p.1 #6 · [Official Image Thread] Nikon Z 70-200 VR 2.8 S II
My guess would be:
- Simplified optical formula with fewer elements
- Weight reduction from 1.5 kg to 1.2~ kg and improved weight distribution
- Latest coatings
- Reduced minimal focus distance
- Reduced focus breathing
- The new swift VCM motors for even faster AF (although the current one is already very fast) and even less noise for video - probably the exact same part as the 24-70mm f2.8 mkII
- De-clickable control ring
- Focus limiter
- Two fct buttons for landscape and portrait operation
- Next gen VR with better integration with IBIS
- Potentially a switch of the position of the 2 rings (I like the current layout but it seems that I am part of the minority)
p.1 #8 · [Official Image Thread] Nikon Z 70-200 VR 2.8 S II
I’m all for a Version II. Both canon and Sony already have theirs. And if you’ve ever used a Sony 70-200 GM II, how light and stupid sharp it is, you’d happy Nikon is kicking out a Version II. What I’m not happy about will be the most likely $3000+ price tag.
msadat wrote:
The current lens is pretty good, why not something new
p.1 #10 · [Official Image Thread] Nikon Z 70-200 VR 2.8 S II
The current Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 is 10% longer and about 30% heavier than the Sony GM II, so that's likely the area where we'll see changes with the mark II. As with the 24-70mm, image quality will likely be simlar, there's not much to improve to begin with..
For most non-professionals the Tamron 70-180mm G2 still makes more sense imo - very good IQ, 865g, less than half the price of the Nikon. At least the weight differential will come down though.
p.1 #11 · [Official Image Thread] Nikon Z 70-200 VR 2.8 S II
Nikon Rumors mention 14-24 ? What they want to improve? Make flat front element for 82mm filters ? Old 14-24 mm lens is very good already
New 70-200mm f2.8 ( it will be hard to sell my Version 1 for a good price one new lens exist )
p.1 #12 · [Official Image Thread] Nikon Z 70-200 VR 2.8 S II
I’ve got the current Z 70-200mm f/2.8. It’s a spectacular lens, so a version II would be wasting money unless they come up with something really outstanding over the V one. Agree that a f/4.0 version would be nice.
p.1 #13 · [Official Image Thread] Nikon Z 70-200 VR 2.8 S II
The Z lens is the biggest and heaviest of the bunch. A version II following Canon and Sony's lead with size and weight would be nice. Especially hung off the Z9.
p.1 #14 · [Official Image Thread] Nikon Z 70-200 VR 2.8 S II
Yeah, echoing what people have said, I'd much rather have a 70-200 f/4 than another 70-200 2.8. People who want a light lens can get the 70-180 (or the new Tamron II version).
That said, it doesn't hurt to have choices, I just think we've been waiting patiently for that f4.
The current 70-200 Z is jaw dropping, optically and mechanically. Could it be lighter? Sure, but I'm not willing to shell out 2800 for it, lol.
p.1 #15 · [Official Image Thread] Nikon Z 70-200 VR 2.8 S II
I ended up deciding against upgrading to the new 24-70 2.8 but the 70-200 2.8 I could see doing, the current one is a bear to tote around all day on big jobs.
p.1 #16 · [Official Image Thread] Nikon Z 70-200 VR 2.8 S II
My older daughter is just old enough that she’s starting to play team sports. My old f Mount 70-200/4 kept up with the peewee action well enough but the lens is definitely showing its age. I think I’d also prefer an f4 Z lens, even for that use case, but if they can get the size down on the 2.8ii I will be interested.
p.1 #17 · [Official Image Thread] Nikon Z 70-200 VR 2.8 S II
Well it wasn’t like that at the beginning. Their collapsing 24-70, 14-24 F4 and their 1.8 primes were light and compact. And they’re still absolutely stellar today, especially that 14-24 F4
David83 wrote:
The Z lens is the biggest and heaviest of the bunch. A version II following Canon and Sony's lead with size and weight would be nice. Especially hung off the Z9.
p.1 #18 · [Official Image Thread] Nikon Z 70-200 VR 2.8 S II
I’m sure it’ll be lighter and feature the same VCM for much faster af
v5planet wrote:
My older daughter is just old enough that she’s starting to play team sports. My old f Mount 70-200/4 kept up with the peewee action well enough but the lens is definitely showing its age. I think I’d also prefer an f4 Z lens, even for that use case, but if they can get the size down on the 2.8ii I will be interested.
p.1 #19 · [Official Image Thread] Nikon Z 70-200 VR 2.8 S II
bernardl wrote:
My guess would be:
- Simplified optical formula with fewer elements
...
I wonder if more expensive glass elements are necessary for a simplified optical formula.
Voigtlander Apo-Lanthars lenses seem to confirm that it is possible to achieve a simplified formula by using several (I would say “many”) “apo” elements, thus achieving outstanding performance, reduced size/weight, and a higher price.
For example, the (new version) CV Z 50/2 AL has 10 elements in 8 groups, size is 69x64 mm, it weighs 370 g (the previous Z-mount version I own weighs 347 g); it has 5 anomalous partial dispersion elements and 2 double-sided aspherical lenses)
The Nikkor Z 50/1.8 has 12 elements in 9 groups, size is 76x86.5 mm and weighs 415 g; it has 2 ED glass and 2 aspherical lens elements. This suggests an overall lower cost of materials employed in the optical formula (no surprise the Voigt is better ).
I have no idea if this approach would work for an f/2.8 telephoto zoom lens.
).