2020 at 08:23 AM

Ripolini
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Lance B wrote:
Now, from what I know, the new Canon 70-200 f2.8 can't take TC's. So, how does that bode for that want this feature?

Again, if you are so insane to put a 2X on a zoom (considering how good the EF-L 100-400 is, much better than the Nikon equivalent), you can use the EF-L 70-200/2.8 IS II. Simple as that.

Lance B wrote:
I think the best thing for you would be to buy into the Canon ML system as they appear to have what you want. Don't need to worry about posting here criticizing Nikon as you can go with Canon and their fabulous retracting 70-200 f2.8!

Again, this demonstrates who isn't able to make logical discussions.
What I buy or not is not your matter, since I decide how to spend my money and never asked your unsolicited opinion.

P.S.: the 100% crop of your swallow picture taken with 70-200 S + 2X isn't sharp enough; probably it's affected by motion blur or something else. I'd suggest you to check it more carefully.

Aug 30, 2020 at 08:34 AM

Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Ripolini wrote:
Again, if you are so insane to put a 2X on a zoom (considering how good the EF-L 100-400 is, much better than the Nikon equivalent), you can use the EF-L 70-200/2.8 IS II. Simple as that.

P.S.: the 100% crop of your swallow picture taken with 70-200 S + 2X isn't sharp enough; probably it's affected by motion blur or something else.

Why do you need to be insane to put a 2x TC on the 70-200 f2.8? If you want to have a lens in your bag that is f2.8 for 70-200 range and then have the option for an additional 200mm at f5.6 then you can't do that with the 100-400. The thing is, that lens also is a potential dust pump.

As for logical discussions regarding you moving to Canon, I cannot see how much more logical I can be. You have made a number of criticisms of Nikon, Canon have the lenses you seem to like, Nikon is letting you down. Maybe time to move on.

Aug 30, 2020 at 08:46 AM

Ripolini
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Lance B wrote:
Why do you need to be insane to put a 2x TC on the 70-200 f2.8?

Because TCs ALWAYS degrade IQ. The more the multiplication factor, the more the degradation. On zooms more than on prime lenses.
I do not own any 2X. I seldom use my TC 14 E, and only when it is strictly necessary.

Lance B wrote:
Canon have the lenses you seem to like, Nikon is letting you down. Maybe time to move on.

Who said that Nikon is letting me down? You tend to report what you like, not what others said. Try to be intellectually honest.
I just said that they could have not made a clone 70-200/2.8!

Edited on Aug 30, 2020 at 08:54 AM · View previous versions

Aug 30, 2020 at 08:49 AM

Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Ripolini wrote:
Because TCs ALWAYS degrade IQ. The more the multiplication factor, the more the degradation. On zooms more than on prime lenses.
I do not own any 2X. I seldom use my TC 14 E, and only when it is strictly necessary.

It still doesn't make you insane, just a decision on what may suit a certain predicament or requirement. Again, you are name calling in order to push your point of view, calling people insane for doing something that many do in certain circumstances or for certain requirements. The fact is, you have the option to do it if needed.

This is an image thread, not a discussion thread.

Aug 30, 2020 at 08:53 AM

Ripolini
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Lance B wrote:
This is an image thread, not a discussion thread.
You reported the results of a test without images, not me. My comments come from your post with test results & no images ...
Anyway, being this an image thread, I invite you again to check carefully why the swallow picture taken with 70-200 + 2X isn't sharp.

Aug 30, 2020 at 08:58 AM

Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Ripolini wrote:
You reported the results of a test without images, not me. My comments come from your post with test results & no images ...
Anyway, being this an image thread, I invite you again to check carefully why the swallow picture taken with 70-200 + 2X isn't sharp.

Well, it is a 100% crop and at 1/160sec meaning the bird may have moved slightly but it still looks sharp to me considering it is a zoom and using a 2x TC. I wasn't expecting miracles, maybe you were.

As for my comments, they are my findings of the lens and how I did the test and not about what Canon are doing or whether Nikon should have made a retracting lens. That sort of discussion is for your own thread and I invite you to start a thread about the failings of Nikon and the Z lenses and telling us why Canon has got it so right for you.

Aug 30, 2020 at 09:08 AM

Ripolini
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Lance B wrote:
Well, it is a 100% crop and at 1/160sec meaning the bird may have moved slightly but it still looks sharp to me considering it is a zoom and using a 2x TC. I wasn't expecting miracles, maybe you were.

Did I ever say I was expecting bitingly sharp pictures from a 70-200+2X combo?
Anyway, I told you in a previous post that the picture could be affected by motion blur; the swallow seems stuffed so I exclude subject movement: I'm afraid the IBIS/VR didn't work properly. Uhmmm .... a 400 mm FL at 1/160s, less than 2 stops IBIS performance ... It's time you go with Sony?

Lance B wrote:
As for my comments, they are my findings of the lens and how I did the test and not about what Canon are doing or whether Nikon should have made a retracting lens. That sort of discussion is for your own thread and I invite you to start a thread about the failings of Nikon and the Z lenses and telling us why Canon has got it so right for you.

