I am in the market for a Nikkor Z 70-200/2.8
Interested in the mark ii for its lower weight and af speed as I will use the lens for fast dog photography.
However , I read some info that the sharpness is inferior on the mark II compared to the mark i.
What is the consensus now on this lens?Anyone have used both? Should I be worried?
Orsonneke wrote:
I am in the market for a Nikkor Z 70-200/2.8
Interested in the mark ii for its lower weight and af speed as I will use the lens for fast dog photography.
However , I read some info that the sharpness is inferior on the mark II compared to the mark i.
What is the consensus now on this lens?Anyone have used both? Should I be worried?
You want the lower weight and better AF speed of the V2...
Yet somehow YouTube has convinced you to be concerned about some random sharpness difference between the two?
The 70-200mm f/2.8 V2 is a world-class lens used by professional photographers in just about every field, along with plenty of very well-funded amateurs.
I can almost guarantee that whatever tiny difference in sharpness "MAY" exist will never be noticed by you, recognized by anyone looking at your photos, or have any meaningful impact on the images you make.
Take the lighter weight and faster AF and go shoot.
Orsonneke wrote:
I am in the market for a Nikkor Z 70-200/2.8
Interested in the mark ii for its lower weight and af speed as I will use the lens for fast dog photography.
However , I read some info that the sharpness is inferior on the mark II compared to the mark i.
What is the consensus now on this lens?Anyone have used both? Should I be worried?
i have both, and, no, the Mark I is not sharper than the Mark II even in controlled environments to eliminate variables (I've done this first-hand). Side by side on Lightroom it's hard to distinguish one over the other.
Hi
Did u try the II with 2X tc? I'm considering the lens for indoor stuff and some birding/WL with 2X. I'm sure I'll be happy with sharpness. But what about the AF? Is it reliable for fast moving birds/animals? Did u ever try that?
dalegaspi wrote:
i have both, and, no, the Mark I is not sharper than the Mark II even in controlled environments to eliminate variables (I've done this first-hand). Side by side on Lightroom it's hard to distinguish one over the other.
Jemini wrote:
Hi
Did u try the II with 2X tc? I'm considering the lens for indoor stuff and some birding/WL with 2X. I'm sure I'll be happy with sharpness. But what about the AF? Is it reliable for fast moving birds/animals? Did u ever try that?
i don't have the 2x TC.. Fellow member @Lance B on this thread has plenty of real-world excellent examples with the 2x TC (although a lot of that is attributed to the photographer )
I just finished a 2 week 70-200s v1 + 2x tc and no other lens "experiment" shooting butterflies, dragonflies, flowers, and various critters. It's ridiculously good and I don't think I stopped it down more than a couple of times.
Mark 2 is nominally sharper but much lighter. I consider it a worthwhile upgrade. The only “downgrade” is the odd sensation of the groups rattling around when not not mounted to a camera that’s powered.
I have am not sure which version I have (bought new 3-4 yrs ago), but I used the 70-200mm with a 2x TC to shoot college soccer games and the AF was wonderful. Very sharp images. The photos I got in many cases look like pro photos. Not sure if that helps.
)