EB-1 wrote:
The screw type locks are much more reliable and naturally compensate for slight variations in manufacturing and temperature.
Yes, the screw-type clamps are useful if you are using sloppy, poor quality plates. I don't use those crappy plates, so I prefer the added security of the lever clamp system. Use whatever works for you.
I moved from lever to screw and I won't go back. Screw is simply fool proof, and I know myself well enough to know that extreme conditions and temps can sometimes turn me into a fool.
Cliff L. wrote:
It looks like Nikon basically copied what Sony did with their version II of the 70-200 f2.8 GM a few years ago in terms of size, weight, and optical performance improvements, so Nikon may finally be back on even terms again, or even slightly ahead.
I prefer the removable tripod foot on the Sony lens, which can be replaced with a properly functional Arca-Swiss (and QD) compatible foot.
I love comments like this... It fits in line with those comments that Nikon is dying, they can't compete... Of course, they then introduced the Z9 and Z8, both of which have had continuous incremental improvements to a scale that dwarf what others have done with firmware. They then introduced the most comprehensive line of professional and ProSumer telephoto lenses, and continue to improve version 1 lenses as they re-imagine what the Vii optics look like.
While Sony may release sooner, it does not necessarily mean that their new releases are better.
With respect to your comment about lever releases vs screw releases? Have you ever used the releases by Really Right Stuff or Kirk? The lever releases need to be calibrated to match the foot being used. I have both a lever release and an screw release, and I have had to make my lever releases clamp tighter... I think Nikon's comment is a "buyer beware" comment because uninformed users don't bother to test their gear and then when a preventable accident happens they blame the manufacturer.
RoamingScott wrote:
I moved from lever to screw and I won't go back. Screw is simply fool proof, and I know myself well enough to know that extreme conditions and temps can sometimes turn me into a fool.
This is exactly why I use the lever clamp.
When my tripod head has two knobs and a lever, I'm safe. When it has three knobs, I have a chance of loosening the wrong one and letting gravity finally exact its revenge.
An amazing lens for new buyers...or people who must replace the older version.
My version One works great.. and when it breaks I will replace with version 2 ( or 3, or better yet f4 version )
OwlsEyes wrote:
I love comments like this... It fits in line with those comments that Nikon is dying, they can't compete... Of course, they then introduced the Z9 and Z8, both of which have had continuous incremental improvements to a scale that dwarf what others have done with firmware. They then introduced the most comprehensive line of professional and ProSumer telephoto lenses, and continue to improve version 1 lenses as they re-imagine what the Vii optics look like.
While Sony may release sooner, it does not necessarily mean that their new releases are better.
Well, in the case of the Sony FE 70-200mm f2.8 GM II, it was certainly better than the first Nikon Z 70-200mm f2.8 VR S. Other lenses may be different.
With respect to your comment about lever releases vs screw releases? Have you ever used the releases by Really Right Stuff or Kirk? The lever releases need to be calibrated to match the foot being used. I have both a lever release and an screw release, and I have had to make my lever releases clamp tighter... I think Nikon's comment is a "buyer beware" comment because uninformed users don't bother to test their gear and then when a preventable accident happens they blame the manufacturer.
Yes, I have used the RRS lever clamps for many years. The problem with the RRS lever clamps is poor quality control at RRS, which I documented here several years ago. If you get a good one, or modify the defective ones, they work extremely well, and absolutely no calibration is required for plates that have the correct Arca Swiss dovetail dimensions. The new Leofoto lever clamps are also good; the SmallRig lever clamps are terrible.
I almost dropped an expensive camera and lens off one of the RRS screw-type clamps years ago because I thought the clamp was tight but it wasn't, because the plate was slightly cocked. With a lever clamp, it can't close if the plate is not properly inserted, and it's obvious at a glance that the clamp is closed; with a screw-type clamp, you always have keep checking the tightness to make sure it's secure. I guess I've just spent a lot more time in the field with this gear, and I've learned what works and what doesn't. Not everybody has the same needs.
Cliff L. wrote:
Yes, the screw-type clamps are useful if you are using sloppy, poor quality plates. I don't use those crappy plates, so I prefer the added security of the lever clamp system. Use whatever works for you.
