This lens is my latest addition to my equipment and it has quickly become my favourite lens. Sure, as shown in the video, corners aren’t the best at 200, but I have never noticed that before watching this video. The VR is simply insane. I literally just handheld a shot earlier today at 200 with 1/2 sec shutter speed on my z7.
Although it might be overkill, this is my favorite lens for landscape photography. The insane VR lets me not have to use a tripod in almost all situations, I've been getting razor-sharp shots all the way at 200mm shooting at 1/30 of a second.
That doesn't seem that crazy. I use 1/60 at 600mm equivalent pretty regularly on my IBIS only Olympus from 8 years ago. I'll bet you could get away with 1/4 or even longer. I've done 10s handheld at 50mm; so I'll bet you could get away with a full second exposure considering the longer focal length and higher resolution sensor you have.
This is a timely review, I just got mine the other day. I’m personally blown away by this lens for the little shooting I have done. Sharpness and overall image quality is astounding. On the Z9 it doesn’t miss a beat. Easily my favourite Z lens so far.
Another brutal lens from Nikon! Sharpness in angles are better than all other Canon/Sony 70-200 f2.8 models, so I don't know why such negativity. The others are even worse except the f4 version!
The new Sony 70-200 actually performs really really well, probably even better at 200mm and it’s lighter. As it should since it’s 2 years newer design and Sony knew the bar they had to reach. Both are spectacularly excellent.
Amazing piece of glass that goes with me everywhere as it’s so versatile. I use it with a 1.4x TC and find very little if any image degradation. That 200mm looks pretty good to me and so did the flare resistance at the same focal length. 🤷♂️
I've owned this lens for over a year now and I can say it's an absolutely outstanding piece of kit. I like the size and weight of it although I am 6'5" and 120kg so it's subjective. I find smaller lenses can feel a little flimsy. Would absolutely recommend to anyone in the Z ecosystem
I've been using this lens on a Z6ii for the last 2 years, mostly at 200mm, f2.8, mostly in concerts or similar settings - it has been a legend! It's heavy, but has brilliant image quality - corner sharpness has never been a problem, but I don't often do landscapes with it. It's a lovely bit of kit.
I waited longer for this lens than I did the Z9 and D850 combined when it was originally released. Well worth the wait. Performance with TC's does not drop off all that significantly.
For sports the internal zoom and fact it can take teleconverters is a big plus over the Canon RF. Canon went a long ways to make both their 70-200s light and compact though.
This is one lens you've reviewed that I actually own! It's my most used lens as I shoot a lot of rodeo's here in the states. Well worth the investment.
Agree, plus, this Nikon one is much better suited to use in inclement conditions, no matter how good the weather sealing is on the Canon RF one, the fact the body of the lens does not extend/does not have a moving front element moving in and out suits the inclement weather use.
@@RayLombardi not just water but dust and dirt. Eventually the dust and dirt will make small tears in the seal and now you will end up with dirt and dust inside the lens. I am definitely keeping my 70-200 2.8 L.III EF lens! Congratulations though to Nikon for making a proper 70-200 👍
Also RF 70-200 2.8 and f4 are unbalanced lenses. Does the RF 70-200 2.8 has the same 20 less mm reach as the RF 70-200 f4? Couldn't try the 2.8 but I did had R6 with the F4 and was surprised that it only has an 180mm reach and is selled as 200...
The pro is that I can handhold a 500mm lens all day without problem. Had my 100-500mm for 2 years with zero damage or dust. Internal still makes more sense but its not a dust magnet at all.
Flare is always more difficult to correct for at longer focal lengths, so I'm not surprised it does worse at 200mm than 70mm. The low focus breathing is impressive though, that always used to be a huge issue on Nikon and Tamron 70-200/2.8 lenses of old.
This lens sharpness is excellent but what makes me really happy is the VR, 95% of my photos at 200mm 1/15 sec are very sharp, even managed to get 1/5 secs handheld
I was really debating between the r5 and z8, and the len offering. Both the rf 70-200 and rf 100-500 seem to be much better than the z equivalents imo. Love frosts video!
Wish you would test the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs with this lens, a popular combo. I rented the 1.4x and it was amazing, left it on the whole time when I did a big road trip out west. Too bad it's not very obtainable!
