I have this lens on my Z6. it's wonderful. It's expensive yes, but after owning for it a bit I understand now why it costs that it does. IQ, ergonomics, balance in hand, all the little things one does not consider... I got it on sale for $2150 and I ain't complaining. Honestly owning, using it, spent time with it, I'm willing to pay full price for it. It's that good. People that say it's overpriced don't know or can't know or understand without time with it. It's honestly the best 70-200 on the market right now. price is well justified. I'm never giving up this lens.
I still have the first version and a D3 I bought way back then. This week I have taken about 1,000 shots of a golf championship, using the D3 and the 1st generation 70/200AF-S 2.8 with the 1.4X TC. Since I am now retired this still does the job for me, as have all the Nikons I have owned down the years. The lens is still fast and focuses well and while I would like the new lens i really can't see that it would improve my results enough to warrant the cash. The bokeh is still brilliant, the sharpness incredible. I only have one complaint really, and that is a big criticism of Nikon themselves for not providing support for older equipment, something that they were always renowned for. Even to upgrade to a good used D4S and VRII costs around £3,000 whereas in the past servicing by Nikon was affordable, swift - and reasonably cheap. Shame on you Nikon, but thank you for the review.
Hi! To answer your question even if it’s a bit late: I definitively go for the FL version and not the Z Mount . 1) Because I never buy new (check my video about this point on my RUclips Channel) 2) the FL version in mint condition is on the market at 1600€ 3) the FL version has an higher magnification at close distance which is good for portrait 4) as I still have my D3S and D3X and I’m not prepared to sell them it’s bavions I can’t use the Z 5) once I’ll get into the Z system, the FTZ adaptor will work perfectly. 6) the FL is the final optimised version of the long ago series of 80-200 and then 70-200 and it corrects the main flaw of the VR2 that is more 135mm at close distance when set to 200mm…
There are a whole lot of comments about waiting for the Z-mount version. I guess that's from people that photograph a lot of static subjects. I love my Z6, but my DSLRs still smoke it when I'm shooting action. And a 70-200 is built for action. I'd not be waiting for the Z-Mount version of this lens. I'd be waiting for a Z-Mount body with AF that can track a moving subject to the level that the D500/D5 can. Heck, even my D3s outperforms my Z6 in that regard.
I would absolutely love a video about this adapted on a Z mount, although I'm waiting for the native lens for my set. I'd just like to know if there are any differences to using it adapted.
The mirrorless cameras are designed with videographers in mind but if you’re a stills shooter, no electronic screen can surpass looking at light streaming through a prism. Also batteries last longer with DSLRs and startup is faster too. About Fifteen years ago I had some of those Fuji stack ‘em high, sell ‘em cheap mirrorless cameras then called “bridge cameras” (they took excellent shots)and the marketing message was, how can you get a good shot with that, you heed a DSLR? Move forward in time and marketing is telling us now, that old clunker DSLR, you really need mirrorless! My advice is, don’t get conned. Carefully examine your needs and choose the appropriate system for you but if you’re a stills shooter you will probably enjoy the DSLR more, especially in bright sunshine. Cheers
Mines on D850, sharp from 3.2 through whole range, G2 was F4 to F8 sharp and softer either side of this. Every lens to body is different and you should always get your kit calibrated. Reference the lens build its lighter than the G2 by some way, its design of the rotation of the foot ring is simple and like the ILII its the only way to make these last. My G2 is now residing in my unused lens bag, bearing went after 1 year of high use, you know when they are going when your stopping at every 90deg point and the ring is fully unlocked but wont move, it will also give you RSI once that starts due to your wrist requiring a lot of movement to rotate the lens, its simply a bad design flaw with the failure for me of bearings in 1 year of use. The sigma has the same design of bearings in the ring, not a flat ring with groves either side. Also i love i can remove the foot on the nikon but they made the connection plastic, which i think over time if used with break. Straight out of the Box i found this lens sharp no calibration unlike the G2, it was sharp sometimes and other times not, but thats again down to build quality and the camera body focusing position ie front/back. Cant recommend this lens enough in my view from nikon heavy user over the G2, P.S no focus breathing on the nikon and 70 is 70 and 200 is 200, G2 70 feels like 50 and 200 feels about 140-150 in reality.
