The lighter and more compact 70-180 formula is such a great alternative to traditional 70-200 lenses. Even after getting the gmii I haven't sold my copy of the 70-180 for times when I want to travel light and it still meets my needs.
Agree - could be a good replacement if / when my Nikon 70-200 F4 AFS VR lens gives up the ghost, could happy buy another 70-200 if I was doing mostly stills - (AF bit hummy, slow when doing video work) or if I'm doing more Video / Hybrid use then this 70-180 F2.8 will do and probably be optimal at F/4 (more sharpness across the image) than F2.8 good for centre sharpness and doing stuff like portrait.
Got mine at first shipment and straight away used it to shoot a motorcycle race event and was very pleased with the results. For an “economical” alternative to the 70-200 S version that is smaller and lighter, it’s great.
Hi Christ. I think you have missed one important highlight, this Nikon Z 70-180mm can add 1.4x/2x Teleconverter and make it more flexible. This is important that E mount version can’t do that.
@@NetvoTV Have you ever compare sharpness between Nikon Z 70-180 vs E mount version? Also have you ever compared how soft Nikon Z 70-200mm f2.8 S + 1.4/2x would be?🤷🏻♂️
@@NetvoTV I've used the 1.4x TC on the 100-400S and 180-600 and in both cases it really hurts the image quality. I rarely use it, especially if I know I'm going to crop an image down.
This I think follows the same typical performance as the 70-200 in terms of being weakest at 70mm and st ronger (sharper) at 180mm (and 200mm on the 70-200). But I could see this as being a good mid-range zoom for landscapes since it seems that it has good sharpness in the center and the corners look good at all focal lengths except maybe 70mm. But if you had say a 24-120 or a 24-70 this woulid still pair nicely and would cost half as much as the 70-200 (and for landscape photographers, most will be at f/4 or higher probably anyway). I only wish Nikon would make a Z mount version of the 70-200 f/4 though..... That was probably one of the best value lenses in the F-mount line-up as it gave the 70-200 2.8 a run for its money at smaller apertures (was more evenly sharp across the frame in many cases compared to its faster sibling).
It's also missing VR which the pro lens has making a massive difference to me, on the used market the 70-200 is probably worth the upgrade unless weight is a consideration.
Thanks for the review. I had this lens for a couple of weeks and decided to return it. The bokeh felt a little off compared to my old F-mount 70-200. I'll probably pick up a used 70-200 z mount. There is no longer much difference between that and the 70-180. I must say that I absolutely loved the sized of this pens though. I travel a lot and have a bad back so it was awesome for that.
Thanks for sharing - could pick up (for travelling) the 24-200 Z (non S) lens; or the Tamron Z 70-300 - fairly good lenses for these sort of shots. I may pick up the 70-180 F2.8 if / once my 70-200 F4 AFS VR gives up ; not sure on my existing 70-200 F2.8 VR MK 2; (still got a D800), may pick up a FL used if / when this breaks - would be nice to get 70-200 Z but that could be my long term goal;
So, weird question maybe. I have the 24-70 f4 and the 180-600. This would obviously fit the gap between. But considering I mainly shoot landscape and birds/wildlife I’ve also considered selling the 24-70 and picking up the 24-120. Of course that would leave a gap from 120-180 and also lose a few stops from the f2.8 to f4. Any thoughts?
Really good lens for the price, I had the gen 1 70-200 vr with my d800e. That lens was spectacular in microcontrast and sharpness. I went with the Tamron/Nikon variant solely because weight dropped in half and the speed and repair was diminishing the usage of the old f mount
I used to own the Nikon 70-200 F4G which I used with my D750 DSLR. I loved the quality of the pictures and the beautiful contrast. I wonder how that lens compares with the Z 70-180 2.8 reviewed here. I'm not sure whether to buy a new Z 70-180 or to re-buy a second-hand 70-200 F4 and use it with the FTZ adaptor. Thank you for your help.