Chris, another great video! Thank you. Can I have lens Vr without the IBIS, or vice versa, or, when you shut off the VR from the menu, all VR (lens VR and IBIS) turn off all together?
Thanks for the video :) Sounds like I'd be blown away as I was when I bought the 24-70 for my Z6ii ! ( It left my old 24-70 AF-s in the shade) I have just accidentally dropped my 70-200 AF-S F mount VR Mk1 :( and guess I would also be blown away with this new lens as my F mount is 13 years old. It's ok in the middle but the right side is blurred and left side a bit burred now. Fix it ? sell as is ? or..... Shall I invest in this version? My biggest concern is...... Is it too big, long, overpowering the camera body ? Is it too heavy. I need to go lighter as my D4s with 70-200 2.8 was getting too heavy for me. Ideally an F4 70-200 z with out internal focus would do me. Shall I buy this or wait in hope that Nikon with bring out an F4 70-200 or even a 135mm.
Fantastic lens, the only thing I don't understand is the flare resistance, on Z lenses it's incredible, I see absolutely nothing wrong in the video, I don't understand?
i tested the lens when shopping for a nikon af-s 70-200 2.8 VR II replacement. at that time only z6 and z7 cameras were available and i think those cameras arent that great, i still couldnt leave that 70-200 2.8S untouched. to make it short: quite simply the best 70-200 2.8 lens i had in my hands, period. image quality corner to corner is excellent, across the whole focus and zoom range, it focuses ultra close for a 70-200 2.8 lens (which is really handy for shooting a wedding start to finish), operation is quick and silent. there are two things i dont like about that lens tho. zoom ring position at the front makes no sense, but everyone hopped on that stupid trend. that position is bad for balance and really awkward when coming from the VR2 lens, which has hands down the best ergonomics in the class (for nikon). secondly the focus by wire and oled screen are both horrible to use and thus useless. nikon doesnt put the oled screen on newer lenses anymore, so they kinda figured it out already. this lens is the strongest argument for nikon Z - but it balances terribly on z6/z7 class bodies. the lens really needs a z9 or z8 to come alive properly. i havent made the switch to nikon z because nothing on Z is worth upgrading from a d850 so i ended up buying the sigma 70-200 2.8s, which i found to be clearly superior in image quality to the nikon 70-200 2.8E VR. whenever nikon offers an upgrade from a d850 on Z, the 70-200 2.8s will be the first lens to buy tho.
Check out Fro Knows Photo review of these two lenses. The Nikon Z one gives you more light and more range (Chelsey and Tony Northup review), the Tamron has less zoom (not true full 70-200 range). Still, the Tamron is a great option esp when first starting out and if don’t have the budget for the native glass yet. The Z lens being the newest and known for excellent image quality/performance will hold it’s value longer than the Tamron or the last Nikon FX version of it. Best to trade in previous versions if you want to as time keeps moving, the less you will get in trade in value. Was able to get $525 for trade in value of my Tamron G2 version of this. Hope this helps some.
PS: if budget is tight, the previous Nikon FX VII (released in 2015, don’t get the older version, def not as good as this one and z one) is also very good, close to the z one and you can use ftz adapter should you at some point go mirrorless. Right now that latest FX model is on sale for $1890.00, the z one around $2,400. With a trade in, it helps with the cost, should you go and try the lenses out, best to call ahead and make sure they have the FX Nikon version in store. The staff at reputable camera shop stated that they are phasing out those lenses and moving into the mirrorless. So, it seems that likely they may not be producing dslr’s anymore? I would love to buy a used D850 if able to get at a great price as the cost/value continue to depreciate. Being possibly one of the last and best dslr’s ever made to have some fun with, different look than the mirrorless images. Nice to have both, last dslr I had was the 750. Good luck 🍀
When I go to shows I carry a 105 z macro in my bag but honestly this would probably suffice and take me much further. Only thing is it's 3 inches longer. But considering I'm used to putting the macro in my bag hood and all it could probably deal.
It’s here now. Same here, but the autofocus performance is more important, and I worry the 70-180 isn’t in the same league as the 70-200 particularly when it comes to af accuracy and speed.
