Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
p.1 #1Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
Looks like this might be released tonight. I'm curious what Nikon plans to do with this lens.
What would it take for you to upgrade?
I imagine it's going to be lighter, but the version one was a very sharp lens so I don't know that there are many sharpness gains to be had. The rendering was ok, but not special IMO. Lighter also often means more optical vignetting. I do feel like Nikon is falling behind the times as faster versions of the holy trinity are becoming the norm. I would have much rather seen something comparable to the 50-150 f2, but will withhold judgement until it's released. The existing 70-200 2.8s has been pushing up and up in price without significant discount. I imagine this is also going to come in around $3200 which is a hard sell for me.
What would it take for you to upgrade?
I imagine it's going to be lighter, but the version one was a very sharp lens so I don't know that there are many sharpness gains to be had. The rendering was ok, but not special IMO. Lighter also often means more optical vignetting. I do feel like Nikon is falling behind the times as faster versions of the holy trinity are becoming the norm. I would have much rather seen something comparable to the 50-150 f2, but will withhold judgement until it's released. The existing 70-200 2.8s has been pushing up and up in price without significant discount. I imagine this is also going to come in around $3200 which is a hard sell for me.
Feb 23, 2026 at 03:00 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #2Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
Just look at the 24-70/2.8 II. That’s the game plan for every new iteration at this point.
Feb 23, 2026 at 03:18 PM
p.1 #3Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
I don't own the Mark 1 so I am just glad after release of Mark II I can pick one used at slightly lower price. 24-120 and 180-600 hardly leave any focal length gap in my kit, I adapted Samyang 135mm f1.8 prime which delivers beautiful rendering but AF performance leaves a bit to desire when it comes to fast moving subjects.
Most notable changed would be reduction in weight and size. It's already has excellent sharpness, internally focussing and AF is lightning fast by all reports.
They might beat Sony GM II in weight like they did with Z 24-70 S II.
Most notable changed would be reduction in weight and size. It's already has excellent sharpness, internally focussing and AF is lightning fast by all reports.
They might beat Sony GM II in weight like they did with Z 24-70 S II.
Feb 23, 2026 at 03:22 PM
p.1 #4Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
It really depends on what the upgrade is offering but I don't know that I will bother upgrading. I mean, I doubt it could be any sharper, it's stupid sharp with stunning overall IQ. It will be lighter, but the weight doesn't bother me. Things like the clickable control ring are good, but it is only good if you can use it for the lenses that have it and not on the lenses that don't. I set the control ring for aperture for my 24-70 f1.8II but when I use my other lenses I was continually being moved easily accidentally and I was getting crazy apertures. I think FW upgrade needs to be implemented so as only those lenses with clickable control rings can be selected for use and others the control ring turned off. I thus turned it off. I assume there will be a PL window, but that could be achieved if Nikon rejigged the current lens hood. It would be a costly upgrade for little reward for me, similarly to the 24-70 f2.8 II upgrade. Like the 24-70 II upgrade, it is only of benefit if the factors add up to a real benefit for you. The 24-70 f2.8 It was an upgrade I considered a benefit. In that instance the lighter weight, internal zoom, PL window, clickable control ring - hopefully a FW upgrade will allow the control ring use for those with clickable control rings only.
Feb 23, 2026 at 03:26 PM
p.1 #5Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
RoamingScott wrote:
Just look at the 24-70/2.8 II. That’s the game plan for every new iteration at this point.
The internal focusing made a lot of sense with that lens for use in video and on a gimbal; that doesn't apply here. I've seen reviews that don't suggest it is meaningfully sharper than the previous version (at some focal lengths it's worse). Can you be more specific?
Just look at the 24-70/2.8 II. That’s the game plan for every new iteration at this point.
The internal focusing made a lot of sense with that lens for use in video and on a gimbal; that doesn't apply here. I've seen reviews that don't suggest it is meaningfully sharper than the previous version (at some focal lengths it's worse). Can you be more specific?
Feb 23, 2026 at 03:40 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #6Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
nhmorgan wrote:
The internal focusing made a lot of sense with that lens for use in video and on a gimbal; that doesn't apply here. I've seen reviews that don't suggest it is meaningfully sharper than the previous version (at some focal lengths it's worse). Can you be more specific?
Lighter, clicky "aperture" ring (the new control ring style), "silky" AF motors, possibly shorter length when fully extended, possibly better balanced internally. Basic stuff.
It seems like so far the Mark II iterations are more for quality of life improvements, not significant IQ improvements. If you don't have either version, the Mark II is the "better" option. If you have the Mark I, there's little reason to upgrade.
RoamingScott wrote
Just look at the 24-70/2.8 II. That’s the game plan for every new iteration at this point.Lighter, clicky "aperture" ring (the new control ring style), "silky" AF motors, possibly shorter length when fully extended, possibly better balanced internally. Basic stuff.
It seems like so far the Mark II iterations are more for quality of life improvements, not significant IQ improvements. If you don't have either version, the Mark II is the "better" option. If you have the Mark I, there's little reason to upgrade.
