You can stay up to date with Matts latest work at www.mattgrange... - join the mailing list! Check out the Nikon Expert Setup Guide: learn.mattgran... / _mattgranger / mattgranger
Check out the 70-180 at BH: bhpho.to/44kApGY 70-200mm: bhpho.to/3H4a5qa Nikon Expert Setup Guide: learn.mattgranger.com/courses/zsetup Check out the sample files at: learn.mattgranger.com/courses/70180200
That's a great result. No matter which one you like to buy they are both great choices for Nikon Z-Mount. The 70-180 mm f/2.8 lens seems to be a better choice from Nikon than making a 70-200 mm f/4 lens for compact size and less weight. Light always matters for photography.
Aren't the Gen 1 on the Nikon Z better than Sony Tamrons? I'll be surprised if they are the same since Nikon has a larger mount vs Sony's APSC mount. Just having a larger mount imo makes a big difference.
@@MrBazReviews What a nonsense. This Nikon lens gets full compatibility and support from Nikon unlike third-party lenses and adds an additional control ring for individual customization on photo and video usage. It also takes teleconverters unlike the Sony version.
@@russandloz yeah I had to look really hard for the diff. I think it comes down to either you need VR or not. I heard VR on the 70-200mm is just on a next level. Better than anything out there.
Would be curious to see the close focus capabilities of the 70-180 on something like "macro" shots of rings or small objects. I barely use my 70-200 VRII (with the adapter on a Z9) on wedding days because of its weight so this is a tempting "upgrade", especially if it can double as a lens I can use for detail shots during bride/groom prep
Not much difference in quality, however it would be better to have same focal length for both pictures. I can see warmer colors on 70-200, probably because of different coating and bokeh is softer on 70-200, probably because of 200mm vs 180mm. Matt, if you could compare them in sport photography, specifically focus speed that would be awesome! thanks for the review.
at first, thank you for the review! Me as a wedding photographer (using 2x Z6ii Bodys) carrying 6-10hours, 4 lenses and 2 bodys... currently i am using a 70-200vrii with FTZ adapter. I am very interested in a lightweight telezoom lens like the 70-180.
I think the 70-180 is an awesome option for "casual" shooters who want a great lens that's at least similar to a 70-200/2.8. If you just want to take nice photos this could be the one for a lot of people. But the lack of in lens VR is very disappointing. Because that also means that budget oriented people, who this lens is aimed at, who use a Z50 or Zfc won't have any VR at all, which is a deal breaker for me personally. Maybe using an older F mount 70-200/2.8 would be the better choice for them, if they already own an FTZ adapter. I still love my Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2, it's plenty sharp, works great with the FTZ adapter, VR works very well and it probably costs less than the 70-180. Yes, the native Z glass IS sharper. And the AF is faster. But I'm happy with my lens so I see no reason to upgrade.
I think the lack of VR is overrated. You don't shoot people at 1/50 or even 1/160. If you do portraits, you want to eliminate blurring movement. From your hands, but also from the model or whatever moving subject you have in front of you - which VR or IBIS has no impact on. So you want to freeze it at least at 1/250-1/500s. For low light you have F1.8 lenses.
Thank you very much Matt for your review of these two lenses. I finally chose the 70-180, and I'll probably receive a package from the courier on Monday. The image quality is different, but not drastically so. Overall, I like the size of the 70-180; I can't imagine walking around for 5 hours with both the 24-70 2.8 Nikkor and the 70-200 Nikkor. I might change my mind, but for now, I'm feeling the flow with the combination of the nikkor 24-70 2.8 and the nikkor 70-180 2.8. I also use the N105 1.4. I always use the N Z6II body. I'm not a professional, photography is my huge passion. I could spend money on the 70-200, but I don't feel the need. Regards.
Hi Marius! It's been 9 months since you've posted this. Just wondering, what are your thoughts on the 70-180 so far? Do you like it? Are you happy with your decision? Any regrets? Thoughts in general?
When this lens came out for Sony no one really talked about the lack of VR or lens IS. Nice to see some numbers on this as IBIS does not work as well at longer end of the zoom. I ended up with Sonys amazing 70-200 f2.8 GM MKII which is much lighter than the Nikon one. Im now thinking of maybe switching to Nikon in a Z8 hence checking out lens options.
