RoamingScott wrote:
Saving my money for the 100-400 II instead 😁
Should be 18 months away at this cadence.
This is the lens update I’m interested in too. I really like the current version but hoping it gets internal zoom. Potentially being lighter and with faster AF would be great bonuses if those feature come too.
I've been playing with the idea of trading / selling my 100-400 for the 70-200 f2.8 (v1), but have resisted because of the versatility of the 100-400. However, because I like to shoot in marginal weather (ie rain, snow, cold, fog, sea spray, etc...), I'd prefer the internal zoom that is engineered into the 70-200 f2.8 models.
I figured that the upgrades in a version II 70-200 f2.8 would be trivial, but it is clear that I am very wrong about this. While I welcome the lighter weight and built in A/S mount, it is the significant improvement in AF speed that has caught my attention. Since I use the 400 f2.8TC regularly, I know how fast and quiet these lenses are... Now here are the key questions for me:
1. How will the lens perform with the 1.4x and 2x converters in terms of optics. Will it be comparable to the 100-400?
2. What is the AF penalty for using the converter? Will the converters result in an AF speed that is slower than the 100-400?
It will take time for this information to come out. I doubt that the 70-200 will match the performance of the 100-400, but if it does, it will be the next lens on my list.
I am so committed to the internal zoom on these lenses that I actually purchased the heavier and slower 35-75mm XCD zoom for my Hasselblad X2D instead of the 35-100... in fact, I now use that lens more often than my NIkon 24-120 (unless I need the range) because the 24-120 has a telescoping zoom barrel.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I've been playing with the idea of trading / selling my 100-400 for the 70-200 f2.8 (v1), but have resisted because of the versatility of the 100-400. However, because I like to shoot in marginal weather (ie rain, snow, cold, fog, sea spray, etc...), I'd prefer the internal zoom that is engineered into the 70-200 f2.8 models.
I figured that the upgrades in a version II 70-200 f2.8 would be trivial, but it is clear that I am very wrong about this. While I welcome the lighter weight and built in A/S mount, it is the significant improvement in AF speed that has caught my attention. Since I use the 400 f2.8TC regularly, I know how fast and quiet these lenses are... Now here are the key questions for me:
1. How will the lens perform with the 1.4x and 2x converters in terms of optics. Will it be comparable to the 100-400?
2. What is the AF penalty for using the converter? Will the converters result in an AF speed that is slower than the 100-400?
It will take time for this information to come out. I doubt that the 70-200 will match the performance of the 100-400, but if it does, it will be the next lens on my list.
I am so committed to the internal zoom on these lenses that I actually purchased the heavier and slower 35-75mm XCD zoom for my Hasselblad X2D instead of the 35-100... in fact, I now use that lens more often than my NIkon 24-120 (unless I need the range) because the 24-120 has a telescoping zoom barrel.
Looked up some specs. The lens weighs under 1 kg, which means there’s no real need to use the tripod collar anymore. That’s below the threshold most mounts can safely handle without risking damage.
A very welcome change, especially since my camera is already around 1.5 kg with the cage attached. Once you start mounting heavier lenses on a setup like that, proper lens support becomes essential. So having a lighter lens that keeps the whole combination better balanced is definitely a relief.
HendrikV wrote:
Looked up some specs. The lens weighs under 1 kg, which means there’s no real need to use the tripod collar anymore. That’s below the threshold most mounts can safely handle without risking damage.
A very welcome change, especially since my camera is already around 1.5 kg with the cage attached. Once you start mounting heavier lenses on a setup like that, proper lens support becomes essential. So having a lighter lens that keeps the whole combination better balanced is definitely a relief.
I'd rather use the tripod foot with integrated Arca vs having to put a plate or L on my camera, personally, since you can also use the inverted foot to carry the setup with ease.
His 1.4x shots are very compelling. If you don't use 300-400 all that much on the 100-400 or don't need the .4x magnification, the new 70-200 with a 1.4x becomes another great option and would pair perfectly with the 24-120 (and you wouldn't have to take the 1.4x off).
You save 500g (!) which is great for travel and you save about .5 inches as well (though that's immedaitely eaten up by the TC).
By 2x, you're losing the quality you're paying for, as usual.
Pretty sure I'm getting this since my version one is hitting repair or replace territory since I have to get the screws holding the tripod foot in place tightened and the AF is getting a little "weird" when I set the camera down while it still turned on and then when I pick it up the AF won't engage again till I turn the camera off and on again.
I understand the appeal of an Arca Swiss tripod foot but we don't know or have heard the specifications of that Arca groove. Not all Arca Swiss dimensions are the same and for those of us who use Really Right Stuff lever clamps, that matters. It is quite possible one will need to add a RRS plate to the foot anyway in order to fit securely with a lever clamp.
I find the Mk I to be plenty sharp enough and considering the $$$$$ entry cost for the Mk II it's likely a hard pass for me.
RoamingScott wrote:
His 1.4x shots are very compelling. If you don't use 300-400 all that much on the 100-400 or don't need the .4x magnification, the new 70-200 with a 1.4x becomes another great option and would pair perfectly with the 24-120 (and you wouldn't have to take the 1.4x off).
You save 500g (!) which is great for travel and you save about .5 inches as well (though that's immedaitely eaten up by the TC).
By 2x, you're losing the quality you're paying for, as usual.
I was pondering this idea as well, having a 98-280/4 to pair with the 24-120. But the weight savings isn’t that much: 1435g for 100-400 w/tripod collar vs 1135g for 70-200 VII w/tripod collar + 220g for 1.4x = 1355g, so the 100-400 is only 80g heavier.