If you see the difference you need it. ASAT. The quality of the work is set by the worker, not by the buyer. If the buyer's is higher, then look some other place for a job.
I don't think there is any question. If you have a Z body, the native Z mount lenses are the best choice. But if you are already invested in the F mount, you got to use them on the Z bodies.
I fell in love with this lens from the 1st picture I ever took with it mounted on a D800. Couple things I noticed is that it was quite faster on autofocusing and lighter than some of its predecessor lenses. Few months after I used it with D800, I decided to get the Z 6 and I honestly love the lens even more. Paired with the Z 6 was also a great combo, not only because of the lighter setup but how tack sharp images are. I have not really found a compelling reason to look into buying the new Z series 70-200mm when it comes out, I would rather spend the money on a Z series 24-70mm.
I currently own the VR version lens and I used it with my D500. Fantastic combination. I’ve sold the D500 and have bought the Z6 so this leaves me wondering how well the new lens does on that camera? On my Z6 the VR does hunt a bit and the AF is not as fast and sure as it is on the D500. I’m probably going to replace my VR at some point and I’m contemplating getting another D500 or the next iteration of the D750 when that comes out so the F-mount lens is preferred here. The Z6 works quite well with the 24-70mm kit lens but, for events, a DSLR would be a better choice for me.
I converted to a Z7. I have a 14-30mm F/4. I am waiting for the 70-200mm F/2.8. As a landscape photographer, I don't expect to need a 24-70mm zoom as, for me, that is a range I use to photograph people and feel an iPhone 11 Pro can do the job for images I use on social media. I have a f-mount 28-300 lens but find, when using a tripod, I need to move my L-bracket back and forth from camera (with 14-30mm) to z-adapter (with 28-300). A pain.
I tried this Tamron lens and it was nice, but nothing compared to the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR. The Nikon is fast and reliable... I know the price tag is about twice as much, but totally worth the investment (specially that is on sale now for $2,150
In response to your question(s). From an I.T. perspective. The less interconnecting parts the better. It's my hope that they will come out with a Z mount comparable lens soon thus eliminating the need for the FTZ adapter.
I shoot motorsports events and currently been using the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 SP G2 for three years. Been debating about trading in that lens for the Nikon lens. Same with my 24-70.
I Am missing my D500 and may buy one that would be my first choice lens along with the 200-500. I want to shoot sports again and that was my best camera shooting D1 track for my daughter.
I switched from canon for the Z7. Got the 200-500, but don’t plan on buying any other F-mount lenses. I’m waiting for the Z 70-200 to be released. (I have the z-mount 24-70 2.8 and the 50 prime for now). I’ll use my canon when I need other focal lengths while waiting for more Z glass. Also eager to get the 20mm prime next year for astro.
I am very curious how much better the Z version will be, but the real question on my mind is with all the new things the Z bring to the table , is the f4 going to be enough for a lot of People like the f4 24-70 seems to be??
Nice review Raymond. I have the model before this one, so I'm going to wait till the Z Mount 70-200 2.8 comes out. My plan is to keep all my F-Mount lens and only invest Z mount lens from now on.
I’m out of the F-mount lens buying market. I’ve sold my DSLRs for a Z6 and Z7 and plan to only buy z-mount from here on out. I’ve sold all my F-mount glass that can be replaced by Z options so far and am adapting my telephoto options until they can also be replaced. I agree with many posters here my Tamron 70-200 G2 has been simply perfect for me at a fraction of the cost. However it will go too when the Z-mount Nikon 70-200 is released. I can’t imagine that lens being anything less than stunning when it comes out based on other z-mount releases. Great video, keep then coming.