@@nespressoman I've read a lot of reviews. I don't come away with the same impression (Gord Laing is questioning his sample and I gather Nikon circulates a limited number of samples worldwide so who knows who dropped that lens (lol) and who gets the same lens as Gord). Chris even says (and demonstrates) that at f/2.8 at 70, 120 and 180 that center sharpness wide open is excellent, excellent and great/ "best performance overall" and, to generalize, corners are a bit soft wide open and respond to stopping down. If you apply rule of thirds to portraiture and know your way around the digital darkroom, as prodigious as the Z 70-200 is -- I've used one extensively -- the 70-180 is a lens that has a combination of excellent optics, useful bright aperture and superb handling in most regards (with class-leading in some). As for its effectiveness with IBIS... don't get me started! lol (It's amazingly good. Experienced shooter here admittedly.) Back to your original question, the 70-180 beats the FTZ/70-200 f/4G in every way that matters to me but, of course, YMMV. Anyway, I don't want to sound like an advert: I didn't even expect to buy this lens but it checked the right boxes and hasn't disappointed. If you want more comprehensive answers, however, better to ask in a photography forum (mentioning what you like to shoot) where there's a better opportunity to elaborate. With that out of the way (phew!), a big shout out to Chris for his consistent approach over the years which has contributed so much to the community. Wishing you continued success, Chris. Best,
Thank you for being honest with your reviews and pushing back against unreasonable pricing. As a Nikon owner I'm very disappointed with how much they think they can demand for a lot of these lenses, considering their performance. As a result, even the second hand market is pricey. I'm hoping one day they'll come to their senses, but too many people are just buying silly asking prices at the moment.
Considering the 70-200 F2.8 for Z mount is about two times the price of this one - and nowhere close as two times better - and there is no other 70-180 F2.8 alternative... I don't understand the negative comments on the price. You can buy this 70-180 with Nikon discount a couple of times a year.
I always feel that you understate longitudinal chromatic aberration. Yes, your test with text is a difficult one, but this lens (and nearly all the ones you test) was still showing a significant amout of chromatic aberration at f/5.6. It's no longer noticeable on the central letters at that point, but from one side of the page to the other it is still quite bad, to a degree that I would find annoying and distracting.
I'm not sure about that TBH - I've checked the video again and it looks reasonable to me at f/5.6. It could be that this is a particular aspect of IQ that you feel more strongly about than others - which is fine, we all have our preferences (and this is why I include the sample images - so that you can make up your own mind :-)
@@christopherfrost Yeah, I probably notice it more than average. It's generally the most important aspect of a lens's performance for me and I've been thinking about changing systems almost purely because of it. I may be referring to something slightly different than you are as well. I see a magenta cast to the letters in the lower left of your image and a cyan-green cast on the letters to the upper right. Basically, it bothers me when there is a white balance shift as things go out of focus. There isn't really any color fringing, if that's what you're looking at.
There is a slight cast but for me personally, it's not an issue hehe. I'm in the middle of testing out the Voigtlander 110mm Macro APO lens right now...you would love that one!@@seth094978
Any abberation you see at 2.8 still exists at every other aperture, they just diminish as the circles of confusion get farther apart. If you look at a spot which is equivalently out of focus at a different aperture, it will have the same degree of colour fringing - the abberations result from the refractive indices of the glass compositions used, which don't change with the aperture. Also, APO is a weird one - some "APO" lenses still show a lot of chromatic abberation, they have one additional order of correction but they still have to obey the laws of physics, red and blue still diverge. You need optical fluorite (or some other newer but still extremely difficult-to-manufacture glass) to get fourth-order "superachromat" correction, which can get a lens close to having near-perfect correction across the visible spectrum. It's easy to find microscope objectives labelled "semi-apochromat", if your mind wants yet more boggling
Nice review as usual! I get that there is a Nikon repackaging premium, but it alienates Nikon buyers when they realize the Tamron E-mount version offers VC at that price. Anyways, I guess at the very least we are seeing Tamron options kinda sorta in Nikon. Better than nothing and better than how Canon has handled it with RF. 🤣
It's best to look at the review of the Tamron 70-180. At the end of the Nikon video he himself says that he has dejavu...but why is the rating so different? With the Tamron version you don't have the usual negative Nikon language, where CF unfortunately isn't as neutral as it claims. Why are the flares on Nikon bad and on the Tamron "ok" and "fairly gentle" even though it looks the same? The same (!) characteristics lead to “highly recommend” for Sony and for Nikon? "Nice but overpriced", "recommended"....really?