Ross Martin wrote:
I was pondering this idea as well, having a 98-280/4 to pair with the 24-120. But the weight savings isn’t that much: 1435g for 100-400 w/tripod collar vs 1135g for 70-200 VII w/tripod collar + 220g for 1.4x = 1355g, so the 100-400 is only 80g heavier.
This is where the Sony 70-200/4 Macro is so brilliant! If Nikon made something like that, I'd likely trade my 100-400 for that for hiking trips. I never put the collar on for my hiking trips, so there is a bit more weight savings to eke out for that use case.
I've thought about adapting the Sony, but assume it relies heavily on software correction being so small.
JBPhotog wrote:
I understand the appeal of an Arca Swiss tripod foot but we don't know or have heard the specifications of that Arca groove. Not all Arca Swiss dimensions are the same and for those of us who use Really Right Stuff lever clamps, that matters. It is quite possible one will need to add a RRS plate to the foot anyway in order to fit securely with a lever clamp.
I find the Mk I to be plenty sharp enough and considering the $$$$$ entry cost for the Mk II it's likely a hard pass for me.
Nikon’s press release has a footnote that says: "The tripod collar of this lens can be attached to Arca-Swiss screw-type quick-release clamps. However, please avoid using lever-type clamps, as they may not fix the lens firmly in place."
RoamingScott wrote:
I'd rather use the tripod foot with integrated Arca vs having to put a plate or L on my camera, personally, since you can also use the inverted foot to carry the setup with ease.
Yes, that’s definitely an option if you remove the cage. In my case, it’s permanently attached, so the setup is always on the heavier side.
Nikon doesn’t clearly specify the maximum safe load for the mount, but I’ve heard more than once that excessive weight, whether from a heavy lens or body, can stress or even damage the mount over time. In situations like this, I’d rather be cautious. Better safe than sorry.
With the relatively low weight of the new lens, I’m comfortable letting the camera carry the load. With heavier glass, I usually prefer to support the lens instead.
HendrikV wrote:
Yes, that’s definitely an option if you remove the cage. In my case, it’s permanently attached, so the setup is always on the heavier side.
Nikon doesn’t clearly specify the maximum safe load for the mount, but I’ve heard more than once that excessive weight, whether from a heavy lens or body, can stress or even damage the mount over time. In situations like this, I’d rather be cautious. Better safe than sorry.
With the relatively low weight of the new lens, I’m comfortable letting the camera carry the load. With heavier glass, I usually prefer to support the lens instead.
I've had the heavier 100-400 dangling from my Z9 for years with zero ill effects. I suspect it would take a sizable increase to put real stress on either.
Quite a compelling release. Over a pound lighter than my VRII/FTZII combo, a massive improvement in in reproduction ratio, and strong TC functionality... Hmm.
Very compelling indeed. I mainly use the 70-200 as a tool and rarely for personal use. I still use a 70-200e adapted that has been so reliable that I will not replace it until it becomes unreliable.
If and when I have to, this lens will be at the top of the list.
Outstanding wrote:
Lighter and Faster: The new lens is 25% lighter than the previous version, weighing 998g without the tripod foot, and focuses 3.5 times faster. This weight reduction is attributed to new manufacturing techniques, fewer lens elements, and mechanical adjustments.
Enhanced Build Quality: It features a control ring with a click, a smooth focus ring, and two function buttons. The lens boasts professional-level weather and ingress protection, performing reliably even in heavy rain.
Optical Excellence and Technology : The lens incorporates advanced coatings like mesoamorphous and ano coatings to reduce flaring, and new lens materials to minimize chromatic aberration. It's designed to perform at a prime lens level optically.
Video Optimization: The lens is optimized for video with minimal balance shifts during zooming and virtually no focus breathing, making it suitable for professional videography.
Improved Close-Up Capabilities: The minimum focus distance has been improved to 0.38 meters at 70mm and 0.8 meters at 200mm, enhancing its close-up performance.
Arca-Swiss Compatibility: A notable new feature is the fully detachable tripod collar with Arca-Swiss compliance, a long-requested addition by users.
Image Stabilization: The lens offers up to 6.0 stops of VR stabilization, working in concert with in-body image stabilization (IBIS) for extremely stable images, even at low shutter speeds and long focal lengths.
Pricing: The lens is priced at $3,199 in the US....Show more →
the only thing i don't like is what they are asking from us!
Have only read Nikon's promo material, I see no mention of focal length breathing; it seems like a lot of new lenses mention this feature since video is a big deal nowadays. The F mount VRii had quite a bit more FL breathing than the VRi. I wonder if this Z version 2 has the same compromise, or has NIkon really pulled something amazing, holding and improving almost everything but making it way lighter? (other than the price)?
pbraymond wrote:
Have only read Nikon's promo material, I see no mention of focal length breathing; it seems like a lot of new lenses mention this feature since video is a big deal nowadays. The F mount VRii had quite a bit more FL breathing than the VRi. I wonder if this Z version 2 has the same compromise, or has NIkon really pulled something amazing, holding and improving almost everything but making it way lighter? (other than the price)?
Focal length breathing dropped very sharply on the F-mount FL E of 2016, which had almost no breathing at the 200 mm end while I'd guess about 10 to 15 percent at the short end (it cropped more tightly at close focus than at infinity at 70mm), and was almost eliminated altogether for the first Z lens. This one is basically breathing free as from what I can see.
Daniel Bliss wrote:
Focal length breathing dropped very sharply on the F-mount FL E of 2016, which had almost no breathing at the 200 mm end while I'd guess about 10 to 15 percent at the short end (it cropped more tightly at close focus than at infinity at 70mm), and was almost eliminated altogether for the first Z lens. This one is basically breathing free as from what I can see.
Thanks, that's great to know. I went from shooting DX 70-200 VR1 to shooting FX 70-200 VR2 and felt that quite a bit at first, but eventually just got used to what it was.