There's nothing that the 2.8E brings to the table, that I need, that would justify selling my VR II. I'm sure the 2.8E is a "better" lens, but as an amateur, the VR II is certainly good enough for my purposes. That being said, if my VR II broke down and I wanted to replace it, I'd go with the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC G2. I don't think I can justify spending Nikon pro lens prices any longer when Tamron and Sigma have really stepped up their game over the last half decade. Those third party lenses are as about as good as, and in some cases better, than the Nikon-branded lenses.
All this new stuff... I would nearly forget what it’s about.. it is about making photo’s! Of course it is all so beautifull and buying new stuff..well, that’s always great . But it costs a lot of money .. I bought good gear, it is not the newest- but it is good. I can use it to make my pictures. It is not the gear that makes the pictures, it is the photographer- I always keep that in mind when I think I need new stuff. And I love the work of Sally Mann- and she works with... wet plates and a big wooden camera 🤓
He said at the start, Roy Bixby, his D810 had been converted for 'full spectrum' and therefore was trying the 70-200 III on the D500 as it is the ultimate, fast, smaller frame Nikon with the very legitimate bonus of greater effective zoom potential and much more manageable than the big, heavy, albeit excellent 200-500 on a heavy full frame body. I use the 70-200 II on a D200 and it is a superb combination, even now, unless you are a 'pixel peeper' rather than a keen amateur photographer of limited means.
I shoot this lens on my d850. Am I impressed? Hell no ! I shot Nikons old afs-d 80-200 before this . It had an af motor failure problem. This is a known fact . But it was a true 200mm which the e fl vr is not . And the old lens locked on to a subject solid and was a phenomenal hit rate . I shoot low light and super high contrast situations. The old Nikkor was sublime in these conditions. The new e lens is super in great lighting so fast and accurate. I shot Motocross with it and it was phenomenal. But I’m not so good lighting it can struggle and hunt . So in afc backbuttom af you’ll get many out of focus “just” missed shots . I’ve sent in the lens and the d850 to Nikon . It came back and I still have the problem. I have thought of selling it and getting the newest Sigma 70-200 . A thought. In reality I’ll probably keep the Nikon 70-200 e fl vr. It is a very light well balanced lens . It’s so light you don’t even realize it’s on there .
It's a bad design w/ zoom ring out at end of barrel- hard to operate it like that. Zoom ring like VR2 is close to camera body & much easier to hold and control the zoom FL and entire lens in general.
I have the 1st version 70-200mm f 2.8 with the gold plate on it...I really love it, it works great, I shoot with the d850
I have this lens on my Z6. it's wonderful. It's expensive yes, but after owning for it a bit I understand now why it costs that it does. IQ, ergonomics, balance in hand, all the little things one does not consider... I got it on sale for $2150 and I ain't complaining. Honestly owning, using it, spent time with it, I'm willing to pay full price for it. It's that good. People that say it's overpriced don't know or can't know or understand without time with it. It's honestly the best 70-200 on the market right now. price is well justified. I'm never giving up this lens.
I still have the first version and a D3 I bought way back then. This week I have taken about 1,000 shots of a golf championship, using the D3 and the 1st generation 70/200AF-S 2.8 with the 1.4X TC. Since I am now retired this still does the job for me, as have all the Nikons I have owned down the years. The lens is still fast and focuses well and while I would like the new lens i really can't see that it would improve my results enough to warrant the cash. The bokeh is still brilliant, the sharpness incredible. I only have one complaint really, and that is a big criticism of Nikon themselves for not providing support for older equipment, something that they were always renowned for. Even to upgrade to a good used D4S and VRII costs around £3,000 whereas in the past servicing by Nikon was affordable, swift - and reasonably cheap. Shame on you Nikon, but thank you for the review.
Hi! To answer your question even if it’s a bit late: I definitively go for the FL version and not the Z Mount .