If I put on my pundit cap, I'd say this is a lens that doesn't have a huge need to exist. I don't see much reason to go for this compared to a slower cheaper lens, or a used 70-200. I think the upsides Nikon and Tamron are shooting for with this compromise becomes increasing outweighed by the downsides for users as they become better and more experienced photographers. But it's not a bad lens, and I'm sure it fits nicely into the market demand, even though I think the market might be a bit misguided in what it desires sometimes.
A used Nikon 70-200 S for Z is still going to cost you €500-800 more than this one. New, they are twice the price of the 70-180. An older F mount 70-200 is optically not perfect either and you need to use the FTZ adapter, which makes it long and heavy package to carry around, compared to this lightweight 70-180.
As the pricing suggests this lens is a downgrade on almost every aspect of optical/AF performance compared to the Nikon 70-200 f2.8. However if you can get by with shooting at more moderate apertures or at least a stop down this lens could become a lot more attractive due to the size, weight and overall balance on the camera bodies.
I assume to have room for introducing more lenses there so ultimately, on name of all in one lens end user ends up with buying 2-3 different ones eventually when they realize the one they thought was all-rounder is not really sufficient for anything, on smaller or larger end.
This specifically is the Tamron 70-180 formula, compromising on tele reach to keep cost and size down compared to a traditional 70-200/2.8. This has been Tamron's game for a while, cut down the zoom ranges to allow for smaller packages and lower cost. It's definitely a "midrage compromise", but seeing that it still performs I'm happy enough with Nikon collaborating to put it into a Nikkor Z style lense body.
That's a tamron lens, just see the design language and you know. Nikon design language isn't like that. The most noticable is that lock button, all modern Tamron telephoto has that lock style button
Would be worth the price if it had VR. Shame that this is a rebadged tamron lens, and as soon as this came out, tamron release their own V2, with VR included.
Why vr for a lens that is mounted on cameras with stabilizer? Much more important is support for teleconverters, which Tamron has neither first nor second generation.
The lighter and more compact 70-180 formula is such a great alternative to traditional 70-200 lenses. Even after getting the gmii I haven't sold my copy of the 70-180 for times when I want to travel light and it still meets my needs.
Agree - could be a good replacement if / when my Nikon 70-200 F4 AFS VR lens gives up the ghost, could happy buy another 70-200 if I was doing mostly stills - (AF bit hummy, slow when doing video work) or if I'm doing more Video / Hybrid use then this 70-180 F2.8 will do and probably be optimal at F/4 (more sharpness across the image) than F2.8 good for centre sharpness and doing stuff like portrait.
This is probably the Tamron 70-180mm G1 rebranded...
Got mine at first shipment and straight away used it to shoot a motorcycle race event and was very pleased with the results. For an “economical” alternative to the 70-200 S version that is smaller and lighter, it’s great.
Hi Christ. I think you have missed one important highlight, this Nikon Z 70-180mm can add 1.4x/2x Teleconverter and make it more flexible. This is important that E mount version can’t do that.
But will it be even more soft?
@@NetvoTV Have you ever compare sharpness between Nikon Z 70-180 vs E mount version? Also have you ever compared how soft Nikon Z 70-200mm f2.8 S + 1.4/2x would be?🤷🏻♂️
@@NetvoTV I've used the 1.4x TC on the 100-400S and 180-600 and in both cases it really hurts the image quality. I rarely use it, especially if I know I'm going to crop an image down.
Teleconverter makes sense for film. Not so much on camera with 30+ megapixels.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 TC is useful with the 100-400 to create a macro lens
This I think follows the same typical performance as the 70-200 in terms of being weakest at 70mm and st ronger (sharper) at 180mm (and 200mm on the 70-200). But I could see this as being a good mid-range zoom for landscapes since it seems that it has good sharpness in the center and the corners look good at all focal lengths except maybe 70mm. But if you had say a 24-120 or a 24-70 this woulid still pair nicely and would cost half as much as the 70-200 (and for landscape photographers, most will be at f/4 or higher probably anyway). I only wish Nikon would make a Z mount version of the 70-200 f/4 though..... That was probably one of the best value lenses in the F-mount line-up as it gave the 70-200 2.8 a run for its money at smaller apertures (was more evenly sharp across the frame in many cases compared to its faster sibling).
