Nikon Formally Announce the 70-200mm/f2.8 VR S Lens

[shuncheung]

In Nikon's initial Z-mount lens roadmap from 2018, this lens was slated for 2019. Therefore, there is a slight delay. Optically, the Z-mount lens is different from the F-mount 70-200mm/f2.8 FL lens, as the Z lens has one fewer element but it has an SR element, which is a new type short-wavelength refractive element for correcting chromatic aberration. Unless the other shorter S lenses, this lens has optical VR built-in. And similar to the F-mount FL version, the zoom ring is towards the front of the lens.

Price, US$2600, which is $200 cheaper than the F-mount version.

Lens diagram copyright Nikon Inc.

 

[Mebiuspower]

BUT BUT BUT MY Z6/Z7 HAS IBIS WHY DOES IT NEED VR?!?!?!

Once again, IBIS is not effective at long focal lengths.

 

[shuncheung]

In Nikon's initial Z-mount lens roadmap from 2018, this lens was slated for 2019. Therefore, there is a slight delay. Optically, the Z-mount lens is different from the F-mount 70-200mm/f2.8 FL lens, as the Z lens has one fewer element but it has an SR element, which is a new type short-wavelength refractive element for correcting chromatic aberration. Unless the other shorter S lenses, this lens has optical VR built-in. And similar to the F-mount FL version, the zoom ring is towards the front of the lens.

Price, US$2600, which is $200 cheaper than the F-mount version.

Here is a link to Nikon Corporate (Japan) web site about this new lens, and there is an explanation for SR, Short-Wavelength Refractive elements:

https://www.nikon.com/news/2020/0107_lens_02.htm

 

[scottyinfrisco]

BUT BUT BUT MY Z6/Z7 HAS IBIS WHY DOES IT NEED VR?!?!?!

Once again, IBIS is not effective at long focal lengths.

Yes, or if you wanted use it stabilized on the Z50 or lower level yet to be named FF body.

 

[shuncheung]

BUT BUT BUT MY Z6/Z7 HAS IBIS WHY DOES IT NEED VR?!?!?!

Once again, IBIS is not effective at long focal lengths.

Apparently IBIS is mainly for shorter lenses, e.g. 85mm and shorter. Sony also have optical VR/IS in their 70-200mm/f2.8 E-mount lens.

 

[TOF guy]

Price, US$2600, which is $200 cheaper than the F-mount version.

Also $100 less than the Canon RF equivalent.

 

[shuncheung]

Price, US$2600, which is $200 cheaper than the F-mount version.

Also $100 less than the Canon RF equivalent.

And Nikon gives you a longer lens with more construction materials.

 

[slidewilson]

Short teaser video:

 

[HeavyDuty]

BUT BUT BUT MY Z6/Z7 HAS IBIS WHY DOES IT NEED VR?!?!?!

Once again, IBIS is not effective at long focal lengths.

So? It’s wildly effective at shorter focal lengths. They’re picking the proper tool for the job.

 

[Kevylloyd]

Anybody seen a picture of the mount from behind yet as to whether it will take an (eventual), tele convertor?

 

[cnyram]

BUT BUT BUT MY Z6/Z7 HAS IBIS WHY DOES IT NEED VR?!?!?!

Once again, IBIS is not effective at long focal lengths.

Actually IBIS is very effective at all focal lengths when properly Synced with VR. Olympus achieves 6.5 stops with this method (EM1 MKII with the 300mm f4 pro; which I just sold to buy into the Z system).

 

[rokoko]

Looked the same as mockup a year ago. How to balance it on current Zs without an operational grip is a pretty tricky task. From the DPR samples, I didn't see dramatic difference resolution-wise against its E cousin. Interesting indeed, together with D780 and 120-300 F VR.

So there will be D870 eventually? no Z8/Z9 before Olympics? And to fully take advantage of lenses Nikon provided at different focal lengths, we must keep both F and Z mount bodies? Hybrid D780 or D870(whatever) can't take Z mount lenses. :-|

 

[SrMi]

BUT BUT BUT MY Z6/Z7 HAS IBIS WHY DOES IT NEED VR?!?!?!

Once again, IBIS is not effective at long focal lengths.

Actually IBIS is very effective at all focal lengths when properly Synced with VR. Olympus achieves 6.5 stops with this method (EM1 MKII with the 300mm f4 pro; which I just sold to buy into the Z system).

Olympus 300mm has optical image stabilization in the lens as well. IBIS is typically not suited for long lenses as it can not move the sensor enough to compensate for camera shake.

 

[Clayton1985]

Price, US$2600, which is $200 cheaper than the F-mount version.

Also $100 less than the Canon RF equivalent.

And Nikon gives you a longer lens with more construction materials.

That is a glass half full attitude . The Canon lens is a pretty interesting and impressive design... I'm not sure if there is anything to be worried about with dust or long term reliability but the Canon design is probably the only way I'd consider a 70-200 f2.8. Otherwise, I'd probably prefer a smaller and lighter f4 version (also prefer the f4 version because it should be a lot less expensive).

 

[SrMi]

DPR has published dimensions. It seems that the new Z 70-200 f/2.8 is heavier (1440g vs 1430g) and larger (length: 220mm vs 202mm) than the stellar AF-S Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8E FL ED VR lens. That's a pity. At least the minimum focus distance is much better (0.5m vs 1.1m).

 

[Steve Ridges]

Nice! I can't wait to get one but I'm a little bummed at the 77mm filter. I've got the 24-70 f/2.8 and figured Nikon was settling on 82mm as the new "pro" filter size.

 

[astirusty]

Don't care! I just want Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S lens yesterday. Not in freaking February.

 

[syberman7]

BUT BUT BUT MY Z6/Z7 HAS IBIS WHY DOES IT NEED VR?!?!?!

Once again, IBIS is not effective at long focal lengths.

Actually IBIS is very effective at all focal lengths when properly Synced with VR. Olympus achieves 6.5 stops with this method (EM1 MKII with the 300mm f4 pro; which I just sold to buy into the Z system).

Olympus 300mm has optical image stabilization in the lens as well. IBIS is typically not suited for long lenses as it can not move the sensor enough to compensate for camera shake.

True. And what a fine job that combo does.

When the two systems are used together lens VR does the x,y plane; IBIS does the rotational axis. That's because the lens VR is more effective at stabilising telephoto optics, but the lens VR elements can't do any rotational axis stabilisation (think about it).

 

[syberman7]

DPR has published dimensions. It seems that the new Z 70-200 f/2.8 is heavier (1440g vs 1430g) and larger (length: 220mm vs 202mm) than the stellar AF-S Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8E FL ED VR lens. That's a pity. At least the minimum focus distance is much better (0.5m vs 1.1m).

Haha, I don't think the 10g will be noticeable. This lens has new tech in it - SR element and uses the new mount's wider flange. Should be exceptional.

 

[SrMi]

DPR has published dimensions. It seems that the new Z 70-200 f/2.8 is heavier (1440g vs 1430g) and larger (length: 220mm vs 202mm) than the stellar AF-S Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8E FL ED VR lens. That's a pity. At least the minimum focus distance is much better (0.5m vs 1.1m).

Haha, I don't think the 10g will be noticeable. This lens has new tech in it - SR element and uses the new mount's wider flange. Should be exceptional.

Yes, that came out wrong . My hope was that Z 70-200 would be quite a bit lighter, similarly to Z 24-70 f/2.8.

The latest F mount 70-200 f/2.8 is so good, it is hard to imagine that Z 70-200 f/2.8 can be better. The Z mount lens is still lighter if I account for necessary FTZ adapter.