1) Because I never buy new (check my video about this point on my RUclips Channel)
2) the FL version in mint condition is on the market at 1600€
3) the FL version has an higher magnification at close distance which is good for portrait
4) as I still have my D3S and D3X and I’m not prepared to sell them it’s bavions I can’t use the Z
5) once I’ll get into the Z system, the FTZ adaptor will work perfectly.
6) the FL is the final optimised version of the long ago series of 80-200 and then 70-200 and it corrects the main flaw of the VR2 that is more 135mm at close distance when set to 200mm…
There are a whole lot of comments about waiting for the Z-mount version. I guess that's from people that photograph a lot of static subjects. I love my Z6, but my DSLRs still smoke it when I'm shooting action. And a 70-200 is built for action. I'd not be waiting for the Z-Mount version of this lens. I'd be waiting for a Z-Mount body with AF that can track a moving subject to the level that the D500/D5 can. Heck, even my D3s outperforms my Z6 in that regard.
I would absolutely love a video about this adapted on a Z mount, although I'm waiting for the native lens for my set. I'd just like to know if there are any differences to using it adapted.
The mirrorless cameras are designed with videographers in mind but if you’re a stills shooter, no electronic screen can surpass looking at light streaming through a prism. Also batteries last longer with DSLRs and startup is faster too. About Fifteen years ago I had some of those Fuji stack ‘em high, sell ‘em cheap mirrorless cameras then called “bridge cameras” (they took excellent shots)and the marketing message was, how can you get a good shot with that, you heed a DSLR? Move forward in time and marketing is telling us now, that old clunker DSLR, you really need mirrorless! My advice is, don’t get conned. Carefully examine your needs and choose the appropriate system for you but if you’re a stills shooter you will probably enjoy the DSLR more, especially in bright sunshine. Cheers
Great lens, especially paired with the Nikon D850!!
The Tamron G2 version does wonders on my D500 and D850 but the Nikon FL VR version has way better image stabilization to me.
Mines on D850, sharp from 3.2 through whole range, G2 was F4 to F8 sharp and softer either side of this. Every lens to body is different and you should always get your kit calibrated. Reference the lens build its lighter than the G2 by some way, its design of the rotation of the foot ring is simple and like the ILII its the only way to make these last. My G2 is now residing in my unused lens bag, bearing went after 1 year of high use, you know when they are going when your stopping at every 90deg point and the ring is fully unlocked but wont move, it will also give you RSI once that starts due to your wrist requiring a lot of movement to rotate the lens, its simply a bad design flaw with the failure for me of bearings in 1 year of use. The sigma has the same design of bearings in the ring, not a flat ring with groves either side. Also i love i can remove the foot on the nikon but they made the connection plastic, which i think over time if used with break. Straight out of the Box i found this lens sharp no calibration unlike the G2, it was sharp sometimes and other times not, but thats again down to build quality and the camera body focusing position ie front/back. Cant recommend this lens enough in my view from nikon heavy user over the G2, P.S no focus breathing on the nikon and 70 is 70 and 200 is 200, G2 70 feels like 50 and 200 feels about 140-150 in reality.
If you see the difference you need it. ASAT. The quality of the work is set by the worker, not by the buyer. If the buyer's is higher, then look some other place for a job.
I don't think there is any question. If you have a Z body, the native Z mount lenses are the best choice. But if you are already invested in the F mount, you got to use them on the Z bodies.
I fell in love with this lens from the 1st picture I ever took with it mounted on a D800. Couple things I noticed is that it was quite faster on autofocusing and lighter than some of its predecessor lenses. Few months after I used it with D800, I decided to get the Z 6 and I honestly love the lens even more. Paired with the Z 6 was also a great combo, not only because of the lighter setup but how tack sharp images are. I have not really found a compelling reason to look into buying the new Z series 70-200mm when it comes out, I would rather spend the money on a Z series 24-70mm.