In-camera corrections essentially are built in editing of the cameras image output to help correct optical imperfections of the lens. Rather than making these correction outside of the camera in an editing program, as the name suggest, in-camera corrections are made by the camera. By testing the lens with in-camera corrections turned off, it gives us a better idea of the true optical quality of the lens.
Even though this is heavy compared to the Canon and Tamron it is still lighter than the older 70 - 200s. They obviously knew the tamron 70-180 was coming too which is a lot lighter. So good options eventually.
"Perhaps a missed opportunity to lighten things up there." Considering the marketing they pushed _four years ago_ about it being possible to make lenses smaller than Sony ones because of the mount size, yeah. I'd say so. But at least they didn't compromise on performance to make it happen. That matters a whole lot more and was the right decision.
It was 120g lighter than Sonys 70-200 when released. Of course a couple years later Sony introduced their super light 70-200. Canon’s is smaller but they had to go to external zoom design and ditch Teleconverters.
Have you heard about Sony 70-200 GM mark ii Chris? It's the lightest of all brands while being internal zoom too, well if you consider Sony a camera brand like Canon and Nikon though!
@@livejames9374 I think it's sad how Canon and nikon feel threatened by third party manufacturers, closing off their mount. I personally will never buy new first party glass unless they open up the platform. They close up, then jack up the prices, Canon and nikon mirrorless mounts are basically completely off limits for hobbyists
So many people praise this lens but it's the most irrelevant and overpriced in my eyes, dunno. I have the z85 1.8 and z100-400 and having 70-200 is totally pointless. For indoor events I'd use 35,85mm. For outside events 35/50/85 and 100-400. I can't even think of occasion to use this lens as it's either too short, too dark or too big for my style of photography and you only showed it's far from perfect for this price...
It’s the sharpest 70-200 around. 😂 And because you don’t have a use case, it doesn’t mean others don’t. A 70-200mm f2.8 isn’t a workhorse for no reason.
@@dicekolev5360 and for events, others will see a benefit of not swapping lens and missing the action. What's pointless for you is a great feature for others
Huh? The Z 100-400 is probably the weakest lens in the whole line up. The 70-200 is an amazing rendering lens and a constant 2.8 throughout the range. Throw a 1.4x on it and it's up to 280 @ F4 and still looks amazing. I also have F 28, 50, and 85 1.8 as well as a Tamron F 100-400 primes but the Z 70-200/2.8 is far superior to all of them. I recently acquired the 1.4x (which I rented previously) and now prefer that over the Tamron 100-400 when I can (which ain't a bad lens for the 560 dollars I paid for new). I'd actually like to pick up the Tamron 35-150/2-.2.8 to cover the bottom end of range at some point, then eventually the 180-600.
For that kind of price the close up quality is so-so, and at 70mm there are bright "flashes" of flare with the light source just outside the angles. LCA performance on the other hand is astonishing, and even VR seems pretty great. All in all a good lens, but should cost at least 30% less, quality is not on par with the price they ask. And (but it's just a personal opinion) it's pretty ugly to look at, as many of the Z lenses; design is really dated and poor.
I have had this lens since its release almost and I still find myself marvelling at the quality images I can get with this. With every penny!
This lens is my latest addition to my equipment and it has quickly become my favourite lens. Sure, as shown in the video, corners aren’t the best at 200, but I have never noticed that before watching this video. The VR is simply insane. I literally just handheld a shot earlier today at 200 with 1/2 sec shutter speed on my z7.
My Best Lens on my Z7 too
I think the "not so sharp" corner is really sharp enough for any practical applications.
Exactly.... it's probably the best lens in its cathegory.
At 2.8, you never put a subject in the corner. Exactly, it's nothing to worry
@@coltoncyr2283 That's a very good point
The angles are better than on 95% of prime! VR is stellar!
Brutally, optical stabilization is incredible
What a amazing lens with internal zooming!
There should be an award for the longest running soundtrack on a YT channel. And I don't even get bored of hearing it.🤩
Although it might be overkill, this is my favorite lens for landscape photography. The insane VR lets me not have to use a tripod in almost all situations, I've been getting razor-sharp shots all the way at 200mm shooting at 1/30 of a second.
