Nikon 70-200mm f/2,8 ver 3

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Erik-Christensen, Apr 3, 2021.

  1. I have recently changed my 70-200mm f/2.8 ver 1 with ver 3, as I had read that ver 3 was the best and ver 2 the worst – not a lot. Due to the Covid-19 I have not yet had the opportunity to test it, but I was extremely surprised to read the following this morning!

    Erik Christensen

    in a misguided effort to "improve" the already phenomenal II... Nikon tweaked the lens dynamic to get "more" edge to edge sharpness. In doing so, more so than even in the second edition... They lost sharpness across the lens field. I have about 46 professional photographers as personal friends both across the globe and local to me. None of them like and most are pissed about the latest edition. I rented it for 3 months to check if I would like it... I had no less than three copies sent to me. Everyone was softer across the image field. Soon enough, videos were showing up on YouTube and emails and conversations arrived at the same conclusion. It's a no-go. The only people praising this version are owners that only own/have used this edition. So they have nothing to compare it to. Or they are paid content providers that get remuneration for Hawking it to others. Rent it and rent the previous edition. Take a TON of pictures, pixel peep and soon enough you'll see the dramatic differences...

    Let me be honest I believe members of PN more than FB, but are there people here, who can support the above statement about the ver 3?
     
  2. I sold my VR 2 as i found mine pretty soft at 200mm wide open pretty much across the frame.

    I thought about the 3rd version, but is was too expensive at the time.

    I got the Sigma Sport and have been happy with it. The only down side is a poor close focus distance.
     
  3. Neither the photographylife imatest results: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR Review - Page 4 of 7 - Photography Life
    nor the lensrentals results: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr-mtf-tests/
    support that conclusion about the comparison between ver 2 and ver 3.
    Thom Hogan also writes in favor of ver 3's optical performance over the ver 2: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens Review | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

    The only "furor" I remember with regard to the current ver 3 is that Nikon dared to switch the position of the zoom and focus rings; locating the zoom ring up front.

    I owned only ver 1 and never shot ver 2 and ver 3. While I liked how the 70-200/2.8 ver 1 performed (only used on DX), I traded it for the Nikon 70-200/4 to save weight and bulk and because I didn't really need f/2.8.

    BTW, what's that FB link in your post supposed to show - I only find a discussion about trading a D7200 for a D500?
     
    tonybeach_1961 likes this.
  4. I had the Ver 1 didnt like it and sold it, thought long and hard if I wanted to spend the $$$ on the FL, I have had it for about a year now and do not regret one bit about buying it, It also very good on my Z7.
     
  5. I thought the same about the forward positioned zoom ring. But when I used a Tamron 70-210/4, with a front zoom ring, I found that I liked it.
    The lens rested in my left hand, and the zoom ring fell nicely on my thumb and fingers. Holding the lens thumb forward. And I could work the zoom ring easily.
    Call me convinced.

    When I use my Nikon 70-200/4, to shoot field sports, I reverse the tripod collar, and rest the foot on my palm. Then my fingers can work the zoom ring.

    I hope to try the Tamron 70-200/2.8 in a week or so, and see how it's front positioned zoom ring feels.
     
  6. That's the first time I heard someone bashing v3 of the 70-200. The newer version of the 24-70 is less sharp in the middle but sharper across. One reason I never upgraded. And the Sigma lenses, especially the Art ones, are pumped on every forum you go to. I had 2 and returned them both, awful lenses that only focused occasionally
     
  7. Maybe it is the lens and maybe it is the lens/camera combination. For the person who rented three different copies and none met expectations, how many different cameras were used.

    I had a like experience, but with a Tamron 70-200 - the "G1" version that is not user adjustable. It was my first 70-200 and my first time using a DSLR, my D750. At first I thought the images were great, then as I used it more, I began to see where they were softer than I thought they should be. I discussed my problem with the Tamron representative. She suggested I send the lens and the camera to Tamron service; they would adjust the lens to my particular camera. The adjustment was covered by the six year Tamron warranty. I sent both the 70-200 and my 24-70 G2 lens to Tamron. They took two days to adjust the lenses and sent everything back 3-day air. There was a marked improvement in the sharpness of both lenses. The lenses were probably "within specification" and the camera was probably "within specification", but the combination was not within my specification. Tamron corrected the problem.

    I do not know if Nikon will do the same For the prices they charge, they should.