Maybe there are some other levers than the fixed RRS you are using, but I've had issues with the adjustable ones. It's just not worth the hassle.
I have thousands in RRS products. Practically every one has some weirdess. Defective ball heads, lever locks that jam, panning bases that fail loose. L brackets that are complicated and not the best shape despite being custom. Been there, done that. IMO, RRS has gone overboard with engineering and not put enough effort on the human factors. It seems they expect all the users to be engineers or athletes. But it's like when Steven was still alive any complaints about RRS were like attacking a religion. My money goes elsewhere now, like Kirk, Wimberly, Hejemar, Jobu, etc.
Cliff L. wrote:
I guess I've just spent a lot more time in the field with this gear, and I've learned what works and what doesn't. Not everybody has the same needs.
A lot more time?…best to not go there, it makes your opinion out to be a one size fits all and it is simply not the case. You do you man, maybe try not to push it on other people?
I was hoping it would be substantially smaller but i also get why its not. For five years i had the Canon R5 and the 1st gen RF 70-200 f2.8 and really did love that lens. I know its a push pull design and I know lots hate that design and would rather have all internal zooming, but i gotta say the compactness of it meant i took it with me more often than not. Imagine having a 70-200 f2.8 lens sit upright in your bag, no bigger than a 24-70 2.8 upright. It really was remarkable. Having the version 1 of the Nikon 70-200 i do not use nearly as often mainly because of how big it is.
That being said i will say the nikon version optically is far superior to the Canon's but what use is that if you dont take it with you lol.
Ai_Print wrote:
A lot more time?…best to not go there, it makes your opinion out to be a one size fits all and it is simply not the case. You do you man, maybe try not to push it on other people?
How is "not everybody has the same needs" pushing it on other people? Maybe it's just a reading comprehension issue...
The Nikkor Z 70-180/2.8 in the Z lens lineup ultimately takes on the job.
Certainly not quite as high-quality and expensive as the Canon, but it fulfills the purpose of a compact and lightweight solution in this area.
In my opinion, it's perfectly adequate if the aforementioned qualities take priority over ultimate image quality.
The Tamron is even more consistent in this regard, weighing 275g less and being significantly slimmer than the compact Canon 70-200/2.8, even though it's 20mm shorter at the long end.
The new Z 70-200/2.8 VR S II is aimed primarily at professional and very demanding amateurs.
Here, the focus is on maximum image quality and high robustness under a wide range of weather conditions.
So there are no hard compromises when it comes to internal zooming, focusing and IQ, which in a design like Canon's has to make greater compromises in favor of compactness/pack size.
I don't really see the need for such an expensive compact solution as Canon's.
For those who don't need the ultimate IQ and robustness of the large 70-200/2.8 designs, the Nikon Z 70-180/2.8, or the latest Tamron version, offers a very compact and lightweight solution that is still high quality, without being in the price range of the large 70-200/2.8 versions, like the Canon.
In both cases, Nikon offers the lighter solutions.
Even the new Nikon Z 70-200/2.8 VR S II is marginally lighter than the small, extendable Canon 70-200/2.8.
So the only real difference is the pack size, because in terms of weight you're carrying around pretty much the same as with the larger Nikon VR SII, but this comes at the cost of compromises on other levels.
Compromises that are more acceptable in the price class of a Nikon Z 70-180/2.8 than in the price class of the extendable Canon version.
RoamingScott wrote:
I moved from lever to screw and I won't go back. Screw is simply fool proof, and I know myself well enough to know that extreme conditions and temps can sometimes turn me into a fool.
I still roll with my Arca-Swiss B1 ballhead with the screw clamp that I bought new 25 years ago. I see no reason to change.
The extensible Canon is useless for video, that alone rules it out as a credible option for many professionals while being pretty compromised optically compared to the best. If I am not mistaken it’s also not TC compatible, which again is very limiting.
It certainly is great in some applications but It ends up being a very niche product that, like many Canon experiments, isn’t very likely to ever have a successor. IMHO.
The 70-180mm f2.8 sounds like a much better compromise overall for those willing to give up on something.
