Gents, this was my second Z lens and I can echo your opinion. It might be the best lens Nikon has ever made when you consider all the options it brings to the table for focal length, depth of field, and composition. I have the Z 2.8 Trinity and while I think I use the 24-70mm 2.8 most, the 70-200mm is my favorite.
I can fully underline what you said in the video: The rendering, the look of the Z 70-200mm S F2.8 is outstanding, difficult to describe with words, but one can see and feel it! So this marvel deserves my full recommendation. I will probably buy it within the next two weeks, after a long time of careful consideration, if not the Z 100-400 would better fit my needs, but the output of the Z 70-200 is so gorgeous that my decision is clear now. But if you are looking for a cheap landscape lens, and F2.8 is not important, I can recommend the Nikkor AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 ED VR with FTZ adapter on a Z camera. I made some comparative tests with the new Z 100-400 S and couldn't find a great difference in image quality at F5.6 and F8.0.
Its such a useful lens, and yes, probably Nikon's finest, or one of them. I use it alot for landscape shots, quite often in the 135-165mm range. But then agian I also use it for video as well. So, yes, I just love this lens for its flexibility and the ergos are just great as well. The zoom ring is like butter - you can twist it from 70-200 with your little finger.
I use it with the z6ii and the z8. The 70-200 is my favourite. I would say I take 95% of my pictures with it. I also have the 24-120 f4s, the 28-75 f2.8 and the sigma 150-600 c. For filming without a tripod I use the smaller lense because the 70-200 is more difficult to avoid shake. And it does not balance on my dji rs3 gimbal.
Here’s one for you. I own the f-mount 70-200 VR2 AF-S G ED (not the newer FL) and think that the rendering on this older lens is much nicer for portraits and I’d go so far as to say its even nicer than the 1.8 Z primes currently available in that focal range. People used to mock this lens because when you’re close focusing it isn’t really 200mm but closer to a 135. I think it is all the better for it when used as a portrait lens. I totally love it and mated to my Z9 it is even better than it was on my DSLRs. Seems to focus faster and more reliably. Maybe you guys could acquire a copy and compare it to the S lens. I think you’ll be surprised.
I would love to try. Maybe we could look it from a rental place sometime. Issue for me with portraits with the long focal lengths is how far you have to be away making it hard to direct
@@russandloz that’s just it. I didn’t do the detailed comparisons that you guys make but when I’m shooting at popular locations and watch other photographers how far they are from their clients when shooting with other 70-200’s and I’m not that far it makes me wonder if the so called Achilles heel of the lens, the fact that it isn’t a real 200 when close focusing is in fact a hidden benefit when it comes to portrait photography. I did compare it to my Samyang 135 as to the distance I need for framing the same shot and they’re pretty close, in fact it’s nearer in my calculations.
@@russandloz I did find this review of the old VR2 against the new VRS and it does confirm my observations. Take a look and I'm sure you'll find it very interesting and will wet your appetite to test these lenses for yourself even more. There's life in the old F-mount lenses yet! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TIrZmmlcLlo.html
I don’t understand the working difference complaint. Don’t shoot at 200mm if you have to stand back 300 ft 😂. It’s a zoom for just that reason. The 70-200 is perfect for portraits: zoom out for full-length shots, zoom in for head shots, all without moving!
To get the best depth of field subject separation you’d have to shoot at 200. Lower focal lengths won’t look so good in that respect. Depends how particular you are about dof I guess
I love the z70-200 but your comment comparing using the teleconverter as being the same as cropping just wrong. I have the 2x TC and it's superb. I find it equivalent IQ at 400mm to the 100-400 but unless you get a long prime, there's nothing zoom-wise with th reach of the 100-400. But you need good light! I'mwating the 200-600
@@russandloz I wasn't sure if I should swop my f/4 24-70 for the f/2.8, which may potentially be more versatile, or if I should just stick with the f/4, get the 70-200 f/2.8, and I thought one Prime either the 50 1.8 or 35 1.8.
@@sorayananji6801 The 2.8 version opens up a lot more opportunities for low light and depth of field. The 50 1.8 is a great lens, one of my favourite. What are you hoping to photograph?
Totally don't agree with the assessment of bokeh, or "the look" of the lens being not good with the 70-200. You compare what an 85 1.8 looks like to a 2.8 lens at 200 mm. Of course the 200mm will be different. Idiotic comparison. You can shoot the 70-200 @ 85mm, just at 2.8 vs 1.8. So the ONLY difference would be aperture, or background blur. Which you don't compare here. Stupid commentary.
@@CofFDnSnaps what we were saying in the video is that the look of the out of focus areas using the 70-200 are enough for some people. But yes I prefer the 1.2-1.8 look.