    A particular camera with particular lens slight mismatch would be one explanation why some people are having problems while others are not. Other explanations are some people like to complain or it is their way to get attention and their 15-minutes of fame. Of course there is always "buyer's remorse".
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2021
  8. thank you everybody - I am travelling now unfortunately without camera, but will test the ver 3 end of the coming week.
     
  9. I tried the version 1 on three different bodies and couldn’t get a sharp image until I got to 5.6. It was awful and I’ve never been interested in another. I have two 80-200/2.8 D lenses that are quite good. VR isn’t a big deal to me so I can’t find a reason to change.

    Rick H.
     
    Nick D. likes this.
  10. The FL version is simply wonderful. It has better bokeh than G II version, much higher contrast in backlight due to its extremely good resistance to flare, it has quieter and more precise AF, quieter and easier to use VR, more rigid tripod mount, and the sharpness is amazing across the focal range and at near and far distances, it doesn't lose focal length when focused close etc. It is the most consistently autofocusing lens I have ever used. The FL 70-200/2.8 set a new standard for how good a lens can be.

    Lensrentals is as reliable as lens testers go and they typically test many samples. Check out this:

    Just the MTF Charts: 70-200mm f2.8 Zoom Lenses

    "Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
    I like to make fun of lenses with half-a-dozen initials in their name, but this Nikon set the standard for all 70-200mm lenses when it was released a few years ago, and is still the best of all of them. So no funs will be made."
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2021
  11. Which the S lens for Z mount has improved upon i gather.
     
  12. Optically the Z version is said to be slightly better than the F-mount FL version (there isn't really much to improve) but it is also reported to be the slowest-focusing among its peers (see dpr TV comparison). I guess the most significant benefit is that it can work with the new Z teleconverters and with them the image quality is very good.

    I don't expect Z versions to lead to much improvement in the image quality of longer lenses over F-mount versions as these were not optically limited by the F mount anyway, and many of them rank among the best lenses by all manufacturers on lenscore's 200 MP sensor. However, TC performance may well be improved as the new TCs put their optics close to the sensor.
     
    mag_miksch and mike_halliwell like this.
  13. Which i guess could be tweaked in Firmware?

    Many of Sigma long zooms allow the user to choose between Fast or Accurate with many stages inbetween to adjust to taste. All done via the Dock thingy.
     
  14. Right, but that's only available on Sigma lenses.

    It remains to be seen how fast the Z 70-200/2.8 is on future cameras like the Z9. I get the feeling that Nikon are trying to break into video and they seem to be putting a lot of attention to lens design from that perspective, this includes autofocusing but also if you zoom it, the framing changes only minimally, which should be good (and focus should change minimally if one zooms and is in manual focus, but I don't know how precisely this actually works for this lens). However, whether they were able to achieve these things and also fast focusing for stills remains to be seen once they have improved the camera side of the autofocus technology.

    Dpr TV did note the Z Nikkor was the best of the lot optically, so that's something. And it seems Canon made a great effort to make theirs as compact as possible but it doesn't support any extenders, so there is quite a tradeoff there (there is also some loss of focal length upon close focus). I've seen excellent results from the Z Nikkor using both Z TCs. Sony's 70-200/2.8 was the fastest to focus but worst optically. So it seems although this category of lens is very established, none of the big three got everything right on their first version for their mirrorless systems. I am guessing they will want to sell v. II and III. ;-)
     
  15. That is something similar I read long time ago and the reason that I exchanged ver 1 with ver 3. My travel lasted longer than expected, but I should be able to test it a days time very soon. The few images I have already were very good, and I like the speed of the AF.
     
  16. It's an excellent lens. I think it's better to call it the FL version or E version as there is no "III" on the lens. It can potentially be confusing as not everyone may be aware of what the order of introduction of various lenses was.
     
    Erik-Christensen likes this.
  17. Wow! I wonder if you got a dud? I have the VRII and it's razor sharp at 200mm wide open! I've thought about upgrading to the FL version but I still like to shoot film with my F6 and the new version isn't fully compatible. Instead of spending the money upgrading, I might spend $350 or so on getting the VRII cla'd.

    The VRII does have the focus breathing design when shooting at closer distances. Not an issue for me since I have other options if I need 200mm or longer at closer distances.
     
    mike_halliwell likes this.
  18. I always wondered that too!

    If i can find the pennies (!) I may well bypass the FL version and go to the Z mount S lens.

    I haven't tried the Sigma Sport on my Z6ii, but we'll see....;)
     
  19. My 80-200/2.8 works fine:)
     
  20. My 80-200mm 2.8 AFS was wonderful before its focus motor started to fail...:(
     

Share This Page