Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR Review & Sample Images by Ken Rockwell

By



Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8VR Review & Sample Images by Ken Rockwell
I got mine at https://www.adorama.com/NKZ70200.html?kbid=21866
Written Review & Sample Image Files https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/70-200mm.htm
I’d also get it at https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1538574-REG/nikon_nikkor_z_70_200mm_f_2_8.html?BI=287&KBID=1037
or at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B083K3C5P2/?tag=kenrockwellcom
or at https://www.crutchfield.com/i-rKRWc000/Product/Item/Default.aspx?i=05420091
or used at https://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=9&pub=5574731834&toolid=10001&campid=5336071501&customid=&icep_uq=(Nikon,Nikkor)%20Z%2070%20200%20-(for,hood,bulb,cap,filter,coolpix,part,repair,battery)&icep_sellerId=&icep_ex_kw=&icep_sortBy=12&icep_catId=&icep_minPrice=&icep_maxPrice=&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg
How to Win at eBay https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/ebay/index.htm

AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 FL Review https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-f28-fl.htm
AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 Review https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200afs.htm

Canon vs Sony vs Nikon https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/nikon-vs-canon-vs-sony-full-frame.htm

I get all my gear at https://www.kenrockwell.com/links.htm#stores
Contribute at https://www.paypal.me/kenrockwell

Ken Rockwell® is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

source

30 thoughts on “Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR Review & Sample Images by Ken Rockwell”

  1. The older FL version looks much better, also some $600 cheaper. Nikon is catching on and starting to discontinue supporting those great f mount lenses. Picture your brand new Z9 mounted to a cheap looking plastic lens. 🤔 I compared your online reviews using the D810 with the 70-200 FL to the one with the Z7 using the 70-200 S lens. I thought the D810 with the 70-200 FL lens was better. The FL came with a 5 year warranty too. Bottom line is too much plastic for such pricey lens. At least Nikon could have kept the gold trimming..

    Reply
  2. It's 2020 and yet anything not made in Japan or made with plastic equals to poorer quality.

    Was there a test made comparing the materials used for the FL vs Z lens under fair use to quantitatively conclude one is better than the other and how much?

    Reply
  3. What a joke. A 2700+$$$ lens made in thailand ?? no wonder Nikon's sales are going down and the company is about to go bankrupt. Lens making in Japan is considered to be craftsmanship, workers have to train their skills for years. Canon lenses that are made in Japan are made by people who train and study fo years, and are supervised by senior lens craftsmen, and it's a well paying job that workers take pride doing for the rest of their lives. There is no way off-shored lenses with cheap labor and human exploitation can match them. Again thank you Ken for always pointing out were the lenses are made. No other reviewers on youtube has the courage to do this, specially the big channels.

    Reply
  4. The reason why canon was able to make a smaller 70-200 lens is because they chose not to encase the entire zoom mechanism. While this gives an advantage on size, its not good at stopping the ingress on anything you dont want on the inner workings on your lens. Most users when they buy a premium lens they do not want this. in terms of the size, unfortunately when it comes to this particular lens its design is limited by the science behind what makes it a 70-200. while it is longer than the FL, the FL is actually longer that the S lens when using the FTZ adaptor. This is because of the flange distance required between the sensor and the lens element.

    Its a beautiful lens and if you own an FL ED, then you would really need to justify the upgrade, but for those who do not have it, its a strong contender.

    Reply
  5. When I first heard about this lens and its incredible near-focus range I was excited – now I see how it misses a lot switches that I would like to have and also not including a arca-swiss mount is kinda sad…
    I personally use the G2 version of Tamrons version on my Z6 with FTZ and I am really happy I didn't wait for this lens.
    Nikon probably has to save a lot of money, so I can understand some of their choices – for the price thou, it is kinda sad.

    Thanks Ken

    Reply
  6. I was excited about the Canon at first, when I saw how short and stubby it was, and indeed, it's quite a bit lighter and balances quite a bit better. However, both the hood and tripod collar for the Canon are ridiculous, I suspect they may have just borrowed the enormous hood from the 100-500 RF, it utterly dwarfs the lens in terms of the diameter of the hood, and makes it take up way more space in your camera bag.

    Also, the Canon changed its zooming throw, and now requires two good cranks of a full hand-grip, even with my large hands, whereas the older Canon 70-200's (and Nikons) with their closer, easier zoom rings could be racked from 70-200 with just a flick of your pinky finger without changing the rest of your hand-holding grip on the lens.

    All in all, not a total win for Nikon, as I would have liked to see it be lighter and shorter, indeed, but certainly a lot of annoyances to go along with the Canon, and I would honestly just go with the Tamron 70-180 2.8 (when it eventually becomes available for these mounts) instead, IF I cared about size/weight as much as some people seem to. In either case, both the Nikon an the Canon (and the Tamron) utterly destroy the Sony 70-200 2.8 GM, for what it's worth; it has become very clear that Sony needs to make a mk2 70-200 2.8 ASAP, and considering the size & weight of their current model, I doubt their mk2 will be any lighter or smaller than this Nikon; it'll probably be just as expensive, or moreso, too.

    I never had a problem with the Nikon tripod foot, I always just took off the included one and then used that exposed 1/4-20 screw to attach a smooth, slim, low-profile generic RRS plate with nice rounded edges (MPR-73) and doing that has spoiled me to ALL tripod feet, because it gives me access to Arca-Swiss clamping yet is literally just a few extra mm of girth to the lens overall.

    Don't care where the lens is made, in fact all-metal lenses never saved me any coin; when they impact nice and hard the metal permanently warps and then it's aluminum grind shavings everywhere, and a $600+ repair; with high-grade plastic externals, even the hardest impacts seem to be absorbed no problem, and the external barrel parts just keep their shape perfectly. Totally happy with high-grade plastic externals surfaces, as long as the guts inside are strong.

    TLDR, get the F-mount FL 70-200 if you really appreciate that SLR feel and functionality, with the focus distance window and "real" manual focus ring, etc…

    Reply
  7. Ken would give this lens a positive review if it was a blind test, but "Made in Thailand" automatically means that the lens is bad. (No, I'm not Thai.) You are (of course) entitled to your opinions based on nation of manufacture, but I'd rather see an objective analysis of the lens rather than an indictment of the country of manufacture. And saying that this lens is inferior to the older F mount lens is simply ridiculous. C'mon, Ken.

    Reply
  8. Hi Ken
    It’s a shame these top end expensive lenses are not made in Japan
    Although the images are superb as was expected , there is once again nothing exciting to get photographers using other brands to come across
    All the very best and great presentation

    Reply

Leave a Comment