rico wrote:
In my case owning both makes sense, and the tradeoff (as you mention) is lower weight versus light gathering. If f/2.8 is needed, like event work, then the 70-200E is ideal. It is otherwise a boat anchor that merely matches the 70-200G optically.
I thought about adding back the f/4 after some time, but by that point I was also getting into MFNG. So my kit got split up into smaller manual primes as alternatives to the big 70-200. I was using stuff like the 100 f/2.8 Series E, NIKKOR-Q 135 f/2.8, and 180 f/2.8 ED Ai-S as alternatives. And actually, just up until the new Z 70-200 II lens came out, I was using the 75-150 f/3.5 Series E a ton as a more practical alternative to the VRII.
OffTrail wrote:
I was using the 75-150 f/3.5 Series E a ton as a more practical alternative to the VRII.
I also enjoy the manual-focus oldies, and not just Nikkors. One of my alternatives to the 70-200/2.8 beast zooms is the Canon nFD 80-200/4L which performs at a high level with low weight and decent price (mine cost $200).
rico wrote:
I also enjoy the manual-focus oldies, and not just Nikkors. One of my alternatives to the 70-200/2.8 beast zooms is the Canon nFD 80-200/4L which performs at a high level with low weight and decent price (mine cost $200).
The old zooms can be freakishly good. When I got the new 70-200 S II lens, I naturally compared it to the 75-150 and even my NIKKOR-P 10.5cm f/2.5. It's pretty wild how well those old lenses hold up today. The 75-150 especially is such a gem. When I sold the first 70-200 S lens and went back to the VRII, the 75-150 stepped in to finally solve the VRII's abysmal close focusing performance. $35!
I also have the 70-200 2.8S and don't use it that much.....but when I do use it I'm reminded that it's one of the best lenses in my kit. I also have the 100-400. If I was forced to pick one, it would be the 70-200 for the wow factor but of course focal range defines your need there. Both lenses are amazing though. I agree with Scott.....buy the 100-400, make a point of using both lots and then decide.
My 70-200/2.8 E is my sort of boringly excellent motorsports workhorse. It's not as exciting of a piece of kit as a super telephoto, but it often gets me more dramatic looking shots. Long lenses provide flexibility to snipe away from easier shooting positions. My 70-200 shots tend to feel more immersive because I'm much closer to the action when I use it.
OffTrail wrote:
I thought about adding back the f/4 after some time, but by that point I was also getting into MFNG. So my kit got split up into smaller manual primes as alternatives to the big 70-200. I was using stuff like the 100 f/2.8 Series E, NIKKOR-Q 135 f/2.8, and 180 f/2.8 ED Ai-S as alternatives. And actually, just up until the new Z 70-200 II lens came out, I was using the 75-150 f/3.5 Series E a ton as a more practical alternative to the VRII.
Still, I do keep an eye on used f/4G prices.
I miss that 100mm 2.8 Series E. Sold it when MF became tough for me. I would love a Z mount version of similar weight and size (Viltrox?)
Ripolini wrote:
I was referring to 35/2 and 50/2 Apo-Lanthars.
To save costs and size, modern lenses tend to not have ligh fall-off as corrected as older designs.
The reason is trivial.
That awful light falloff is one of the things I noticed on some Sony lenses.
I always use full illumination/vignetting correction in processing the RAW files. At high ISO color/contrast may be out of whack approaching the corners. I'd accept it wide open, but expect it to be minimal two stops down. I'm old enough to remember when we used cos^4 center filters on ultrawide MF/LF lenses. 70-200s are usually not bad though.
pwschladen wrote:
I miss that 100mm 2.8 Series E. Sold it when MF became tough for me. I would love a Z mount version of similar weight and size (Viltrox?)
Agree. A lot of the Z lenses are just too fat to capture the same feel of the old manual lenses, though. Seems like some Thypochs step down the diameter from the mount pretty quickly, and the CV 35 APO v1 was similar. I'd like to see more lenses do that than continue being as wide as the mount itself or wider.
No, it wasn't heavy. I think it was IC-prong or maybe AI, but not AI-S version.
I recall several of the E lenses were all I could get in the day and they were rather poorly put together compared to the Nikkors. I had some issue with the aperture on one being onconsistent and zoom mechanisms on the other. That's not to say Nikkors never had problems.
EB-1 wrote:
No, it wasn't heavy. I think it was IC-prong or maybe AI, but not AI-S version.
I recall several of the E lenses were all I could get in the day and they were rather poorly put together compared to the Nikkors. I had some issue with the aperture on one being onconsistent and zoom mechanisms on the other. That's not to say Nikkors never had problems.
