I've just purchased a Nikon z6II and z 24-70 f2.8. I'm looking to round out my kit for travel / landscape with a 70-200 and right now my only native z option is the f2.8 (which admittedly is a very good option to have).
My temptation is to add that lens and then possibly one day finish the trinity with the 14-24 2.8. Realistically though, I've shot both Canon and Sony in the past and with both systems I opted for the f4 version of the 70-200 to save a little size and weight for hiking. I don't need that extra stop with my tele lens.
I don't see one of those on the roadmap though, and so I might be waiting a good long while to see a z 70-200 f4. I also worry that it might follow the form of the other f4 "S" lenses and have a lock and extending barrel which is something I'd rather not see.
I like consistency across my lenses and prefer native lenses. Should I bite the bullet and go for the 2.8? Might an f4 version be on the horizon?
I'm also tempted to get the 70-200 f4 G VR and adapt it while I wait for the native f4, but experiences with that lens and the FTZ seem to be all over the place with some people finding it unusable and others having no problems.
For now, for hiking, if size and weight is a major consideration, 14-30/4 and 24-200 will do the job very nicely assuming that you are shooting landscape at f8 or greater more often than needing F4.
I think 70-200/4 will not be here at least for another 2-3 years.
If you are not into pixel peeping, I think you will have a nice surprise as to how good 24-200 is.
I just added a 24-200 to my kit. Honestly I am impressed. It has the bite that my 24-70 f/4 has, except the far corners. What I really like about it is that it's 24mm when you turn on the camera. You don't have to unlock it. The 24-200 is much much better than my previous 24-120 f/4 and 28-300 (F-mounts).
If you really want 70-200, then just buy the 2.8 version and sell it later once the f/4 comes out (if it ever does). I'm not a fan of adapting AF lenses.
Nikon 100-400/4-5.6
+ Fully native, probably similar IQ to the 70-200/2.8. Maybe a more useful range for similar costs.
- Not available yet. Heavy, bulky, expensive.
Nikon 70-200/4
+ Quite sharp across the field at f8.
- F-mount, some LoCA, somewhat bulky and heavy.
Tamron 35-150/2.8-4
+ Great correction of LoCA, quite sharp across the field at f8. Covers the midrange.
- F-mount, only 150mm long, somewhat bulky and heavy.
Nikon 70-300/4.5-5.6 AF-P
+ Cheap, goes to 300mm
- F-mount, not quite as good as the 70-200/4, some LoCA (I think), slow.
Nikon 24-200/4-6.3
+ Fully native, goes all the way to 24mm, nicely sized
- IQ wise the weakest of all these (I think). Slow.
Tamron 70-180/2.8 (E-mount)
+ Excellent at f4 and f5.6. Excellent correction of LoCA.
- TZE compatibility is questionable. Doesn't improve stopping to f8 or f11. Somewhat heavy and bulky.
Canon 70-200/4
+ Newer design than the Nikon. Maybe it's better?
- Canon adapter compatibility? Somewhat bulky and heavy.
I have the Nikon 70-200/4 and Tamron 35-150. I prefer the Nikon for flat field landscape type work and the Tamron for general purpose nature. When the 100-400 comes out I'll sigh and buy it, probably replacing the 70-200/4.
I have the 70-200 f/2.8 S lens and it is terrific. If you are likely to use it at f/2.8 to f/4, it's your choice.
There has been a lot of discussion about the f/4 version for the Z system. I think part of the issue is the F-mount 70-200 f/4 is a very good lens but never sold very well. The 24-200 and 24-300 focal lengths seemed to be chosen by people who wanted a smaller and lighter kit.
I would not be surprise to see a 70-200 f/4 S lens announced for the Z system in 2022. But that puts it more than a year away. The option is to go ahead and get the 70-200 f/4 F-mount lens and use it with the FTZ. Performance will be very good and you could always replace it with the Z version in 18 months or so.
I would opt for the 70 to 200/2.8 s. Yeah it's a little bit of a beast but it does give you a lot more flexibility to use it for more than just hiking. I have one and a 2.0 converter and it takes amazing shots when I have to reach out that far.
jmcconnell2 wrote:
I'm also tempted to get the 70-200 f4 G VR and adapt it while I wait for the native f4, but experiences with that lens and the FTZ seem to be all over the place with some people finding it unusable and others having no problems.
Initially, I read reports of the autofocus not always working, trouble with infinity focus, and even one person reporting jumpy EVF response like rolling shutter.
jmcconnell2 wrote:
Initially, I read reports of the autofocus not always working, trouble with infinity focus, and even one person reporting jumpy EVF response like rolling shutter.
I take it you've experienced none of those?