It's also missing VR which the pro lens has making a massive difference to me, on the used market the 70-200 is probably worth the upgrade unless weight is a consideration.
I actually tried this lens and the lack of VR does not bother me - I could get good stable shots at around 1/20s at 180mm
Idk if VR makes that much of a difference with IBIS, but as a 70-200 owner I’m very jealous about how small this one is.
They combine beautifully, I've been able to get near darkness shots with this lens and my z8. @@thisisbenji90
By now Mrs. Frost might be the most famous model in the world of photography🎖️
She has been recognised and asked if she knows me before :-)
Awesome, was hoping you'd review this lens!
Hoping the Z 180-600mm is next!
If you scratch off the "Nikon" logo, does it say "Tamron" underneath?
I think where this lens slots in nicely is. 24-70 2.8 S / 70-180 2.8/ 180-600.
Almost the same price (here in the US) as the recently released Tamron 70-180mm G2 which does offer image stabilization.
Can the new one use a TC now?
@@livejames9374Unfortunately no. The G2 version still can't be used with teleconverters.
Z mount accepts a tc
Thanks for the review. I had this lens for a couple of weeks and decided to return it. The bokeh felt a little off compared to my old F-mount 70-200. I'll probably pick up a used 70-200 z mount. There is no longer much difference between that and the 70-180. I must say that I absolutely loved the sized of this pens though. I travel a lot and have a bad back so it was awesome for that.
Thanks for sharing - could pick up (for travelling) the 24-200 Z (non S) lens; or the Tamron Z 70-300 - fairly good lenses for these sort of shots. I may pick up the 70-180 F2.8 if / once my 70-200 F4 AFS VR gives up ; not sure on my existing 70-200 F2.8 VR MK 2; (still got a D800), may pick up a FL used if / when this breaks - would be nice to get 70-200 Z but that could be my long term goal;
So, weird question maybe. I have the 24-70 f4 and the 180-600. This would obviously fit the gap between. But considering I mainly shoot landscape and birds/wildlife I’ve also considered selling the 24-70 and picking up the 24-120. Of course that would leave a gap from 120-180 and also lose a few stops from the f2.8 to f4. Any thoughts?
It just the first version of the Tamron 70-180mm lol but cost more because it’s for Nikon
I tested this lens and have both. This has better coating than Sony first gen
No, it has teleconverter support, which neither the first nor second generation Tamron has.
Really good lens for the price, I had the gen 1 70-200 vr with my d800e. That lens was spectacular in microcontrast and sharpness. I went with the Tamron/Nikon variant solely because weight dropped in half and the speed and repair was diminishing the usage of the old f mount
I hope, you bring a 1:1 Test with the 70-200...
For me, this will always beat a 70-200 for the simple reason that I won't have my 70-200 with me because it's too damn heavy to carry around
I used to own the Nikon 70-200 F4G which I used with my D750 DSLR. I loved the quality of the pictures and the beautiful contrast. I wonder how that lens compares with the Z 70-180 2.8 reviewed here. I'm not sure whether to buy a new Z 70-180 or to re-buy a second-hand 70-200 F4 and use it with the FTZ adaptor. Thank you for your help.
70-200mm 2.8 VR2 with FTZ adapter works wonders for me ;)
@@josekrakowski3256 Thank you very much.
I had the 70-200 f/4G: I have the Z 70-180 now. Too many positives to put in a YT comment. I wouldn't trade the 70-180 for the G and $1000.
@@willynelsonitisThank you. I only ask because reviews have said the 70-180 is quite soft.
