p.1 #1 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
Just curious to see what the thoughts are on the new 70-200 at $3200. I am curious because I don't have either and am considering whether I want a used 70-200 v.1, splurge for the new one because of the weight, etc., or just find a used 100-400 because it's so versatile.
Sounds like the IQ is very close, but no denying that much lighter weight is an attraction, but it's expensive.
p.1 #2 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
I think you'd need to decide on any 70-200 vs. the 100-400 first. Do you need the 200-400 range often? Do you want speed at the wider focal lengths in a zoom? Could a 100-400 + prime be a better fit than a 70-200 + TC's? Etc.
If you do land on a 70-200, then I think the real question is whether or not the weight savings mean you'll use the new lens more than you would the original. For me, that answer is yes. For you, if a 100-400 is in the running, that answer might be no. Weight-wise, the 100-400 and v1 are quite similar. The new lens isn't exactly a different size class of lens or anything, but it is 12-15 ounces lighter than the other two.
I got the new lens after several years with the older 70-200 f/2.8G VRII. It's a lot lighter, a little bit faster, and it has a lot less focus breathing than that lens. I tried the original S lens for a short time, but it wasn't a great fit then. I was still using DSLR's along with mirrorless for 70-200 things, and it didn't seem smaller enough or lighter enough to be worth the money at that time. But now, the new lens made sense and I'm glad I got it. It's almost like having the 70-200 f/4G again. Almost..
p.1 #4 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
I feel the best value is to buy a lens soon after it is out. Then you can use it for many years without concerns about updates. The latest and greatest lenses are generally going to be better with TCs and on future high-res cameras even if the IQ difference is less noticeable with only 45MP.
A 70-200/2.8 and 100-400/5.6 are different lenses for different purposes. For over 20 years I've had some version of both and used one of the other depending on the location. There is also a use case for a 70-200/4 that is currently lacking.
p.1 #5 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
Buy the new lens. The first one (I tested 3 copes) all had mount slop/movement that irritated the heck out of me. They’re both the same with sharpness (perfect to my eyes) and the weight is a nice improvement.
I love the tripod mount system as the lens is now the same/similar weight to 85mm 1.2 and I’d prefer no tripod mount.
Best luck!
Jonathan wrote:
Just curious to see what the thoughts are on the new 70-200 at $3200. I am curious because I don't have either and am considering whether I want a used 70-200 v.1, splurge for the new one because of the weight, etc., or just find a used 100-400 because it's so versatile.
Sounds like the IQ is very close, but no denying that much lighter weight is an attraction, but it's expensive.
p.1 #6 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
EB-1 wrote:
I feel the best value is to buy a lens soon after it is out. Then you can use it for many years without concerns about updates.
I wouldn’t call that the best value. I mean, if you’ve got bad FOMO/GAS and you’re not going to be able to resist buying v3 as soon as it comes out, I guess there’s an argument to also buy v2 as soon as you can so you amortize it over more years. But if you wait *both times* and buy Used EX+ after a little while you’re still getting just as many years out of each but also spending quite a bit less.
p.1 #7 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
It's probably "best value" because you trade in the previous version for the new version and save money. I paid less than 2 grand for the SII. Also helped that I had a ton of Adorama store credit as well. Lee Saxon wrote:
I wouldn’t call that the best value. I mean, if you’ve got bad FOMO/GAS and you’re not going to be able to resist buying v3 as soon as it comes out, I guess there’s an argument to also buy v2 as soon as you can so you amortize it over more years. But if you wait *both times* and buy Used EX+ after a little while you’re still getting just as many years out of each but also spending quite a bit less.
p.1 #8 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
I think I'm gonna pull the trigger on it soon. I was using the 70-200 f/2.8G VRII until the 70-180 came out and just love the weight and portability of that lens. But I do miss that little extra reach and knowing its not the "pro" lens.
The trouble now is the deals to be had on the version 1 S lens. Is it enough to carry the extra weight?
p.1 #11 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
I’ve had the 70-180 2.8 for several months now and thought I’d be content with that. It has the zoom ring and the function ring that I program all my lenses to be ISO. It’s a great lens over all and so far I’ve used it for pro event work and weddings. But a couple of corporate events recently made me realize I needed ‘’more”. All my lenses have a Fn button. I miss that on the 70-180. All my other lenses have a manual focus ring. I miss that on the 70-180. So while the image quality is good, it’s missing a couple of pro features. So I sold a camera and a kidney and got the 70-200 II and wow, what a difference. Image quality is immediately obviously better. You don’t need to zoom in to say “ya that’s sharp”. You can just see it. Also 2 sets of Fn buttons for different things. Fantastic lens. I’m in a zoom phase. I haven’t had a 70-200 since 2018 and instead have been using 85 and 135 and telephoto lenses for events and weddings. And 85 for portraits. This will be a nice change for that purpose.
p.1 #12 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
How's the IQ of new 70-200 at 400mm with 2X TC? I have 70-180 and 100-400. I wish for more reach when I shoot indoor stuff with 70-180. Works great with 1.4x. At times I wish if I could change TC and get more reach. I can take 100-400 with me. But that'll be lots of weight to carry. Even with 2X TC, new 70-200 is lighter than 100-400. I like to use it at 400mm for outdoor stuff. But worried the sharpness won't be as good as 100-400. Has anyone compared these?