That doesn't seem that crazy. I use 1/60 at 600mm equivalent pretty regularly on my IBIS only Olympus from 8 years ago. I'll bet you could get away with 1/4 or even longer. I've done 10s handheld at 50mm; so I'll bet you could get away with a full second exposure considering the longer focal length and higher resolution sensor you have.
@@seth094978 It is impressive for full-frame though. m43 has always had a massive advantage in stabilisation due to the smaller sensor.
This is a timely review, I just got mine the other day. I’m personally blown away by this lens for the little shooting I have done. Sharpness and overall image quality is astounding.
On the Z9 it doesn’t miss a beat. Easily my favourite Z lens so far.
Another brutal lens from Nikon! Sharpness in angles are better than all other Canon/Sony 70-200 f2.8 models, so I don't know why such negativity. The others are even worse except the f4 version!
The corners don't look bad at 200 mm!👌
It's not clear to me either, the angles are better than on 90% of prime lenses, lol
The new Sony 70-200 actually performs really really well, probably even better at 200mm and it’s lighter. As it should since it’s 2 years newer design and Sony knew the bar they had to reach. Both are spectacularly excellent.
I recently got this lens from a quality used and tested retailer for £1700, its a phenomenal lens, Nikon's finest
Amazing piece of glass that goes with me everywhere as it’s so versatile. I use it with a 1.4x TC and find very little if any image degradation. That 200mm looks pretty good to me and so did the flare resistance at the same focal length. 🤷♂️
I've owned this lens for over a year now and I can say it's an absolutely outstanding piece of kit. I like the size and weight of it although I am 6'5" and 120kg so it's subjective. I find smaller lenses can feel a little flimsy. Would absolutely recommend to anyone in the Z ecosystem
NO Chromatic aberration on the aberration test. very impressive.
Accurate portrayal. Surprisingly rare among other reviewers. Thanks.
That 200mm corner looked very similar to RF 70-200 and other tele lens you’ve reviewed recently where you gave praise…
The RF lens test was also done on a 30MP camera, so not as demanding.
Well he’s a canon fanboy so there is that.
Wow! Stellar performance! Lucky Nikon folk!
The Canon one is just as great, nothing special here.
I've been using this lens on a Z6ii for the last 2 years, mostly at 200mm, f2.8, mostly in concerts or similar settings - it has been a legend! It's heavy, but has brilliant image quality - corner sharpness has never been a problem, but I don't often do landscapes with it. It's a lovely bit of kit.
I just got the lens, it is simply incredible and worth the money. Sharpness and contrast is just stunning !
I waited longer for this lens than I did the Z9 and D850 combined when it was originally released. Well worth the wait. Performance with TC's does not drop off all that significantly.
Nikon colors are sooo Beautiful 😍🤌🏼
For sports the internal zoom and fact it can take teleconverters is a big plus over the Canon RF. Canon went a long ways to make both their 70-200s light and compact though.
This is one lens you've reviewed that I actually own! It's my most used lens as I shoot a lot of rodeo's here in the states. Well worth the investment.
I have the impression that the imaging performance of the Nikon Z 70-200 f/2.8 VR S is better than that of the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8.
and the Canon RF cant even take a convertor and is a Dust sucker in Africa >> a popular consumer lens at best
and you will be surprised that the RF 70-200 f4 is only 180mm...
I have this lens and it's about the best a lens can be. It's imperfection in few ways takes nothing away from this beauty.
what a masterpiece❤❤❤ Nikon should name this one like plena!
This is a gem for multi row pano
Love the internal zoom! External is too gimicky. Canon really made a HUGE mistake with their's.
Agree, plus, this Nikon one is much better suited to use in inclement conditions, no matter how good the weather sealing is on the Canon RF one, the fact the body of the lens does not extend/does not have a moving front element moving in and out suits the inclement weather use.
@@RayLombardi not just water but dust and dirt. Eventually the dust and dirt will make small tears in the seal and now you will end up with dirt and dust inside the lens. I am definitely keeping my 70-200 2.8 L.III EF lens! Congratulations though to Nikon for making a proper 70-200 👍
Also RF 70-200 2.8 and f4 are unbalanced lenses. Does the RF 70-200 2.8 has the same 20 less mm reach as the RF 70-200 f4? Couldn't try the 2.8 but I did had R6 with the F4 and was surprised that it only has an 180mm reach and is selled as 200...