I've used my FTZ extensively. I've had two problems:
1. Ergonomically, it's not great. It's a little bulky, and the tripod foot can interfere with other things mounted on the camera - e.g. I can't use my Capture Clip when it's mounted, unless I mount another plate to the FTZ. But, this is much less of a problem with larger lenses, and I wouldn't think it would be nearly as much of an issue with the 70-200. I use it on the two PF lenses a lot with no issues.
2. Anecdotally, maybe half a dozen times I've had my camera EVF go completely white and needs to be shut off and turned back on again, at which point it is perfectly fine. This has exclusively happened when I have had the FTZ + 1.4x TC + lens stack mounted. It has been very infrequent, is easy to fix and is on a stack with two "adapters" so it hasn't been a big issue.
Other than that, no AF issues, and I'm not sure what would cause "rolling shutter" issues on an adapter like that. I'm happy with the adapter for my long lenses, and have just replaced my short lenses with native glass.
I've used the FTZ for about 30,000 images or more. I was a Z6 owner from initial shipping, and have a Z7ii and a Z50.
I've never had a white screen unless I was using Manual exposure and overexposed the image - usually a prior setting that was quickly adjusted when I turned on the camera for that session.
It is slightly bulky, but the depth from the front of the lens to the back of the camera is the same as a DSLR. The FTZ is simply a spacer - and the spacer is required.
If you have the camera mounted on a tripod the FTZ can be in the way of changing lenses from an F-mount to a Z-mount. It's not a big deal most of the time. I'm more frequently mounting lenses using the lens foot. If the issue comes up, you just remove the lens from the tripod quick release to make the change.
Performance is very similar to the native camera - but some cameras and some lenses are faster or slower than others. A D5 or D6 has two processors, and higher voltage, and can drive a lens motor faster on some lenses. The D500, D850, and Z6ii and Z7ii have dual processors, but the D500 and D850 are better tuned to take advantage of the processor. The Z cameras have an upcoming firmware release in September that should optimize speed - and ultimately they may be faster. AF speed is excellent if you prefocus near the right AF plane because focus is handled on the sensor, and if the image is badly out of focus, the camera does not know where to go.
AF accuracy with the FTZ is much better than any F-mount camera because AF Fine tuning is eliminated. That does not mean you'll have perfect images, but you are less likely to miss focus when focus is achieved.
I'm more likely to need to help the camera with focus hunting with the Z cameras and FTZ. But manual focus or manual assist is much easier in the Z cameras.
I've had the 70-200/4 fail to focus correctly sometimes doing tests at infinity. Part of it may be that I like using pinpoint AF, which forces a CDAF pass, and I don't think the 70-200 likes doing that much.
I've owned several versions of the F-mount 70-200/2.8 and a 70-200/4 VR. I was never enamored with the 70-200/4 -- it wasn't very good at f4, and I felt it was really an f5.6 or even f8 lens. It was lighter than the 2.8 and I would use it as a travel lens.
Today I have gone 100% mirrorless bodies and have the 70-200/2.8S. My first comment a lot of folks don't like to hear, but this lens is significantly better than any F-mount 70-200/2.8. I am not saying the earlier versions were bad, far from it. It's just that no other 70-200 achieves what the new Z version does; and it is optically stellar even with the converters. Sorry if that comment offends any of you, but it's fact.
I also have the 24-200. For the money, size, weight AND optical performance, this lens is hands-down a better option than the 70-200/4. It's way sharper across the entire frame even wide open than it should be for the money; it punches in well above its weight class. No it is not perfect, but it is an impressive performer, significantly better than say the F-mount 24-120 VR. Big plus is its range -- hard to knock it as an ideal all-in-one travel or walk-around lens. Plus it focusses surprisingly close. I sold off my 24-70/4 because it was not going see any camera time over the 24-200... If I need faster I shoot primes or my 70-200S.
gear-nut wrote:
... I was never enamored with the 70-200/4 -- it wasn't very good at f4, and I felt it was really an f5.6 or even f8 lens.
... the 24-200 ... is hands-down a better option than the 70-200/4.
I feel your reported experience, combined with 24-200 high-res samples I've seen in DPReview, demonstrates that sample variation is a real issue with Nikon lenses ...
I never had problems using my 70-200/4 w/open (on Z6); 24-200 samples I've seen (w/Z5) show scarce borders performance with huge CA that is not easy to remove, even using the proprietary Nikon raw converter.
Therefore, I understand that you were as lucky to find a good 24-200/4 sample as you were unlucky with the 70-200/4.
P.S.: I trust people saying the 70-200/2.8S is better than the F-mount siblings; however, I use both ML and DSLR, therefore, the S zoom has no interest to me (for maximum quality I use Zeiss 100/2 MP and 135/2 Apo Sonnar).