Is there a comparison of old Z 70-200+TC with 100-400 at 400mm? Looks like new lens is pretty close to old one in sharpness.
p.1 #13 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
I have no personal experience (yet) but Ricci (Nikon rep and YouTuber) did a side by side at 100% and reports the 70-200 2.8 II is sharper at 400mm. Best luck! Jemini wrote:
How's the IQ of new 70-200 at 400mm with 2X TC? I have 70-180 and 100-400. I wish for more reach when I shoot indoor stuff with 70-180. Works great with 1.4x. At times I wish if I could change TC and get more reach. I can take 100-400 with me. But that'll be lots of weight to carry. Even with 2X TC, new 70-200 is lighter than 100-400. I like to use it at 400mm for outdoor stuff. But worried the sharpness won't be as good as 100-400. Has anyone compared these?
Is there a comparison of old Z 70-200+TC with 100-400 at 400mm? Looks like new lens is pretty close to old one in sharpness. ...Show more →
p.1 #14 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
I saw that video after posting it. As a Nikon guy, I'm not sure if I can depend on just his review . Jan (Australia) mentioned 2x TC combo is slightly less sharp. Will watch for few more before making the purchase.
Blakehfreeman wrote:
I have no personal experience (yet) but Ricci (Nikon rep and YouTuber) did a side by side at 100% and reports the 70-200 2.8 II is sharper at 400mm. Best luck!
p.1 #15 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
Jemini wrote:
I saw that video after posting it. As a Nikon guy, I'm not sure if I can depend on just his review . Jan (Australia) mentioned 2x TC combo is slightly less sharp. Will watch for few more before making the purchase.
With zooms and especially zooms with TCs, there is sample variability to consider, also some combinations work well at close distances but not further away, this is a common issue with setups that includes TCs. Ricci gives useful information but it's good to check multiple sources to see what the variation in image quality is across shooting conditions and lens samples.
As an example of variability between reviews and samples, photographylife's 180-600 vs. 100-400 comparison gives the advantage to the 100-400 at shared focal lengths (big at 200mm and 300mm, slight at 400 mm) but Steve Perry gives a slight advantage to the 180-600 at 300 mm and a more clear advantage to the 180-600 at 400 mm. There are also different methodologies, as photographylife uses imatest to come up with numerical data and Steve Perry is mostly evaluating the images by eye, which can be subjective. The 100-400 even in Steve's test images is seen giving more contrasty images than the 180-600, which can be important to some users (landscape, in particular, or shooting in soft light conditions), but a bird photographer might be more interested in sharpness. So the quality of the lens and its usefulness for specific purposes may differ depending on the application.
p.1 #16 · Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II Lens
Thank you ilkka. Great reply. I was baffled by some these tests (especially photographylife's) and my own experience. According to Photographylife, 100-400 and 400/4.5 prime supposed to have same sharpness. But in my experience, prime is way sharper and works great with TC. So far I couldn't get nice feather details with 100-400+TC.
The 180-600 works better with TC in my experience. Nikon claim new 70-200 works better with both TC's. I hope it's true. If the 70-200+2X can get feather/fur details close 100-400 at normal wildlife distances, I'll be happy.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
With zooms and especially zooms with TCs, there is sample variability to consider, also some combinations work well at close distances but not further away, this is a common issue with setups that includes TCs. Ricci gives useful information but it's good to check multiple sources to see what the variation in image quality is across shooting conditions and lens samples.
As an example of variability between reviews and samples, photographylife's 180-600 vs. 100-400 comparison gives the advantage to the 100-400 at shared focal lengths (big at 200mm and 300mm, slight at 400 mm) but Steve Perry gives a slight advantage to the 180-600 at 300 mm and a more clear advantage to the 180-600 at 400 mm. There are also different methodologies, as photographylife uses imatest to come up with numerical data and Steve Perry is mostly evaluating the images by eye, which can be subjective. The 100-400 even in Steve's test images is seen giving more contrasty images than the 180-600, which can be important to some users (landscape, in particular, or shooting in soft light conditions), but a bird photographer might be more interested in sharpness. So the quality of the lens and its usefulness for specific purposes may differ depending on the application. ...Show more →
. Jan (Australia) mentioned 2x TC combo is slightly less sharp. Will watch for few more before making the purchase.