I currently own the VR version lens and I used it with my D500. Fantastic combination. I’ve sold the D500 and have bought the Z6 so this leaves me wondering how well the new lens does on that camera? On my Z6 the VR does hunt a bit and the AF is not as fast and sure as it is on the D500. I’m probably going to replace my VR at some point and I’m contemplating getting another D500 or the next iteration of the D750 when that comes out so the F-mount lens is preferred here. The Z6 works quite well with the 24-70mm kit lens but, for events, a DSLR would be a better choice for me.
Wait for the 70-200S Z mount. Even not having to fiddle with the FTZ will be a bonus, whatever else may improve.
What would your opinion be on that lens for shooting low light indoors concerts and Pro wrestling shows which are often dark as well.
I own a D500 and this lens 👌
I share your feelings for the D500. Have a XT-3, but for action photos I keep going to the D500. Great review by the way!
I converted to a Z7. I have a 14-30mm F/4. I am waiting for the 70-200mm F/2.8. As a landscape photographer, I don't expect to need a 24-70mm zoom as, for me, that is a range I use to photograph people and feel an iPhone 11 Pro can do the job for images I use on social media. I have a f-mount 28-300 lens but find, when using a tripod, I need to move my L-bracket back and forth from camera (with 14-30mm) to z-adapter (with 28-300). A pain.
tamron sp 70-200/2.8 VC G2. next question.
I tried this Tamron lens and it was nice, but nothing compared to the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR. The Nikon is fast and reliable... I know the price tag is about twice as much, but totally worth the investment (specially that is on sale now for $2,150
In response to your question(s). From an I.T. perspective. The less interconnecting parts the better. It's my hope that they will come out with a Z mount comparable lens soon thus eliminating the need for the FTZ adapter.
The Z's version should be out by the end of this year, according to their roadmap.
I shoot motorsports events and currently been using the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 SP G2 for three years. Been debating about trading in that lens for the Nikon lens. Same with my 24-70.
I Am missing my D500 and may buy one that would be my first choice lens along with the 200-500. I want to shoot sports again and that was my best camera shooting D1 track for my daughter.
I switched from canon for the Z7. Got the 200-500, but don’t plan on buying any other F-mount lenses. I’m waiting for the Z 70-200 to be released. (I have the z-mount 24-70 2.8 and the 50 prime for now). I’ll use my canon when I need other focal lengths while waiting for more Z glass. Also eager to get the 20mm prime next year for astro.
Does anybody have experience with the first generation combined with a Z6? Is the af noisy? Is it fast enough?
could I mount this on a Lumix gh6?
I am very curious how much better the Z version will be, but the real question on my mind is with all the new things the Z bring to the table , is the f4 going to be enough for a lot of People like the f4 24-70 seems to be??
I think we are waiting for the 70-200 Z 2.8, not F4
Nice review Raymond. I have the model before this one, so I'm going to wait till the Z Mount 70-200 2.8 comes out. My plan is to keep all my F-Mount lens and only invest Z mount lens from now on.
I’m out of the F-mount lens buying market. I’ve sold my DSLRs for a Z6 and Z7 and plan to only buy z-mount from here on out. I’ve sold all my F-mount glass that can be replaced by Z options so far and am adapting my telephoto options until they can also be replaced.
I agree with many posters here my Tamron 70-200 G2 has been simply perfect for me at a fraction of the cost. However it will go too when the Z-mount Nikon 70-200 is released. I can’t imagine that lens being anything less than stunning when it comes out based on other z-mount releases.
Great video, keep then coming.
Can I used it with my d750 full frame
How would this lens be on a Z50 for kid’s sports?
There's nothing that the 2.8E brings to the table, that I need, that would justify selling my VR II. I'm sure the 2.8E is a "better" lens, but as an amateur, the VR II is certainly good enough for my purposes. That being said, if my VR II broke down and I wanted to replace it, I'd go with the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC G2. I don't think I can justify spending Nikon pro lens prices any longer when Tamron and Sigma have really stepped up their game over the last half decade. Those third party lenses are as about as good as, and in some cases better, than the Nikon-branded lenses.
no their not. Period.
I own this lens with a D850 i don't need anymore sharpness it's amazing.