Feb 23, 2026 at 03:54 PM
p.1 #7Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
Would be nice to see Mk2 of 24-120/4.
Lighter, like 500g. Probably not possible to go that low.
Lighter, like 500g. Probably not possible to go that low.
Feb 23, 2026 at 05:37 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #8Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
The crappy variable aperture version exists for you non-gym-hitting weaklings 🤣
phinix wrote:
Would be nice to see Mk2 of 24-120/4.
Lighter, like 500g. Probably not possible to go that low.
phinix wrote:
Would be nice to see Mk2 of 24-120/4.
Lighter, like 500g. Probably not possible to go that low.
Feb 23, 2026 at 06:00 PM
p.1 #9Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
Sony's 70-200 2.8 OSS II undercuts the Nikon one in weight by 320 grams, and gets the lens element count down from 21 elements in 18 groups to 17 elements in 14 groups with an all-new design, though it's about the same size and like the Nikkor it zooms internally. I don't think it's really possible to improve the near-infinity performance of the lens, though closer up there are some possibilities for improvement mostly toward the 200mm end where corners see less resolution and stranger bokeh as you come within 15 feet or so and increasingly as you approach minimum focus distance. So I suspect this is the sort of thing we'll see from Nikon; a slightly simpler design with some fancy lens elements to get there, slightly better microcontrast, slightly better performance at near distances at the 200mm end, slightly faster autofocus, obviously less weight, and a clicky aperture ring. It's what Nikon more or less did with the 24-70/2.8 after all and it's what Sony has done with their 70-200.
Oh, and a bunch more money.
What might get me interested? If they find a way of really knocking it out of the park on close focus in a way that would allow me to skip a separate macro lens, especially if it can pull off something impressive at 200mm. Let's say the 50cm minimum focus distance of the existing 70-200 at the 70mm were to be carried all the way to 200 in the new lens without any blowback on optical quality -- that would more or less obsolete existing 200mm macro lenses.
Oh, and a bunch more money.
What might get me interested? If they find a way of really knocking it out of the park on close focus in a way that would allow me to skip a separate macro lens, especially if it can pull off something impressive at 200mm. Let's say the 50cm minimum focus distance of the existing 70-200 at the 70mm were to be carried all the way to 200 in the new lens without any blowback on optical quality -- that would more or less obsolete existing 200mm macro lenses.
Feb 23, 2026 at 07:16 PM
|
p.1 #10Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
anddd it's been announced
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1953205-REG/nikon_nikkor_z_70_200mm_f_2_8.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1953205-REG/nikon_nikkor_z_70_200mm_f_2_8.html
Feb 23, 2026 at 10:07 PM
p.1 #11Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
https://www.nikon.com/company/news/2026/0224_imaging_01.html
Only 998 grams.
It’s the first Nikon lens to have an Arca-compatible lens foot.
$3200 USD
Edited on Feb 23, 2026 at 10:17 PM · View previous versions
Only 998 grams.
It’s the first Nikon lens to have an Arca-compatible lens foot.
$3200 USD
Edited on Feb 23, 2026 at 10:17 PM · View previous versions
Feb 23, 2026 at 10:07 PM
p.1 #14Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
NPS Priority order placed. Anyone need a v.1 70-200? 
Feb 23, 2026 at 10:28 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #15Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
Like I said!
.3x is kinda weak. Glad I couldn’t care less about this type of lens given that price, yowza.
RoamingScott wrote:
The internal focusing made a lot of sense with that lens for use in video and on a gimbal; that doesn't apply here. I've seen reviews that don't suggest it is meaningfully sharper than the previous version (at some focal lengths it's worse). Can you be more specific?Lighter, clicky "aperture" ring (the new control ring style), "silky" AF motors, possibly shorter length when fully extended, possibly better balanced internally. Basic stuff.
It seems like so far the Mark II iterations are more for quality of life improvements, not significant IQ improvements. If you don't have either version, the Mark II is the "better" option. If you have the Mark I, there's little reason to upgrade.
.3x is kinda weak. Glad I couldn’t care less about this type of lens given that price, yowza.
RoamingScott wrote:
nhmorgan wrote
RoamingScott wrote
Just look at the 24-70/2.8 II. That’s the game plan for every new iteration at this point.It seems like so far the Mark II iterations are more for quality of life improvements, not significant IQ improvements. If you don't have either version, the Mark II is the "better" option. If you have the Mark I, there's little reason to upgrade.
Feb 23, 2026 at 10:28 PM
p.1 #16Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
Todd Warnke wrote:
NPS Priority order placed. Anyone need a v.1 70-200?
I do!
NPS Priority order placed. Anyone need a v.1 70-200?
I do!
Feb 23, 2026 at 10:36 PM
p.1 #17Nikon 70-200 2.8s ii
Nice! Looks like a good upgrade, just on weight reduction alone. I am a bit tapped out this quarter but I went ahead and put my order in. Time to sell the V1!
Feb 23, 2026 at 10:37 PM