Four different 70-200's in 2 days

[robert_bouknight1]

I have some zooms, but I am able to use primes for what I shoot for the most part.  So, I have concentrated on having a good set of primes ready for use, not so much for zooms. 

An opportunity came up to shoot the GSO Concert Band.  In reviewing photo EXIFs from previous events, it was obvious that having a good fasti 70-200 would be optimal.  I have a Nikkor VR1/2.8 somewhere in storage (I think), but did not have time to look for it before the rehearsal.  So I used my 70-200/4 AFS VR, with good (enough) results, but still wanted to have a 2.8 for the event.  I looked in the storage unit but could not find the VR1.  So I ordered a used Nikon E FL VR version.  Glad I received it in time to test, I thought it was soft at 2.8 and not really better than my F/4 version at f/4.

I still had a little time, so I rented both a 70-200 S and 70-180/2.8 for the Z.  Thought I would post my (informal test) thoughts on the four lenses here.

Z 70-200/2.8 S:  Outstanding.  Very sharp, contrasty, and saturated at 2.8, notably so in actual use.  I also got the impression that autofocus seemed to nail exactly where I wanted it a little better than the others.  Its not light.  I don't think it is better than my 105/1.4 for my general use, so I don't plan to buy.  But would not hesitate to rent again if needed.

Z 70-180/2.8:  Simply not as good as the Z-S lens above, but a good bit lighter & smaller with good usability.  I did not take great pains to measure and document, but I think it is not really 2.8.  AutoISO seemed a little higher on my comparison shots, and the front element is not as large as the S big brother.  Still, the size and weight make the lens attractive.  If I did not already have the lens just below, I would consider purchase of one of these.

70-200/4 AFS VR F mount:  I don't use this lens much since getting a 70-300 AFP for travel, but my example is still useful.  It seemed to perform similarly to the Z 70-180, and is very usable wide open at f/4.  I could have shot the event with this lens without complaint with the amount available light, though the newest Z-S version provided visibly better results, I think.  The AFP is lighter, smaller, and goes to 300, so it will remain my travel choice.  I might shoot the next concert with the F/4 version to save the rental fee, though.

70-200/2.8 E FL F mount.  The one I bought and returned disappointed.  I might rent another one sometime, probably just not a good sample.

Bonus:  70-200/2.8 VR (I), from memory.  I have had two, never really liked results from the first one compared to primes I have.  But the one I (think) have now performs well for portraiture, IMO.  Soft dark corners are not bad for individual portraits.

 

[ilkka_nissila]

The FL E is normally excellent; maybe you got a damaged copy. 

[ShunCheung]

I know I am crazy, as I currently have four 70-200mm Nikkor lenses, versions 1 and 2 of the F-mount 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR and the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. The only F-mount version I don't have is the last E FL version, which is supposed to be great. The Z 70-200/2.8 is of course excellent.

Version 1 of the F 70-200/2.8 is weak into the corners near 200mm. Version 2 is a big improvement but has focus breathing, but it is good enough for me that I didn't bother with the E FL. The f4 is very good also and much lighter, but that doesn't seem to be a popular lens.

Since I have the Z 70-200/2.8 S, I don't bother with the Tamron/Nikon 70-180/2.8. That lens has no VR and is a major drawback for this type of lens. I occasionally adapt the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR on my Z bodies for video capture.

[roland_vink]

7 hours ago, robert_bouknight1 said:

70-180/2.8:  Simply not as good as the Z-S lens above, but a good bit lighter & smaller with good usability.  I did not take great pains to measure and document, but I think it is not really 2.8.

A 180/2.8 lens requires an entrance pupil of 64mm at infinity. Fitting this lens into a 67mm filter size allows just 1.5mm for a retaining ring around the front element, with no allowance for an oversize front element to reduce vignetting. By comparison, the Nikkor 180/2.8 has a larger 72mm filter size, and zooms usually require a larger front element than equivalent primes, so the 70-180 is really pushing the limit of what is possible in a barrel of this size. Reviews show this lens has strong vignetting at 180mm, this is not surprising and would account for the impression it is not really 2.8. It might have been better if Nikon/Tamron had made this an f/3.5 zoom instead, or reduced the zoom range to 70-170mm, but maybe that wouldn't be as popular.