@@HaggenKennedy I tried the Z8 for around three months but sold it and got an A1. Two main reason, firstly the AF you had to constantly change the settings throughout the day to get the best out of it and occasionally it would tell you it had the eye but did not. Secondly the lack of a 85 and 35 f1.4 prime lens. I don't want a 85 f1.2 at 1.2KG or a f1.8 that delivers results not that different from a 24-70 f2.8. I love my f1.4 which for me are a sweet spot. It's a shame as in many ways I loved the Z8 and I lost a bit of money in trying Nikon. If I was shooting just for fun I would have stuck with the Z8 but for work the Sony A1 is amazing.
@@nickwilliams7867 Thanks for getting back to me, Nick! I have a Z8 myself, I like it a lot. But I understand your decision. You should definitely go for whatever gets you the best result or at least what you like working with the best. Camera bodies and lenses are certainly a very personal choice. And I love that we can choose from a bunch of different companies for whatever suits us best. Having options is a great thing. Again, thanks so much for giving us an update, I appreciate it. 👍🏻
There is another point between these two lenses. I have the 14-24 // 24-70 // and the 100-400 - the issue now was to get between 70-100. the 70-180mm would be totally fine for me in terms of focal lenght range. i'd pay 1k$ more just for 20mm more on 2.8? (which i have covered on the 100-400 with 4.5 (actually a 5 on 200). the point being is the 70-200 2.8 is supported by the teleconverter 1.4 and 2.0. the 70-180 is not. so im about to spent 1k more for the 20 mil + teleconverter compability. because that still hits on a 70-200 (140-400) with a 5.6 (teleconverter brings it 2 stopds down.+ cheers juan
Both great lenses . I have the Sony version and no client would be able to tell the difference between Nikon or rebadged Tamron. We shoot weddings with Tamron lenses and guess what … nobody cares if it’s a Z mega sharp lens or a Tamron . You will get the job done at a fraction of the cost. When you try to re sell your lenses in the future you will regret buying the more expensive version, I guarantee it . Nice work as always !!
I agree with all that apart from the resale bit. certainly my old canon L and now Sony GM lenses hold their value. Getting a good price in the first place is important. I did buy the Tamron 28-75 for Sony but the build was not great and when I went to sell the value had plummeted .
Very nice video… really appreciate you putting in so much effort in these videos… Such a shame, with your account being shut down… specially when people like yourself follow the guidelines and still have to face this… sad… Best of luck…
I have the 70-200 but find it very heavy to hike with. However, I find it hard to justify buying the 70-180 as well. Ideally I'd go back in time and not buy the 70-200; the dealers are offering joke trade-in prices for the 70-200.
Please would you compare the 70-180 Z lens to the 70-200 f4 G lens with the Z adaptor. I love the contrast on the f4 G lens and on this video it looks like the 70-180 is quite poor in comparison. Thank you for your superb channel, you are an amazing photographer and teacher.
The 70-200 looks just a little sharper than the 70-180. To me, though, it’s probably not worth paying another $1,249 to get the 70-200, especially since I already own the 70-200 F mount.
@@simontumpach1442 thanks for letting me know. It looks like a great lens, and is definitely worth getting in order to have a smaller and lighter lens!
@@MrPhotog7 i take the 70-180. The 70-200 goes back to the dealer. The 70-180weightd less and has the better focus distance. You can shoot makro with the 70-180
@MrPhotog7 one has VR and the other doesn't. So maybe depends if you are shooting videos or not. You may want the VR. I heard the VR is the best of any camera manufacturer.
Would you consider doing similar in-depth comparison between the Z 24-70mm F2.8 vs Z 28-75mm F2.8? It was briefly mentioned in your F2.8 vs F4 Nikon Zooms. These two are similar to this video as both Z F2.8 at a very similar focal range. One is "S" and the other isn't. Thanks
Seems like a viable option if you're shooting a higher res camera. Cropping that little bit from 180 to 200 shouldn't affect IQ that much on a 45mp image.
Dust should no longer be an issue with newer lenses. with my 24-70 the tube was wobbly and diverted after a short time. so I prefer lenses without front lens shift.