The pro is that I can handhold a 500mm lens all day without problem. Had my 100-500mm for 2 years with zero damage or dust. Internal still makes more sense but its not a dust magnet at all.
@@Xirpzy well, the new owner of the RF 70-200 f4 told me that the lens already has dust inside. Is just 2 and half years old.
Flare is always more difficult to correct for at longer focal lengths, so I'm not surprised it does worse at 200mm than 70mm.
The low focus breathing is impressive though, that always used to be a huge issue on Nikon and Tamron 70-200/2.8 lenses of old.
I have this lens and I think it's one of Nikon's highest quality lenses. I'll take a little length for better quality any day.
I've been using mine for sports photography, it's brilliant.
This lens sharpness is excellent but what makes me really happy is the VR, 95% of my photos at 200mm 1/15 sec are very sharp, even managed to get 1/5 secs handheld
I was really debating between the r5 and z8, and the len offering. Both the rf 70-200 and rf 100-500 seem to be much better than the z equivalents imo. Love frosts video!
excellent review as always, thanks!! By the way a video comparing all 70 200 lenses in the market would be interesting!
I’ve been waiting for this one!
Great lens, for some pockets... heheh
please review the 24-200 when you can... THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!
Wish you would test the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs with this lens, a popular combo. I rented the 1.4x and it was amazing, left it on the whole time when I did a big road trip out west. Too bad it's not very obtainable!
Chris, another great video! Thank you. Can I have lens Vr without the IBIS, or vice versa, or, when you shut off the VR from the menu, all VR (lens VR and IBIS) turn off all together?
Thanks for the video :) Sounds like I'd be blown away as I was when I bought the 24-70 for my Z6ii ! ( It left my old 24-70 AF-s in the shade)
I have just accidentally dropped my 70-200 AF-S F mount VR Mk1 :( and guess I would also be blown away with this new lens as my F mount is 13 years old. It's ok in the middle but the right side is blurred and left side a bit burred now. Fix it ? sell as is ? or.....
Shall I invest in this version? My biggest concern is...... Is it too big, long, overpowering the camera body ? Is it too heavy. I need to go lighter as my D4s with 70-200 2.8 was getting too heavy for me.
Ideally an F4 70-200 z with out internal focus would do me. Shall I buy this or wait in hope that Nikon with bring out an F4 70-200 or even a 135mm.
Fantastic lens, the only thing I don't understand is the flare resistance, on Z lenses it's incredible, I see absolutely nothing wrong in the video, I don't understand?
Can you test Nikon Z 24-200mm please?
Yesssss-.... please Christopher!!
I don't understand why Nikon won't Arca-swiss the mount leg..
i tested the lens when shopping for a nikon af-s 70-200 2.8 VR II replacement. at that time only z6 and z7 cameras were available and i think those cameras arent that great, i still couldnt leave that 70-200 2.8S untouched. to make it short: quite simply the best 70-200 2.8 lens i had in my hands, period. image quality corner to corner is excellent, across the whole focus and zoom range, it focuses ultra close for a 70-200 2.8 lens (which is really handy for shooting a wedding start to finish), operation is quick and silent.
there are two things i dont like about that lens tho. zoom ring position at the front makes no sense, but everyone hopped on that stupid trend. that position is bad for balance and really awkward when coming from the VR2 lens, which has hands down the best ergonomics in the class (for nikon). secondly the focus by wire and oled screen are both horrible to use and thus useless. nikon doesnt put the oled screen on newer lenses anymore, so they kinda figured it out already.
this lens is the strongest argument for nikon Z - but it balances terribly on z6/z7 class bodies. the lens really needs a z9 or z8 to come alive properly.
i havent made the switch to nikon z because nothing on Z is worth upgrading from a d850 so i ended up buying the sigma 70-200 2.8s, which i found to be clearly superior in image quality to the nikon 70-200 2.8E VR.
whenever nikon offers an upgrade from a d850 on Z, the 70-200 2.8s will be the first lens to buy tho.