What about Nikon af 80-200 f2.8D ED one? The older version....
This one cost very much.
Great video and thanks for sharing your experience.
Its always good until you earn more money to upgrade to vr2 of fly lens. The new lenses make a big difference when doing videography.
I dont think the 2.8E is worth the more money :)
The 2.8G VRII is so strong :)
The E is yet in a different class really. I believe it to be the best zoom lens ever designed.
Maybe.
But not worth the extra money next to the VRII
@@amazingminiz3119 try backlit condition and in mid zoom new Fl is way sharper... The microncontrast is better
@@senaritradutta Yeah, but still not worth the extra frickin money! ;)
@@amazingminiz3119 unless you make your living with it
All this new stuff... I would nearly forget what it’s about.. it is about making photo’s!
Of course it is all so beautifull and buying new stuff..well, that’s always great .
But it costs a lot of money ..
I bought good gear, it is not the newest- but it is good.
I can use it to make my pictures.
It is not the gear that makes the pictures, it is the photographer-
I always keep that in mind when I think I need new stuff.
And I love the work of Sally Mann- and she works with... wet plates and a big wooden camera 🤓
He said at the start, Roy Bixby, his D810 had been converted for 'full spectrum' and therefore was trying the 70-200 III on the D500 as it is the ultimate, fast, smaller frame Nikon with the very legitimate bonus of greater effective zoom potential and much more manageable than the big, heavy, albeit excellent 200-500 on a heavy full frame body. I use the 70-200 II on a D200 and it is a superb combination, even now, unless you are a 'pixel peeper' rather than a keen amateur photographer of limited means.
i must have the older model .vr ii . but im happy with it ,
Maybe one day, I can get s telescopic lens. I'll just have to live with my 24-70mm F4 S for now.
Just a correction. You said it was a “G lens” it’s actually an E lens.
Great! I am staying with DSLRs and fast glass. Thanks
I bought Both D500 & The 70/200 New version in December!!!
good job on the lens review. I have the first gen. Now I am waiting for the Z.
Should have tried a 1.4 tc on it.
I am hating on mirror less ... ironically for the same reasons you aren’t hating them.
I'm sure that the Z mount lens will be at least $3000.00 when it comes out. :/
I shoot this lens on my d850. Am I impressed? Hell no ! I shot Nikons old afs-d 80-200 before this . It had an af motor failure problem. This is a known fact . But it was a true 200mm which the e fl vr is not . And the old lens locked on to a subject solid and was a phenomenal hit rate . I shoot low light and super high contrast situations. The old Nikkor was sublime in these conditions. The new e lens is super in great lighting so fast and accurate. I shot Motocross with it and it was phenomenal. But I’m not so good lighting it can struggle and hunt . So in afc backbuttom af you’ll get many out of focus “just” missed shots . I’ve sent in the lens and the d850 to Nikon . It came back and I still have the problem. I have thought of selling it and getting the newest Sigma 70-200 . A thought. In reality I’ll probably keep the Nikon 70-200 e fl vr. It is a very light well balanced lens . It’s so light you don’t even realize it’s on there .
do i need the... answer always yes
i remember such lenses were reserved for demi gods ..better faster glass is heavy , a bagfulls a workout .
The FL is Fluorite lens elements. much more important than the fluorine lens coatings. A crop camera is a poor choice to test a FF lens.
Maybe on some cropped cameras but on the D500 this lens is perfect. Fast and accurate focus and so very sharp at all f stops.
No you dont , i have one and still use the vrii older model , its crazy sharp . You will NOT see any benefits under normal use . Its all marketing
I heard the Tamron blows this away. Not for sure but who knows. I know Nikon lenses are crazy high priced.
who is this dude?
I say do it, do it =p
NEE-con...
No, you don’t need it.
It's a bad design w/ zoom ring out at end of barrel- hard to operate it like that.
Zoom ring like VR2 is close to camera body & much easier to hold and control the zoom FL and entire lens in general.