Yes I could start a thread. Thank you for the permission.
BTW, I think that Nikon made the right choice at the beginning, differently from Canon: Nikon decided to produce f/1.8 primes with very good quality, even w/open, better than G siblings, not so large, at reasonably higher prices (Canon instead made f/1.2 primes that are optical gems for sure, but very very expensive and *heavy*). Nikon also introduced f/4 zooms, again with reasonable prices and compact size. This is what many people ask to a ML system: portability.
Then, Nikon introduced the 24-70/2.8 S; being a zoom starting at wide-angle focal length, it could take advantage of the short flange (nothing new: think at Leica M wideangles), thus providing better performance than the G sibling (Canon makes a fantastic RF 28-70/2 L lens, whose design and performance is possible thanks to the short RF mount).
Most likely, for the same reasons, the 14-24/2.8 S will be better than the G sibling.
Finally, Nikon announced the 70-200/2.8 S lens, and it was not difficult to predict that such a zoom could not have outclassed the FL version. Actually, the *calculated* (not measured) MTF charts published by Nikon suggest a slightly better corner performance of the S version @f/2.8 (honestly, as a photographer I don't care of corner performance in a fast zoom w/open ... I need even sharpness for tripod work, cityscapes, landscapes, etc.). Telephoto lenses have no real advantage from the short Z-mount. IMO, they should have *copied* what Canon did: make a shorter, more compact, lightweight 70-200/2.8 and let the photographer decide to accept or not the limitations of such a design (i.e. the lack of TCs). The excellent alternative already exists, both for Canon and Nikon shooters.

Edited on Aug 30, 2020 at 09:54 AM · View previous versions

Aug 30, 2020 at 09:49 AM

suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Ripolini wrote:
Because TCs ALWAYS degrade IQ. The more the multiplication factor, the more the degradation. On zooms more than on prime lenses.
I do not own any 2X. I seldom use my TC 14 E, and only when it is strictly necessary.

Well, initial report from Ricci (video posted in the other 70-200/2.8S thread a few times, I don't think I need to repost the link again) actually showed that 70-200/2.8S + the new TC2.0 is not shabby at all, not quite up to 180-400/4 standard but much closer than I expected. I am not so sure that any 100-400 or 80-400 can do that.

I certainly am very interested and once my TC arrives, I do plan to do some comparison with my Sony 100-400GM which I considered to be the best 100-400 currently (from what I see from various reports, it is at least as good as Canon's version if not better). If 70-200/2.8S + TC is as good as I hope, by the time international travel is back to normal and I can resume my postponed Botswana trip, I think D6 + 600/4e FL or 500PF and another Nikon body with 70-200/2.8S + TC might be a better option than A7r IV with 100-400GM.

In the past I did not consider this combination as my TC20e iii was not so great with 70-200/2.8e FL but this time, the situation might be different.

Personally, I take regular 70-200/2.8 that performs well with TC over smaller 70-200/2.8 with no compatibility with TC at leat for another 10-15 years until I decided that I cannot handle the weight anymore.

Edited on Aug 30, 2020 at 09:54 AM · View previous versions

Aug 30, 2020 at 09:51 AM

Ripolini
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

suteetat wrote:
I do plan to do some comparison with my Sony 100-400GM which I considered to be the best 100-400 currently (from what I see from various reports, it is at least as good as Canon's version if not better).

I'll be glad to see your pictures and comparative tests. Thanx.

suteetat wrote:
If 70-200/2.8S + TC is as good as I hope, by the time international travel is back to normal and I can resume my postponed Botswana trip, I think D6 + 600/4e FL or 500PF and another Nikon body with 70-200/2.8S + TC might be a better option than A7r IV with 100-400GM.

If I were in your shoes, I'd buy the Sony 200-600 for Botswana.

Aug 30, 2020 at 09:53 AM

1bwana1
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #19 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Botswana, hummm.... Those big African animals don't move that fast especially waist deep in water.

Any one of your choices will technically give you excellent results in a wide variety of situations,

I say bring the kit that most excites you to use.

We live in the best of times photographically these days.

Aug 30, 2020 at 12:08 PM

Buckeye2604
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · Nikon 70-200 f2.8S images thread.

Ripolini wrote:
Because TCs ALWAYS degrade IQ. The more the multiplication factor, the more the degradation. On zooms more than on prime lenses.
I do not own any 2X. I seldom use my TC 14 E, and only when it is strictly necessary.

Who said that Nikon is letting me down? You tend to report what you like, not what others said. Try to be intellectually honest.
I just said that they could have not made a clone 70-200/2.8!
The whole basis to your view is based on the hypothetical that Nikon could have made the equivalent lens in a smaller package. I doubt that’s possible and canon figuring out how to make their already inferior product smaller doesn’t support your view that it could be done.

Aug 30, 2020 at 05:03 PM

1 2 3 … 18 19 end
FM Forums \| Nikon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 18 19 end