EBH
Those of us using them today have the strongest that survived
I have another example of leaping too fast and then wanting to go back. I had a 100-400 but coveted the lower weight and the slightly better 400mm image quality of the 400 f4.5. I had been using the zoom frequently at 400 so felt I didn't need the shorter focal lengths.
Well, I immediately felt constrained by the prime and just sold it and bought another 100-400, Sure I lost some $$ in shipping & PayPal transactions but actually my new 100-400 is sharper at 400mm in my centering tests. I lucked out. Unfortunately I'm not one who could afford having both at the same time for evaluation.
Once Nikon (and other manufacturers) moved past the initial first 1-2 zooms, many were quite good, especially the telezooms or some of the more standard range lenses that didn’t have very large focal length ranges. In both cases, the optical corrections/tradeoffs are easier, eapecially considering the designers didn’t have modern lens design tools, wide access to newer glass types or aspheric elements.
The 50-135/3.5 AI-S, 75-150 series E and the 80-200/4.5’a (the AI was better IIRC all still hold up well enough today for much work. They aren’t going to resolve as high as the modern 70-200’s or handle backlighting, flare, etc as well, but they are still quite serviceable. The 80-200 f/2.8 AI-S was decidedly less svelte though.
OffTrail wrote:
The old zooms can be freakishly good. When I got the new 70-200 S II lens, I naturally compared it to the 75-150 and even my NIKKOR-P 10.5cm f/2.5. It's pretty wild how well those old lenses hold up today. The 75-150 especially is such a gem. When I sold the first 70-200 S lens and went back to the VRII, the 75-150 stepped in to finally solve the VRII's abysmal close focusing performance. $35!
jbear wrote:
Got me a 70-200 2.8 S last year and pondered whether I'd rather have a 100-400. Decided not to be reactionary and actually see how much I would use it. I found that the reality is...not much.
Most of what I would use it for were landscapes and environmental portraits. It is phenomenal at this but...I am never shooting it at f2.8, I am never taking advantage of lightning fast focus, and ultimately it's just not for me. I do believe I will sell it or trade it for a 100-400, which will do most of what I was using the 70-200 for and more of what I do more often...critters.
Anyway...while it's still clean...pretty certain that's what I'm gonna do.
I am definitely glad I kept it for a while rather than wondering if it was a good decision. If you're on the fence like I was...don't make a knee-jerk decision but don't keep something you know you're not gonna use...unless you just want to.
Just sharing another experience with everyone and curious as to who has gone through similar with certain pieces of gear....Show more →
I've owned both the Sony 70-200GM mkii and the Nikon 70-200 S, and neither were used often. I ended up selling them and picking up the Nikon Z100-400, best decision I made. When i need speed, I go to my primes
old_hikingman wrote:
I have another example of leaping too fast and then wanting to go back. I had a 100-400 but coveted the lower weight and the slightly better 400mm image quality of the 400 f4.5. I had been using the zoom frequently at 400 so felt I didn't need the shorter focal lengths.
Well, I immediately felt constrained by the prime and just sold it and bought another 100-400, Sure I lost some $$ in shipping & PayPal transactions but actually my new 100-400 is sharper at 400mm in my centering tests. I lucked out. Unfortunately I'm not one who could afford having both at the same time for evaluation.
Dave...Show more →
Lol... Same here. Owned the 400 F4.5, nice lens but not nearly as versatile at the 100-400, so I sold it. Furthermore, I already own the 600PF as my birding lens , so the 100-400 makes a lot more sense. Happy with my decision
jbear wrote:
That's what I found...for my shooting...if I needed 70-200...I'd go back to my f4 with an adapter. It was fantastic.
I must say, the new, lighter Sii version of the Z 70-200/2.8 pairs INCREDIBLY well with the 1.4x TC, and it ends up creating a lens that's basically the same size weight as the old 70-200/4, but at 100-280/4 instead.
It's quickly becoming my favorite lens when so configured. Feels VERY much like the 70-200/4 used to, but with more reach and, y'know, autofocus you can cut with. It's wildly good.
The 70-200 is a really niche lens. For me, it's an indoor sports (basketball/volleyball) and an event lens (weddings, concerts). 2.8 is necessary in low light, high speed situations, and the zoom is necessary when you don't know whether the action will be at 30 ft or 80 ft away, and you don't have freedom to move around.
And the Z versions are *fantastically* sharp.
But... outside those use cases, there are better lenses for the job. I'd never want to lug that thing around for landscape. 100-400 or 180-600 are much better for field sports, and you don't need 2.8 for daylight or slow shutter speed situations.
But the way I shoot, there is no substitute. For me, it is the essential "you may kiss the bride" lens. I trust no other lens to grab that once in a lifetime moment, but for most people I think it is much more niche than they realize.