Wow. An APO zoom. Seldom we get to see an Apochromatic zoom lens.
It's three times more expensive than my Tamron f2.8 70-200 I use on my D850. Would like to see a comparison...
Check out Fro Knows Photo review of these two lenses. The Nikon Z one gives you more light and more range (Chelsey and Tony Northup review), the Tamron has less zoom (not true full 70-200 range). Still, the Tamron is a great option esp when first starting out and if don’t have the budget for the native glass yet. The Z lens being the newest and known for excellent image quality/performance will hold it’s value longer than the Tamron or the last Nikon FX version of it. Best to trade in previous versions if you want to as time keeps moving, the less you will get in trade in value. Was able to get $525 for trade in value of my Tamron G2 version of this. Hope this helps some.
PS: if budget is tight, the previous Nikon FX VII (released in 2015, don’t get the older version, def not as good as this one and z one) is also very good, close to the z one and you can use ftz adapter should you at some point go mirrorless. Right now that latest FX model is on sale for $1890.00, the z one around $2,400. With a trade in, it helps with the cost, should you go and try the lenses out, best to call ahead and make sure they have the FX Nikon version in store. The staff at reputable camera shop stated that they are phasing out those lenses and moving into the mirrorless. So, it seems that likely they may not be producing dslr’s anymore? I would love to buy a used D850 if able to get at a great price as the cost/value continue to depreciate. Being possibly one of the last and best dslr’s ever made to have some fun with, different look than the mirrorless images. Nice to have both, last dslr I had was the 750.
Good luck 🍀
whats your favourite z lens Chris??
When I go to shows I carry a 105 z macro in my bag but honestly this would probably suffice and take me much further. Only thing is it's 3 inches longer. But considering I'm used to putting the macro in my bag hood and all it could probably deal.
I'm waiting for the 70-180. I'm into light gear
It’s here now. Same here, but the autofocus performance is more important, and I worry the 70-180 isn’t in the same league as the 70-200 particularly when it comes to af accuracy and speed.
been waiting for this one :)
I used to remember you identify the "not so great" corners to be very sharp even 5 years ago.
I'm tired of judge lenses by the clinical sharpness corner to corner at 400%, it's getting insane.
I agree with you.
Completely agree!
Just find that Nikon's antiflaring always kills Canon, my rf 70200 performs so bad against strong light at night
The RF 50 1.2 is pretty bad too. Couldn’t stand the loss of contrast in backlit situations.
I like that the Nikon lenses barely have any focus breathing unlike the Canon RF lenses.
Thanks, compare Z version vs. RF version.
Open both videos up on your computer screen and compare yourself. 😀
You should do a vid on the FX FL version
70-200 f2.8E!!
Probably a stupid question but what do you mean by 'in camera corrections' please?
In-camera corrections essentially are built in editing of the cameras image output to help correct optical imperfections of the lens. Rather than making these correction outside of the camera in an editing program, as the name suggest, in-camera corrections are made by the camera. By testing the lens with in-camera corrections turned off, it gives us a better idea of the true optical quality of the lens.
This may be a dumb question how did he get the horizontal level screen to display while taking the picture.
Press the DISP button.
Even though this is heavy compared to the Canon and Tamron it is still lighter than the older 70 - 200s. They obviously knew the tamron 70-180 was coming too which is a lot lighter. So good options eventually.
I heard it's very contrast-heavy in the reds.
@@InfectedChris 😅😅
@@steventhomas231 Sorry I couldn't help it!
This Beautiful Lens can take a Teleconvertor and is NOT a extending Trombone Zoom like the Canonn RF 70-200 which CANT take a Convertor
Christopher. Great review. Please don’t take offense, but you have a lovely wife. 😊 Congratulations 🎈
"Perhaps a missed opportunity to lighten things up there."
Considering the marketing they pushed _four years ago_ about it being possible to make lenses smaller than Sony ones because of the mount size, yeah. I'd say so. But at least they didn't compromise on performance to make it happen. That matters a whole lot more and was the right decision.
It was 120g lighter than Sonys 70-200 when released. Of course a couple years later Sony introduced their super light 70-200. Canon’s is smaller but they had to go to external zoom design and ditch Teleconverters.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Nice shot of the gospel of John in the Greek New Testament!
