Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR with Z cameras?

[robdeszan]

Hi All,

I did a quick search in the archive with no recent discussions of the lens used in tandem with a Z7 or Z6.

How does it perform with the Z cameras? Can the lens' VR be used with in-body stabilisation? Any AF issues? I am looking for more compactness - the new 2.8 S lens is therefore not an option - and I tend to stop down more these days anyway.

Many thanks

Pat

 

[Jack]

There seems to be a lot more interest in the 70-300 AF-P lens. From what I understand, it is every bit as good optically as the 70-200/4G, with the P motor focusses very quickly and smoothly for video and while it isn't needed for the Z cams, it does have VR. It is a full stop slower, but at 300mm instead of 200, and of course it is a cheaper plastic'y build lens compared to the 70-200. But it is also almost half a pound lighter, and a little shorter collapsed, and then about 40% the price of the 70-200 -- a relative bargain perhaps being priced at about $550...

 

[sc_john]

Pat,

There are some photos and comments from Thorkil in the thread "Fun with Nikon Z". See posts #44, #54, #58. The images are impressive, imho.

John

 

[Jan Brittenson]

It works just fine, no problems with VR.

 

[Ben730]

(Edit: Sorry I wrote about the 24-70 F4)

I have the Z7 and this lens for a week now.
That's what I think:
AF is impressive, silent and fast
Almost no focus breathing
Coating for backlight etc. is great
CA is not great but in C1 fixable.
Corner sharpness even at F11 is not good

At the moment, I have problems with VR between 1/80 s and 1/250 s.
My pictures are sharper without VR. Maybe I have to learn how to handle the Z7 for better results.
That's why I keep it turned of, normally.
For exposure times longer than 1/30 s it's impressive.

Regards,
Ben


Edit: Sorry I wrote about the 24-70 F4

 

[Thorkil]

Pat,

There are some photos and comments from Thorkil in the thread "Fun with Nikon Z". See posts #44, #54, #58. The images are impressive, imho.

John

Thank you John! yes in my opinion the 70-200/4 is extraordinary fine, it render in an exquisite old-fashioned way, "soft" but very sharp. The way it delicate tones, f.ex. the green colors and the backlight on the lover picture here, https://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/64812-fun-nikon-z-2.html#post776960, is just simply, in my head, marvellous and the way to go, I think, very artistic. Its light, handy, certainly not huge.
After the first update of the Z7 there seemed to me to be some focus problem at infinity. John Brew pointed out he also got these problems. I haven't yet tried adjusting the lens in the camera, and haven't really been out with it since the deer-shots. But its not the fault of the lens, just some photo-mood lacking for the time being..hope it will soon return.
I'm afraid that there could be a risk that the new 70-200 S haven't got that special mood this one got. So my strongest and warmest recommendations.
best Thorkil
PS. I do think I just had the VR on, and relying on the auto-IBIS system in the Z7, finding out to combine
PPS in some low-light and low-contrast situation you have to find some contrast-"edges" to AF on, so don't let this hit you as a disaster. (just a small thing in order to get the artistic expression, but its worth it..)

 

[robdeszan]

Thanks for all you thoughts everyone. Great shots with the lens indeed.

So just to confirm, both VR system (in-camera and in-lens) can be used in conjunction? or do not work at all (i.e. you have o chose one or the other)?

I've been browsing flickr to get a feel for the lens - lots of mediocre and uninspiring stuff but also some amazing work from talented photographers, like Michael Fleischer here on Flickr for instance - shot on a high MP body d810, predominantly. The results look amazing when done right. I was predominantly looking for any signs of severe CA, especially longitudinal CAs, on the high-resolution samples. Lots of shaken photos but only found one or two cases where CAs were obviously visible, it is reassuring to know it is not an issue.

Apart from travel photography, I wanted to use it in studio for flash work, when I need more compression; like I said, I've noticed I rarely go under f4 for closeup head / shoulders stuff anyway. The minimum focusing distance of 1m across the range and lack of focus breathing lured me to this glass as well.

I sounds like there's nothing stopping me then from trying it out as I can't see myself lugging anything larger than this really.

 

[Thorkil]

From Nikon.com:
" "#808080"]Up to 5 Stops of VR Image Stabilization
Powerful in-body 5-axis VR image stabilization is applied to whatever NIKKOR Z lens you’re using. Up to five stops 3 of image stabilization in up to five directions—yaw, pitch, roll, X and Y. During video recording, optical VR is combined with electronic VR (e-VR) for even steadier shots. Normal VR mode for static subjects. Sports VR for moving subjects.