@@nespressoman I've read a lot of reviews. I don't come away with the same impression (Gord Laing is questioning his sample and I gather Nikon circulates a limited number of samples worldwide so who knows who dropped that lens (lol) and who gets the same lens as Gord). Chris even says (and demonstrates) that at f/2.8 at 70, 120 and 180 that center sharpness wide open is excellent, excellent and great/ "best performance overall" and, to generalize, corners are a bit soft wide open and respond to stopping down. If you apply rule of thirds to portraiture and know your way around the digital darkroom, as prodigious as the Z 70-200 is -- I've used one extensively -- the 70-180 is a lens that has a combination of excellent optics, useful bright aperture and superb handling in most regards (with class-leading in some). As for its effectiveness with IBIS... don't get me started! lol (It's amazingly good. Experienced shooter here admittedly.) Back to your original question, the 70-180 beats the FTZ/70-200 f/4G in every way that matters to me but, of course, YMMV. Anyway, I don't want to sound like an advert: I didn't even expect to buy this lens but it checked the right boxes and hasn't disappointed. If you want more comprehensive answers, however, better to ask in a photography forum (mentioning what you like to shoot) where there's a better opportunity to elaborate.
With that out of the way (phew!), a big shout out to Chris for his consistent approach over the years which has contributed so much to the community. Wishing you continued success, Chris.
Best,
Thank you for being honest with your reviews and pushing back against unreasonable pricing. As a Nikon owner I'm very disappointed with how much they think they can demand for a lot of these lenses, considering their performance. As a result, even the second hand market is pricey. I'm hoping one day they'll come to their senses, but too many people are just buying silly asking prices at the moment.
Considering the 70-200 F2.8 for Z mount is about two times the price of this one - and nowhere close as two times better - and there is no other 70-180 F2.8 alternative... I don't understand the negative comments on the price. You can buy this 70-180 with Nikon discount a couple of times a year.
Is the kettle boiling in the background in some of the audio clips
I always feel that you understate longitudinal chromatic aberration. Yes, your test with text is a difficult one, but this lens (and nearly all the ones you test) was still showing a significant amout of chromatic aberration at f/5.6. It's no longer noticeable on the central letters at that point, but from one side of the page to the other it is still quite bad, to a degree that I would find annoying and distracting.
I'm not sure about that TBH - I've checked the video again and it looks reasonable to me at f/5.6. It could be that this is a particular aspect of IQ that you feel more strongly about than others - which is fine, we all have our preferences (and this is why I include the sample images - so that you can make up your own mind :-)
@@christopherfrost Yeah, I probably notice it more than average. It's generally the most important aspect of a lens's performance for me and I've been thinking about changing systems almost purely because of it.
I may be referring to something slightly different than you are as well. I see a magenta cast to the letters in the lower left of your image and a cyan-green cast on the letters to the upper right. Basically, it bothers me when there is a white balance shift as things go out of focus. There isn't really any color fringing, if that's what you're looking at.
There is a slight cast but for me personally, it's not an issue hehe. I'm in the middle of testing out the Voigtlander 110mm Macro APO lens right now...you would love that one!@@seth094978
I'm genuinely curious. What type of photography do you do where fringing is such a huge problem?
Any abberation you see at 2.8 still exists at every other aperture, they just diminish as the circles of confusion get farther apart. If you look at a spot which is equivalently out of focus at a different aperture, it will have the same degree of colour fringing - the abberations result from the refractive indices of the glass compositions used, which don't change with the aperture. Also, APO is a weird one - some "APO" lenses still show a lot of chromatic abberation, they have one additional order of correction but they still have to obey the laws of physics, red and blue still diverge. You need optical fluorite (or some other newer but still extremely difficult-to-manufacture glass) to get fourth-order "superachromat" correction, which can get a lens close to having near-perfect correction across the visible spectrum. It's easy to find microscope objectives labelled "semi-apochromat", if your mind wants yet more boggling
Nice review as usual!
I get that there is a Nikon repackaging premium, but it alienates Nikon buyers when they realize the Tamron E-mount version offers VC at that price. Anyways, I guess at the very least we are seeing Tamron options kinda sorta in Nikon. Better than nothing and better than how Canon has handled it with RF. 🤣
It is tamron 70-180 g1 copy lens
Corner sharpness isnt a problem on a lense like this most of the time the corners will be out of focus any way
It's best to look at the review of the Tamron 70-180. At the end of the Nikon video he himself says that he has dejavu...but why is the rating so different?
