1bwana1 wrote:
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.
True, when I was in Kenya, the majority of time, even my lowly Z7 with horrible AF (according to some people ) would do just fine. At that time A7r iii with 100-400 certainly produced beautiful image and was more than capable most of the time. I even got some decent shots with GFX 50s (really wish Fuji released 250mm before that trip).
If Covid did not happened, I could see myself being very excited with D850 + 500/4e FL, GFX100 + 250/4, A7r IV + 100-400GM back in June. By next year if we can travel normally, may be D6, Z7s (or if Nikon get itself into shape, Z9) and GFX100 will excite me just fine Certainly 70-200/2.8s +/-TC could be an option as I have no idea if Nikon will release 100-400 in time.
I have nothing against A7r IV, excellent camera but it would be nice to be able to switch between 2 different bodies with more similar layout. Switching between Nikon and Fuji is tricky enough without throwing in Sony into the middle of it.
Now we are in a middle of a storm system with lots of rain, not much chance to play with 70-200/2.8
Buckeye2604 wrote:
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.
My view is: Nikon could have offered two *different* products instead of two *similar* 70-200/2.8 zooms (F- and Z-mount); a compact S lens, with minimal shortcomings (i.e. no TCs), and the already existing 70-200/2.8 FL:
Ripolini wrote:
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).
Thanks for posting these and getting us off the Ripolini Train... I think he has made his point, and it is time to move on!
Well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the performance of the bare lens, or the lens with converter!
I am very impressed with the level of detail in the fur...
How would you describe the AF performance in terms of speed of acquisition and maintaining focus while in the subjects are in motion?
Can you see the impact of the dual motors in terms of AF speed? Do you sense that the lens locks on faster than when using the 70-200E lens?
Finally, how is AF performance in low light, or light when there are shadows that might distract or cause the AF to hunt?
Keep shooting, my friend, I am looking forward to seeing some wild birds (parrots/cockatoos/fairy wrens, etc..), as this will say much about the lens's ability to track some unpredictable movements.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Thanks for posting these and getting us off the Ripolini Train... I think he has made his point, and it is time to move on!
Well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the performance of the bare lens, or the lens with converter!
I am very impressed with the level of detail in the fur...
How would you describe the AF performance in terms of speed of acquisition and maintaining focus while in the subjects are in motion?
Can you see the impact of the dual motors in terms of AF speed? Do you sense that the lens locks on faster than when using the 70-200E lens?
Finally, how is AF performance in low light, or light when there are shadows that might distract or cause the AF to hunt?
Keep shooting, my friend, I am looking forward to seeing some wild birds (parrots/cockatoos/fairy wrens, etc..), as this will say much about the lens's ability to track some unpredictable movements.
The more I use and I see from the lens, the more I am very impressed with it. Yes, I do think it is a better lens than the 70-200E albeit very marginally so, but then how much can you improve on almost perfection? We are coming from a very lofty predecessor.
AF speed and acquisition is similar to the 70-200E. The TC's do slow it down, but in good light it is marginal and only gets a little worse in low light, as does the 70-200E. As I said in another post earlier in the thread, AF speed of the 70-200E *seems* faster as it has a more "violent" AF and you feel the torque of the AF motors whereas the 70-200S is smoother and quieter and thus doesn't *seem* as authoritative, but I say they are similar in speed. They are close enough that you would need an accurate stop watch to tell the difference. I am very impressed with the AF speed.
I can't really comment on tracking or motion AF as I haven't really tried it much on the Z7 yet, concentrating mainly on sharpness and IQ to see how those aspects compare to the 70-200E. I would need to try it on flying birds or whatever and use the tracking AF options. There is no reason to think it would be inferior to the 70-200E on the Z7 in that regard as their respective AF speeds are very close.
I will keep "testing" the lens under different conditions, subjects and AF options to see how it fares.
The bokeh seems really good for a zoom lens, I'm generally very pleased with the images shown in this thread. Color, contrast, sharpness (what one can see online) and overall look of the images seem great.
Yes, how well the autofocus can track moving subjects is a point of interest and it's interesting to hear your comments on that topic. I imagine future cameras will likely drive AF faster, but it's still interesting to hear how a native telephoto focuses on current Z mount cameras.
CATProductions wrote:
Curious as to whether you’ve noticed the shorter min focus distance with parfocal design?
Is it a parfocal lens?
According to Imaging-Resource: An earlier version of Nikon's press release stated that the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S lens was parfocal. This is not the case, however Nikon states that the lens offers "reduced focus beathing." We have updated the text below to fix the error. https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/z-70-200mm-f2.8-vr-s-nikkor/review/
Ripolini wrote:
Is it a parfocal lens?
According to Imaging-Resource: An earlier version of Nikon's press release stated that the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S lens was parfocal. This is not the case, however Nikon states that the lens offers "reduced focus beathing." We have updated the text below to fix the error. https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/z-70-200mm-f2.8-vr-s-nikkor/review/
It's a near parfocal lens with automatic zoom adjustment while focusing. I don't know whether this is sufficient for professional film photography, but it's a still photography lens that can also be used for video.
JadedWriter wrote:
Lance, that pic of that LLama I think just sold me on an entire ecosystem. . Interestingly, when I saw it the detail also shocked me. It was just a quick grab shot as I walked past him and the result was great!
Yeah the detail in that shot is great, it really seems like Nikon is doing some really great things with their Z mount zooms. Lance B wrote: . Interestingly, when I saw it the detail also shocked me. It was just a quick grab shot as I walked past him and the result was great!
AcuteShadows wrote:
And like cinematic lenses, which are also nearly parfocal.
According to Robert Cicala tests, cinematic zoom lenses have a negligigle shift (less than few tens of micrometers) of the focus point/plane by varying the focal length.
Interestingly, he found that the focus shift vs focal length is sample dependent.
He will probably test the 70-200/2.8 S.
Ripolini wrote:
Is it a parfocal lens?
According to Imaging-Resource: An earlier version of Nikon's press release stated that the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S lens was parfocal. This is not the case, however Nikon states that the lens offers "reduced focus beathing." We have updated the text below to fix the error. https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/z-70-200mm-f2.8-vr-s-nikkor/review/
Good catch! I was assuming based on original press release. Reduced focus breathing is nice anyway I suppose.
The samples even with 2x TC look pretty damn good (not to mention the bare lens). Looking forward to getting mine. (apparently I'm next in line at my shop - but Nikon Canada's communication with dealers sucks, so they're unable to tell me when they're getting another shipment).
The samples even with 2x TC look pretty damn good (not to mention the bare lens). Looking forward to getting mine. (apparently I'm next in line at my shop - but Nikon Canada's communication with dealers sucks, so they're unable to tell me when they're getting another shipment).
Thank you very much, Luke.
Look forward to seeing your results once you get this fabulous lens!
) would do just fine. At that time A7r iii with 100-400 certainly produced beautiful image and was more than capable most of the time. I even got some decent shots with GFX 50s (really wish Fuji released 250mm before that trip). 
. Interestingly, when I saw it the detail also shocked me. It was just a quick grab shot as I walked past him and the result was great!