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

Photon42

Well-known member
I have just bought the 70-200, so far without TC, but with a Kirk Arca foot. What a wonderful lens. I am using the lens foot for carrying the combo in hand, which is really convenient. Some seem to not like, that the tripod foot ring cannot be removed. I like the idea of removing the foot, because then the ring stays how it is.

I have not really any experience with teleconverters - it seems the 2x makes most sense, as the drop in quality is acceptable, but then it is f5.6. Thoughts?
 

Darin Marcus

Well-known member
I have just bought the 70-200, so far without TC, but with a Kirk Arca foot. What a wonderful lens. I am using the lens foot for carrying the combo in hand, which is really convenient. Some seem to not like, that the tripod foot ring cannot be removed. I like the idea of removing the foot, because then the ring stays how it is.

I have not really any experience with teleconverters - it seems the 2x makes most sense, as the drop in quality is acceptable, but then it is f5.6. Thoughts?
Congratulations, I hope you will enjoy the experience!

I also removed the foot and rotated the ring such that the knob does not bother me :)

About the TCs - I went with the 2x because I wanted more reach than the 1.4x would provide. And I have no plans to buy the 100-400mm...
You loose a bit more IQ than with the 1.4, but for me is not that much. In low light the AF speed suffers a bit - as expected. Another thing that happened to me a few times was when changing subjects from something far away (on which the lens was focused) to something close to the minimum focus distance, the AF would not work at all - I had to rotate the focus ring manually for a short while after which the AF kicked in and focused properly. This also happened in low light, so not sure what was the actual cause...

And the bokeh gets a little more nervous as well, in certain conditions...

In the end, it depends on your needs and expectations.
Personally, I am very happy with both the lens and the 2x TC. Can't wait for the Smithsonian Zoo in DC to reopen :)
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
Seems like another winner. How does it compare size-wise to the F mounts? I have the VRII (and f/4, but that's a different animal) and am wondering if the Z is a little more compact, especially when including the mount adapter?

The Kirk foot looks like a winner, too!
 

Photon42

Well-known member
The Kirky is nice. Sizewise the Z lens is a hair shorter than the 70-200 2.8E with an adapter, it looks like. There's a lot of YouTube content on this. No size advantage, but IQ wise, specifically with the new TCs, this for me was the right choice for the Z.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Just wanted to share a crop for thread posterity simply to reinforce the fact this lens is so freaking good optically...

The image is nothing special, just a handheld grab shot from a walk a few days ago. But when I reviewed them and saw how well it captured the frog hairs inside this flower I felt compelled to share it -- a 2048x1024 actual pixel crop from the Z7ii, I locked AF on this flower then recomposed to where it was about ⅔ out from center frame; it's hand-held with IS on, lens at 200mm and f4:

 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
The 70-200S is quickly becoming my favorite flower lens. These all with the 1.4x converter -- and honestly I cannot detect any IQ loss from the 1.4x compared to bare lens at all. (By contrast, I do detect a slight IQ loss with the 2x as well as a slight reduction in bokeh smoothness -- both minimal, but notable.) Detail with this combo remains stunning, AF remains fast and accurate and of course VR works so well a tripod is not needed. All 1 stop down at f5.6, all at 280mm:





 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
Got mine yesterday and threw the RRS foot on today. Enjoying it so far. Seems super sharp and snappy focus. I do wish the zoom ring was the one closest to the body, like the VRII, but that’s personal preference. I agree with Jacks comments about sometimes the bokeh being a little busy but maybe I’m being persnickety too...theres some particular behavior I’ve seen with other mirrorless zooms of similar focal lengths from other brands too with grass and trees where it seems to curve towards the center to my eye but what can you do. Anyway, some fun with....I think all at 200mm and f2.8

481C06CE-4AE7-444D-8943-4DA70BF6B688.jpeg8985A065-77CE-4501-AD0E-F4510003B37C.jpegE80F052F-CA83-4751-B69E-7B5E1A202369.jpeg7CBAF606-2803-4B70-8F9E-1B0602D4EA5B.jpeg6B70D58F-CA3A-49EE-9C66-46B9AF04275A.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
So I got in an argument with a uTuber who reviewed the 70-200S on the web and claimed the Z1.4x converter was useless because enlarging his image in PS or LR by 140% generated the same size result and he could see no difference in IQ viewing in LR or PS comparing each. I called BS, said that while the lens was excellent, the lens plus converter was clearly better than digital enlargement -- and then was immediately challenged to prove my claim... Well those who know me,,, LOL! Anyway, thought I might as well share it here for thread posterity. Here is my exemplar -- I took the picture on the left with the 70-200+1.4x and the picture on the right with the 70-200 by itself. I took both frames from the same spot a few minutes apart, and used f4 for the 200mm shot and f5.6 for the 280mm shot to keep the lens aperture at the same net spot. They were handheld, but there was plenty of light. I processed them SOOC in C1 and ported them over to PS for enlargement and comparison. I enlarged the 200mm shot by 140% to match the 1.4x image size at 100% view in PS. The red artifact under the nose of the 200mm shot is in the original 200mm raw file -- there was a light breeze blowing and I think it is a thread of spider web that wafted and caught and refracted an edge of sunlight to red. I then put each frame side-by-side and enlarged both to 200% view so the details were clearly visible. I am compelled to mention that the full section of head we're viewing here would represent approximately 7cm of image height out of a 1m x 1.5m print, so it is significantly enlarged over any normal viewing -- but it does pretty clearly show the difference between the two options. I will let you draw your own conclusions -- me, I will continue to carry and use the converters when needed ;)

 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
A guy named Loz Moore. Here's his link, but full disclosure is I did not bother watching the video because I knew his conclusion was flawed -- I skimmed it and saw all I needed:
 

Joe Colson

Well-known member
Never heard of him. Now I know another YouTube'er to avoid. Thanks.

Nigel Danson does a pretty good job on YouTube with the Z7/Z7 II. I've enjoyed his videos during the pandemic.

Joe
 
Top