With the Tamron version you don't have the usual negative Nikon language, where CF unfortunately isn't as neutral as it claims. Why are the flares on Nikon bad and on the Tamron "ok" and "fairly gentle" even though it looks the same?
The same (!) characteristics lead to “highly recommend” for Sony and for Nikon? "Nice but overpriced", "recommended"....really?
He might be a little biased against Nikon.
I had the 28-75 for some time and I disliked it because of the rough exterior plastic material. Is this one made of the same material?
Yes
I just found your channel, it's SO good, thank you.
Thank you very much!
Rebadged Tamron G1. 😢
Very nice, thanka Christopher! Think they'll lend you a Plea at some point? 😉
What about the focus breathing? Thanks
He showed that it is quite mild
does the apreture chnages when we zoom in and out
No, it's f/2.8 throughout the zoom range
Nice review!
that lens is more expensive and optically inferior to the e mount tamron 70180 G2, no go.
What a very weird range. Very interesting though.
Nikon had lost its metal bayonet technology and was now turning to Tamron.
If I put on my pundit cap, I'd say this is a lens that doesn't have a huge need to exist. I don't see much reason to go for this compared to a slower cheaper lens, or a used 70-200. I think the upsides Nikon and Tamron are shooting for with this compromise becomes increasing outweighed by the downsides for users as they become better and more experienced photographers. But it's not a bad lens, and I'm sure it fits nicely into the market demand, even though I think the market might be a bit misguided in what it desires sometimes.
A used Nikon 70-200 S for Z is still going to cost you €500-800 more than this one. New, they are twice the price of the 70-180. An older F mount 70-200 is optically not perfect either and you need to use the FTZ adapter, which makes it long and heavy package to carry around, compared to this lightweight 70-180.
Tamron
Overpriced is the right word.
As the pricing suggests this lens is a downgrade on almost every aspect of optical/AF performance compared to the Nikon 70-200 f2.8. However if you can get by with shooting at more moderate apertures or at least a stop down this lens could become a lot more attractive due to the size, weight and overall balance on the camera bodies.
What’s up with these new 70-180mm lenses? Why aren’t they traditional 70-200mm?
I assume to have room for introducing more lenses there so ultimately, on name of all in one lens end user ends up with buying 2-3 different ones eventually when they realize the one they thought was all-rounder is not really sufficient for anything, on smaller or larger end.
This specifically is the Tamron 70-180 formula, compromising on tele reach to keep cost and size down compared to a traditional 70-200/2.8. This has been Tamron's game for a while, cut down the zoom ranges to allow for smaller packages and lower cost. It's definitely a "midrage compromise", but seeing that it still performs I'm happy enough with Nikon collaborating to put it into a Nikkor Z style lense body.
One big reason is to have the same filter size as the 17-28mm, and 28-75mm, all are 67mm
@@phjacthanks for the additional info! Seems to make a lot of sense in order to keep the f2.8 aperture vs f4
how this compares with Tamron?
It is a tamron
@@NorCal-yetiwith Nikon tax
imagine a 70-200 lens at f 2.0
imagine the size and weight....
That's a tamron lens, just see the design language and you know. Nikon design language isn't like that. The most noticable is that lock button, all modern Tamron telephoto has that lock style button
Would be worth the price if it had VR. Shame that this is a rebadged tamron lens, and as soon as this came out, tamron release their own V2, with VR included.
Why vr for a lens that is mounted on cameras with stabilizer? Much more important is support for teleconverters, which Tamron has neither first nor second generation.
TAMRON 70-180mm (rebranded by Nikon) obviously
but with different ratings? why? > the flares at the tamron are ok, but at the nikon "Version" bad? result= "higly recommended" vs "recommended"
Nothing special.
typical Nikon snake oil, sharp at the centre but soft on the corners
no thanks
It's a Tamron lens...
@twoblink it writes Nikkor on lenses as far as I can see.
Z lenses are on average sharper to corners than the other systems based on my experience.
@@tomekjankiewicz7095 this optical formula is made by Tamron, but they allow Nikon to use it.
@livejames9374 these are expensive Nikon lenses and they are soft.