70-200 were at 2000$ max... Now, both Canon and Sony, and now Nikon, go close to 3000...
Beautiful lens, though not as tank-like solid as Nikon’s gold ring predecessors. At these prices, I’ll shoot F mount until I die.
Have you heard about Sony 70-200 GM mark ii Chris? It's the lightest of all brands while being internal zoom too, well if you consider Sony a camera brand like Canon and Nikon though!
Why wouldn’t you consider Sony as a equivalent camera brand? They are doing a lot of great things for the industry moving things forward from DSLR.
@@livejames9374 Well I'm with you man but I wondered why Chris didn't mention to Sony while naming Canon rival model.
Because he hasn’t tested it? I’m sure when he does there will be a comparison video to follow.
@@livejames9374 OK you might be right. Let's see if he ever compares the 3 of them together or not.
He is slightly biased against Sony for some reason I think.
Great! câmera!
At that price, I'd expect the corners at 200mm to be better than that...
Does it matter? I never use the corners at 200mm
Probably a cost of having no focus breathing which is the smart choice since many/most ppl will use it as a portrait lens
Z glass as always overpriced.
@@C4CH3S you can say that about all 1st party manufacture lenses
@@livejames9374 I think it's sad how Canon and nikon feel threatened by third party manufacturers, closing off their mount. I personally will never buy new first party glass unless they open up the platform. They close up, then jack up the prices, Canon and nikon mirrorless mounts are basically completely off limits for hobbyists
Why’s everything Nikon making so heavy?
IS is eyebrow raising!
If that was a Fuji lens you would certainly not had it highly recommended with that performance
The Fuji equivalent is a mess compared to this lens. 😂
Fancy not recommending one of the best 70-200mm ever made?
24-200Z
Whoever looks to the corners in a photograph? No well compositioned photos should have anything worth focusing on in the corners.
You should clean that sensor dude!
So many people praise this lens but it's the most irrelevant and overpriced in my eyes, dunno. I have the z85 1.8 and z100-400 and having 70-200 is totally pointless. For indoor events I'd use 35,85mm. For outside events 35/50/85 and 100-400. I can't even think of occasion to use this lens as it's either too short, too dark or too big for my style of photography and you only showed it's far from perfect for this price...
It’s the sharpest 70-200 around. 😂
And because you don’t have a use case, it doesn’t mean others don’t. A 70-200mm f2.8 isn’t a workhorse for no reason.
@@ghas4151 I know that, I simply put my point as that is the purpose of these comments, you know ;)
@@dicekolev5360 and for events, others will see a benefit of not swapping lens and missing the action. What's pointless for you is a great feature for others
@@bobamarmstrong my point was 2 cameras with one tele and one of the wider lenses 🤌
Huh? The Z 100-400 is probably the weakest lens in the whole line up. The 70-200 is an amazing rendering lens and a constant 2.8 throughout the range. Throw a 1.4x on it and it's up to 280 @ F4 and still looks amazing.
I also have F 28, 50, and 85 1.8 as well as a Tamron F 100-400 primes but the Z 70-200/2.8 is far superior to all of them. I recently acquired the 1.4x (which I rented previously) and now prefer that over the Tamron 100-400 when I can (which ain't a bad lens for the 560 dollars I paid for new).
I'd actually like to pick up the Tamron 35-150/2-.2.8 to cover the bottom end of range at some point, then eventually the 180-600.
Generous GARSTIC sound good
For that kind of price the close up quality is so-so, and at 70mm there are bright "flashes" of flare with the light source just outside the angles. LCA performance on the other hand is astonishing, and even VR seems pretty great. All in all a good lens, but should cost at least 30% less, quality is not on par with the price they ask. And (but it's just a personal opinion) it's pretty ugly to look at, as many of the Z lenses; design is really dated and poor.
If you want better close up image quality you can use 70mm or 135mm as the whole zoom range has the similar max magnification.
Not me watching a review on a lens I bought 7 months ago🫣. Just have to see his opinion. I’d sell it if he said it was bad ignoring my own experiences
A video on nikon z 85mmf1.2 lens