VR for F-Mount NIKKOR Lenses
For the first time, F-Mount NIKKOR lenses like the AF-S NIKKOR 105mm f/1.4E ED or AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED can benefit from in-body 3-axis VR.4 NIKKOR lenses that already have VR, like the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR, get the added benefit of roll axis for a total of 3-axis VR. Just add the optional Mount Adapter FTZ and you’re good to go.
"

Whether the auto detection is cutting out the lens-VR on FX lenses or cutting out some of the axis in the camera IBIS I don't know. I would think the latter, and its doing it automatically. On the firmwareupdate the IBIS had been set to get cutted out above 1/250 or something like that as far as I remember
PS something to read:
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/shutter-shock-and-the-nikon-z7/

 

[Jack]

Not trying to talk you out of or into anything, but think this review/test is worth looking at: https://arjunkarthaphotography.com/zoom-lens-battle-70-200-300/

 

[robdeszan]

not seen this one, thanks!

 

[Jack]

It's why I'm leaning toward the 70-300 AF-P lens instead -- YMMV (PS: Note that when you order, there is a DX version of this lens that is significantly cheaper, like under $200, make sure you get the FX version and avoid any confusion )

 

[SrMphoto]

Not trying to talk you out of or into anything, but think this review/test is worth looking at: https://arjunkarthaphotography.com/zoom-lens-battle-70-200-300/

Note that in that link the old 70-300 and the old 70-200 f/2.8 are being tested. The new versions (AF-P and FL) are much better.

 

[Jack]

Note that in that link the old 70-300 and the old 70-200 f/2.8 are being tested. The new versions (AF-P and FL) are much better.

I missed that it was the VRII and not the newest FL, sorry -- but that's the f2.8 lens only anyway and the OP is asking about the f4 version. They also test 2 versions of the 70-300, and the middle 70-300 AF-G and new AF-P are the exact same optics, just a better AF motor in the P. Moreover, I owned the 70-200/2.8 VRII and later the 70-200/4G VRIII (still current model I believe), and was not overly impressed with either -- neither were razors wide open and you had to stop the 2.8 down to 4 and the f4 version down to f4.5 to get good performance. It was a main reason got rid of my 2.8 version -- it was not great wide open, and only marginally better than the f4 at f4; the f4 lens was of course a lot lighter to carry for travel. The 2.8FL looks stellar, but for right now the f4 version is not yet an FL.

Me personally, I'm going to give the 70-300 AF-P a try this time around, YMMV

 

[SrMphoto]

I missed that it was the VRII and not the newest FL, sorry -- but that's the f2.8 lens only anyway and the OP is asking about the f4 version. They also test 2 versions of the 70-300, and the middle 70-300 AF-G and new AF-P are the exact same optics, just a better AF motor in the P. Moreover, I owned the 70-200/2.8 VRII and later the 70-200/4G VRIII (still current model I believe), and was not overly impressed with either -- neither were razors wide open and you had to stop the 2.8 down to 4 and the f4 version down to f4.5 to get good performance. It was a main reason got rid of my 2.8 version -- it was not great wide open, and only marginally better than the f4 at f4; the f4 lens was of course a lot lighter to carry for travel. The 2.8FL looks stellar, but for right now the f4 version is not yet an FL.

Me personally, I'm going to give the 70-300 AF-P a try this time around, YMMV

Note that the article was written in 2016, and AF-P 70-300 was announced in 2017.

The optical difference between the previous AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED and the new AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR is considerable. Optics are not the same: the old one had 17 lens elements in 12 groups, while the new has 18 elements in 14 groups. I had both and gave away the old one as its optical quality was not satisfactory to me. The new one is so much better, it is an equal of the 70-200 f/4 and the old 70-200 f/2.8 (apart from the max aperture, of course). However, the new 70-200 f/2.8 is a completely different ballgame. I hope that the new Z version will be at least as good as the F-mount 70-200 f/2.8 FL.

A Nikon Z 7 with a 24-70 f/4 and AF-P 70-300 is a high-quality combo. Highly recommended. Upgrading to Z 24-70 f/2.8 and the new 70-200 f/2.8 FL brings improvements, but maybe not enough to warrant the increase in weight and size.

 

[Thorkil]

Hi Pat, just posting some nothing-pictures from yesterday, motion-blur on branches and deers, just to see backlight behavior, while you were asking for CA.
I can't find anything, well ok it's not the strongest backlight here, just before twilight.
If unprocessed raw-files are of any help please post me your email, and I will do the transfer by wetransfer.com
PS. I will give it some try in future without EFCS, while I thinbk you are right about the weird bokeh and some blurred-moving-shadows

Nikon Z7 with 70-200/4G ED at iso1400 1/200 f4 at 200mm IBIS+VR+EFCS on through C1 20 pro-win

Nikon Z7 with 70-200/4G ED at iso2200 1/200 f4 at 200mm IBIS+VR+EFCS on through C1 20 pro-win​

thorkil

 

[robdeszan]

As a quick update, I did eventually purchase the lens. There's no guarantee that Nikon is going to release a Z equivalent soon and the amount of positive reviews and different image samples were encouraging enough to explore the world of longer zooms.

Two things that worried me, having moved away from 1.4 G lenses recently to Z primes due to excessive fringing at wider apertures, were chromatic aberrations and AF accuracy.