Vento wrote:
The Nikkor Z 70-180/2.8 in the Z lens lineup ultimately takes on the job.
Certainly not quite as high-quality and expensive as the Canon, but it fulfills the purpose of a compact and lightweight solution in this area.
In my opinion, it's perfectly adequate if the aforementioned qualities take priority over ultimate image quality.
The Tamron is even more consistent in this regard, weighing 275g less and being significantly slimmer than the compact Canon 70-200/2.8, even though it's 20mm shorter at the long end.
The new Z 70-200/2.8 VR S II is aimed primarily at professional and very demanding amateurs.
Here, the focus is on maximum image quality and high robustness under a wide range of weather conditions.
So there are no hard compromises when it comes to internal zooming, focusing and IQ, which in a design like Canon's has to make greater compromises in favor of compactness/pack size.
I don't really see the need for such an expensive compact solution as Canon's.
For those who don't need the ultimate IQ and robustness of the large 70-200/2.8 designs, the Nikon Z 70-180/2.8, or the latest Tamron version, offers a very compact and lightweight solution that is still high quality, without being in the price range of the large 70-200/2.8 versions, like the Canon.
Unfortunately the 70-200/4 Z Nikkor is missing in action. That's the only 70-200 Nikkor I'd buy. The Tamron 70-180/2.8 version is not a replacement. You should be comparing the latest Nikkor f/2.8 and Canon f/2.8 and Sony f/2.8 rather than the recently obsolete lenses.
I don't see the obsession with weight though. How much does your entire bag weigh and how much difference is a few hundred grams unless you are climbing a mountain?
EB-1 wrote:
Unfortunately the 70-200/4 Z Nikkor is missing in action. That's the only 70-200 Nikkor I'd buy. The Tamron 70-180/2.8 version is not a replacement. You should be comparing the latest Nikkor f/2.8 and Canon f/2.8 and Sony f/2.8 rather than the recently obsolete lenses.
I don't see the obsession with weight though. How much does your entire bag weigh and how much difference is a few hundred grams unless you are climbing a mountain?
EBH
Weight and compactness, over function in my book, are the core aspect Sony strategists picked when they wondered « what is our DNA and how can it help us differentiate to remain relevant as a photo equipment company? ». They start by setting a weight/bulk Target and design the best possible product fitting in the criteria. Until now Nikon did the opposite. They set an optical performance Target and designed the lightest possible product meeting their quality Target.
I believe that their tele and mkII lenses have adopted Sony approach. And sure enough they out did them.
It’s no surprise that some Sony fans end up being people who think that weight is more important than images.
I have been a vivid hiker for 25 years. The most impactful aspect is my extra fat. Contrary to the intuition weight of photo equipment isn’t that super critical overall if photography is the priority. For the tiny pourcentage of hikers who do winter camping in the wild (like I did this past weekend) bulk is definitely an issue though. My ULA circuit and my friend Blue Ice 90l pack were full with the Hilberg tent, shovels, avalanche probes etc… I could only pack the Z8 and 24-120mm f4 S. Boy was I glad that Nikon offers the best such lens on the market.
These are the current lenses in the 70-180/200/2.8 range from Canon and Nikon.
I'm happy to be corrected if Canon has something newer in its lineup than what's available on the comparison page and shown here.
But to my knowledge, these are the current versions: the RF 70-200/2.8 L IS USM Z and the RF 70-200/2.8 L IS USM and not recently obsolete lenses.
This was specifically about the RF 70-200/2.8 L IS USM and the user's statement that he regretted Nikon didn't take a similar approach with the new VR SII, so I don't know what Sony is doing here.
The point here was that Nikon has a compact and very lightweight version in its program, with the Z 70-180/2.8, for all those who are willing to compromise on optical quality, robustness of the construction, in favor of compactness/weight/pack size.
Therefore, your comment is completely off-topic.
This isn't about a comparison of Sony, Canon, and Nikon, nor about any 70-200/4 lens, but solely about the user's statement about the extendable RF 70-200/2.8 L IS USM, and that's what my reply referred to.
Therefore, what do a 70-200/4 or Sony have to do with this context? That was never the point of my answer.
