Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikkor Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S Photos and Discussions

ptomsu

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Jack said:
I will be interested in what both of you think of the 2x as I am somewhat conflicted about it. I have zero issues using the 1.4x -- to my eyes it is as good as the lens by itself in all areas. However with the 2x, I first see a tiny bit of IQ loss, arguably not enough to really matter for most images, but notable nonetheless. My bigger issue with it is what I see it does to bokeh; to my eyes it seems to clump it up --and rather significantly-- for lack of a better explanation.
Click to expand...
Currently the 2xTC is not available in Austria, but as I said I ordered one and will report back asap when I receive it.

For now it is the only option to get in the range of 400 with native glass. I was already pretty happy with the latest F mount combo some 8 years ago, so I assume / hope the S combo will be significantly better and that I would be a happy camper.

Anyway if I feel the need then I would get the 100-400 S whenever it arrives on the market. Or I may wait for the 200-600 although I have some concerns about it as it is not an S lens. Who knows ...
 
T

tcdeveau

Well-known member
Jack said:
I will be interested in what both of you think of the 2x as I am somewhat conflicted about it. I have zero issues using the 1.4x -- to my eyes it is as good as the lens by itself in all areas. However with the 2x, I first see a tiny bit of IQ loss, arguably not enough to really matter for most images, but notable nonetheless. My bigger issue with it is what I see it does to bokeh; to my eyes it seems to clump it up --and rather significantly-- for lack of a better explanation.
Click to expand...
Will let you know!

Haven't had a chance to play around with it much but so far it seems to do what I need it to. The 1.4x doesn't provide enough extra reach for me to justify (at least at the moment) so I just went with the 2x only. As we all know and as @ptomsu pointed out, it's the only option to get 400mm with native glass right now, so I'm happy enough to have the extra reach without having to plop down $$ for another lens right now (or explain another lens purchase to my better half :) ). I should be able to play around with it more next month.
 
R

robdeszan

Member
Hello All,

The Z zooms seem to be getting glowing reviews in general but the longer Z primes (50mm 85mm) still seem to have the edge over 24-70 2.8, for instance, not to mention the light gathering capabilities.

So, has anyone had a chance to compare the new 70-200 2.8 Z zoom against a good prime, I am thinking the Sigma 135mm 1.8 Art in particular? I already have an F4 70-200 zoom for stopped down scenarios but need something with more compression than the 85mm 1.8 Z but equal optical performance.
Best,
Pat
 
Last edited:
D

Darin Marcus

Well-known member
robdeszan said:
Thanks for replying Darin. Is that 85mm 1.8S by any chance? If so have you been tempted to compare the two?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the one.
I have not compared them directly yet, as I am spending most of my 70-200mm time beyond 110mm :)
But from the few shots I've taken between 70 and 90mm, I'd say the 85 S has a bit more acutance wide open and at f/2.8. However, each has some unique characteristics - the prime has f/1.8 and no aspherical elements, the zoom has SR and additional VR...

More subjectively, the 85mm has (to my eyes) the modern Z rendering (more transparent? more realistic? - some call it flat :D) while the zoom is somewhere in between the Z and the F rendering.
 
R

robdeszan

Member
Darin Marcus said:
Yes, that's the one.
I have not compared them directly yet, as I am spending most of my 70-200mm time beyond 110mm :)
But from the few shots I've taken between 70 and 90mm, I'd say the 85 S has a bit more acutance wide open and at f/2.8. However, each has some unique characteristics - the prime has f/1.8 and no aspherical elements, the zoom has SR and additional VR...

More subjectively, the 85mm has (to my eyes) the modern Z rendering (more transparent? more realistic? - some call it flat :D) while the zoom is somewhere in between the Z and the F rendering.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing your observations! I have on occasions used a gentle Tiffen softening filter to tame the sharpness on prime lenses for people shoots & stopped down apertures, but certainly enjoy being able to actually use a wide aperture when needed without IQ compromises.

Do you feel the 70-200 Z lens made the 85mm 1.8 S superfluous for you then?
 
D

Darin Marcus

Well-known member
robdeszan said:
Do you feel the 70-200 Z lens made the 85mm 1.8 S superfluous for you then?
Click to expand...
No, I would choose the 85 for better bokeh and for a smaller/lighter combo when longer focal lengths are not needed. Also, I like the Z rendering, but fully understand people who prefer a more special look. Will be interesting to see what the new 105mm S will bring to the lineup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top