Well, the lens is incredibly well controlled for a previous generation design, the image quality is excellent. Nikon hit a home run with this one, it gives a very pleasing rendering for a zoom lens in my opinion. The lens softens a bit at 200mm compared to other focal lengths but stopping to F5.6 sharpens it up; the lens also has consistent sharpness across the field. There is some distortion but easily corrected in PP. Very impressive optical performance overall.

The AF needed a bit of tweaking and familiarisation on Z7 to get it to work. It seemed less consistent than with the Z primes and it is highly dependent on the quality of light. My lens also appears to benefit from a slight AF fine tune adjustment, -1. We're not talking massive differences in sharpness but it seems to give me better results on average. By dialling in that correction, I am also moving the focus plane slightly forward as the depth of field naturally extends more behind the target anyway at f4. It seems to give me more sharper shots on average, especially for moving targets.

Saying all of the above, it is the first time I've shot with a longer tele lens AND a zoom. It has been a slightly frustrating learning curve for sure, almost returned the lens initially. Tested it while walking the dog and it is certainly not just a case select any focus mode and go. It really does depend on the size and type of subject! AF-C single gives much better results for distant subjects compared to AF-C Auto, for instance, the size of the AF square is just too large! It certainly got better compared to the disappointing first few attempts with the lens. Dim conditions are a no-go, but the S lenses are challenged very quickly as well, so I think it is more the Z7 as well.

Having used it for any formal shooting so here are two test shots with a moving target at 105mm and f4:

 

[jduncan]

As a quick update, I did eventually purchase the lens. There's no guarantee that Nikon is going to release a Z equivalent soon and the amount of positive reviews and different image samples were encouraging enough to explore the world of longer zooms.

Two things that worried me, having moved away from 1.4 G lenses recently to Z primes due to excessive fringing at wider apertures, were chromatic aberrations and AF accuracy.

Well, the lens is incredibly well controlled for a previous generation design, the image quality is excellent. Nikon hit a home run with this one, it gives a very pleasing rendering for a zoom lens in my opinion. The lens softens a bit at 200mm compared to other focal lengths but stopping to F5.6 sharpens it up; the lens also has consistent sharpness across the field. There is some distortion but easily corrected in PP. Very impressive optical performance overall.

The AF needed a bit of tweaking and familiarisation on Z7 to get it to work. It seemed less consistent than with the Z primes and it is highly dependent on the quality of light it seems. My lens also appears to benefit from a slight AF fine tune adjustment, -1. We're not talking massive differences in sharpness but it seems to give me better results on average. By dialling in that correction, I am also moving the focus plane slightly forward as the depth of field naturally extends more behind the target anyway at f4. It seems to give me more sharper shots on average, especially for moving targets.

Saying all of the above, it is the first time I've shot with a longer tele lens AND a zoom. It has been a slightly frustrating learning curve for sure, almost returned the lens initially. Tested it while walking the dog and it is certainly not just a case select any focus mode and go. It really does depend on the size and type of subject! AF-C single gives much better results for distant subjects compared to AF-C Auto, for instance, the size of the AF square is just too large! It certainly got better compared to the disappointing first few attempts with the lens. Dim conditions are a no-go, but the S lenses are challenged very quickly as well, so I think it is more the Z7 as well.

Having used it for any formal shooting so here are two test shots with a moving target at 105mm and f4:

View attachment 150244View attachment 150245

Hi, just a question: did you use eye AF (animal) on this one ?

Thanks a lot.

 

[jduncan]

Hi Pat, just posting some nothing-pictures from yesterday, motion-blur on branches and deers, just to see backlight behavior, while you were asking for CA.
I can't find anything, well ok it's not the strongest backlight here, just before twilight.
If unprocessed raw-files are of any help please post me your email, and I will do the transfer by wetransfer.com
PS. I will give it some try in future without EFCS, while I thinbk you are right about the weird bokeh and some blurred-moving-shadows

Nikon Z7 with 70-200/4G ED at iso1400 1/200 f4 at 200mm IBIS+VR+EFCS on through C1 20 pro-win

Nikon Z7 with 70-200/4G ED at iso2200 1/200 f4 at 200mm IBIS+VR+EFCS on through C1 20 pro-win​

thorkil

Hi, magnificent portrait the first one.

Best regardards,

 

[robdeszan]

I did have it on but with distant subjects it made little difference, the eye focusing point is too big I guess

The camera does interpret my dog's eyes properly when its face fills more of the frame, though. I haven't done any extensive testing.

Hi, just a question: did you use eye AF (animal) on this one ?

Thanks a lot.

 

[Thorkil]

with the firmwareupdate 3.10 to the Z7 and the update 1.10 for the FTZ the 70-200/4 seems to work better with AF in lowlight, still hunting a bit, but not that much I think, and seems to be more accurate now. But it was just a short test out of the windows and I'm looking forward to bring it out in the wood. (while its just such a lovely lens)