And since when have the lenses shown here become recently outdated?
This is absolutely not about an obsession with weight.
Again, this is completely off-topic.
The point was that aside from the pack size, there's not much to gain if the compact, portable Canon version weighs more than the new Z 70-200/2.8 VR SII.
The Nikon Z 70-180 takes a more consistent approach, not only offering significant savings in pack size, but also being a full 275g lighter.
EB-1 wrote:
Unfortunately the 70-200/4 Z Nikkor is missing in action. That's the only 70-200 Nikkor I'd buy. The Tamron 70-180/2.8 version is not a replacement. You should be comparing the latest Nikkor f/2.8 and Canon f/2.8 and Sony f/2.8 rather than the recently obsolete lenses.
I don't see the obsession with weight though. How much does your entire bag weigh and how much difference is a few hundred grams unless you are climbing a mountain?
EBH
Or use the gear the whole day to cover events.
Besides, heft you don't have to carry is heft you can use to carry something else. A bit more water, a snack bar, the extra microphone and/or LED light, to name a few examples.
Cliff L. wrote:
How is "not everybody has the same needs" pushing it on other people? Maybe it's just a reading comprehension issue...
You said "I guess I've just spent a lot more time in the field with this gear, and I've learned what works and what doesn't." and that could come off as you have more time than others in using this kind of tool and you can't possibly know that and it comes off as holier than thou.
Vento wrote:
The Nikkor Z 70-180/2.8 in the Z lens lineup ultimately takes on the job.
Certainly not quite as high-quality and expensive as the Canon, but it fulfills the purpose of a compact and lightweight solution in this area.
In my opinion, it's perfectly adequate if the aforementioned qualities take priority over ultimate image quality.
The Tamron is even more consistent in this regard, weighing 275g less and being significantly slimmer than the compact Canon 70-200/2.8, even though it's 20mm shorter at the long end.
The new Z 70-200/2.8 VR S II is aimed primarily at professional and very demanding amateurs.
Here, the focus is on maximum image quality and high robustness under a wide range of weather conditions.
So there are no hard compromises when it comes to internal zooming, focusing and IQ, which in a design like Canon's has to make greater compromises in favor of compactness/pack size.
I don't really see the need for such an expensive compact solution as Canon's.
For those who don't need the ultimate IQ and robustness of the large 70-200/2.8 designs, the Nikon Z 70-180/2.8, or the latest Tamron version, offers a very compact and lightweight solution that is still high quality, without being in the price range of the large 70-200/2.8 versions, like the Canon.
In both cases, Nikon offers the lighter solutions.
Even the new Nikon Z 70-200/2.8 VR S II is marginally lighter than the small, extendable Canon 70-200/2.8.
So the only real difference is the pack size, because in terms of weight you're carrying around pretty much the same as with the larger Nikon VR SII, but this comes at the cost of compromises on other levels.
Compromises that are more acceptable in the price class of a Nikon Z 70-180/2.8 than in the price class of the extendable Canon version. https://s1.directupload.eu/images/260225/komcj58c.jpg
Definitely get that. However id argue that the Nikon 70-180 isnt "quite" as comparable. It's not weather sealed to the extent that the canon RF is and it doesnt have the coatings. It also doesnt go to 200 but thats fairly minimal. My argument is Nikon already has a fantastic traditional 70-200 S lens. I never ran into anyone who didnt think that lens optically was amazing. I even think its amazing optically. Version 2 feels more or less the same to me. Sure its an upgrade but all the upgrades seem minimal, at least in my eyes.
I just feel like Nikon could have come out with a compact version like Canon has. In fact canon still makes both versions which is great, and probably for that exact reason, giving customers choice. I would also have loved to see Nikon make a 70-200 f4. Its not the weight for me its strictly the compactness. When i travel abroad i like to be able to carry all my gear in a single bag that doesnt break my back. I use the 70-200 often for on the field portraits as well as landscapes. I also have my 100-400. Both hefty lenses. Its nice if i could shed some lbs and size.
My money goes elsewhere now, like Kirk, Wimberly, Hejemar, Jobu, etc. 
, it seems they have knocked one out of the park, again.