Hey Matt. Tad Craig Photography here in Maui Hawaii Been a pro portrait/wedding photographer for 20+ years and have had all Nikon everything. My first camera was a FE2. My go to for the past five years has been the D4S with my longest lens for wedding work my 70-200 Now I’m shooting with the Z72, usually paired with the 40/f2 or a 17-28 2.8 or 85mm. I have my eye on a ZF for its awesome 9:09 AF & great nostalgia feels Because of the weight of my present 70-200 I’m eyeing the 70-180 as my long lens. Just trying to see from utube if it’s worthy being a cheaper lens Sick of carrying all the heavy lenses. Can u talk about this on your next vid please?
How much further can the 70-200 reach compared to the 70-180? I thinking of getting one for concert and sports photography but I’m not if it’s worth spending an extra $1000 for a lens that I won’t be using all the time
Hey Matt, Can you ask Nikon why they didn't add N-log to the Z6II and Z7II cameras. And then make us have to pay for the firmware upgrade, or have to go buy a Atomos Ninja V. But the Z9 and Z8 have it off the shelf. Is the Z7II not classified as a Flagship camera body.
@@mattgranger Still doesn't explain why alot of Canon Mid range and Sony Mid range cameras all have their own Log profile for shooting video. Why is Nikon making their users have to pay for a firmware update just to do video in N-log. Makes no sense. They beginning to act like Apple.
When I saw the 70-180 was coming I got excited, but that was short lived. I absolutely LOVE the F mount 70-180 micro for the macro versatility. Adding close up diopters and it is an amazing tool. Alas, not a micro so my interest waned immediately. Guessing it is very unlikely we will see something like that F mount lens for the Z system. I really hope i am wrong! Cheers!.
I personally have never needed those lens switches (even on the F-Mount lenses) as i have always used the camera for switching from AF to MF or vice versa.
No, just a zoom lock button. I’ve used back button focus for years which means that button would be redundant anyway. I’ve just bought this lens and it has a similar feel (and size) to the Z 24-120mm which is an S lens.
Ps: im interesting to buy, but thinking between Older Nikkor 70-200 E ED VR for 900£ used, this 70-180 for 1300£ new, or wait for this 35-150 for around 2000£ if that will be true. Any advice? What You will choose? Thanks 👍
I am using my 70-200 VR (that is the first version 20 year old formula) on my z6II and it works better on the Z6II than on my D4. I'd say go for the adapted lens if you are on a budget. VRII is lightyears ahead of the first version and FL is basically the same as the Z mount 70-200 And I just realized that you are talking about the last version of the F mount. Go for it man, you wont regret it (if size and weight is not crucial for you). Optically 70-200 E is surely better than 70-180.
Well, the 70-200 E ED VR version is a bargain for that price. It was the last F-Mount version which is very close to the current Z-Mount version. But you need the FTZ-Adapter for that.
I've been watching your channel since 2014, Appreciate the reviews soo much. This one defiantly helped me make another informed decision. 70-180 for me. I cant justify the price of the 70-200 for a starters and to be honest I'm over the size of most 70-200 lenses like the one I've been swinging around for 9 years, its just massive and too much.
I think that the 70-180 is almost a different lens type, because of course professional event photographers will go for the 70-200 whatever, but also that the compact size makes the 70-180 a lens you could always take with you, the 70-200 will make the pack only when you know you will need it. If you do photo-hiking or traveling with photography as as a adjunct, it's great second lens particularly with modest close up capabilities, a better comparison might be with a 70-200f4, and on spec i would have the 2.8 and forgo the 20mm. (which might not be exploitable anyway across the envelope of focus distances)
@@carlosandreviana9448 Fair, clearly contradicts what i asered, but I dont think it flies in my face of my thinking. The `'holy trinity`` 70-200 2.8 is spoken of as must have lens by photography influencers, I think it's a bit of a waste unless you very specifically need one, because of its size and weight and price. Not so the 70-180 it's easy to lug around even if you might not need it specifically and its half the price, vs the 70-200. As a money maker, the compromises that make it such a good choice for an enthusiast might not count for much. (or might for others!). Good luck with the purchase I am quite jealous.
@@logtothebase2 As a full time wedding photographer, the 70-180 has my attention for sure. The HUGE weight reduction whilst only loosing 20mm off the long end, perhaps a shade of sharpness, and VR (which is only useful when shooting low shutter speeds) is VERY appealing. 10 hour days carrying two bodies when one is a 70-200 2.8 really makes you crave lighter glass haha.
If we get 70-200 fl ed nikon f mount lens for the same price as nikon z 70-180, which one is recommended? Although i am getting fled as refurb or used.
