Any comparisons of the 70-200 f/4 (F-mount) and Z 70-200?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
whoosh1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,000
Re: Any comparisons of the 70-200 f/4 (F-mount) and Z 70-200?

RMcL wrote:

I had to adapt my carrying and holding practices because I do have some tendinitis in my left elbow, but all is good now.

Take care.

BTW, I thought you could only remove the tripod foot with the Z 2.8, not the entire collar, right?

In the specs here (https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_70-200mmf28_vr_s/spec.htm), they mention weight as:

Approximately 1,440 g/3 lb 2.8 oz (with the tripod collar);
approximately 1,360 g/3 lb (without the tripod collar)

Hence I assume the tripod collar is removable. I do not have the Z 70-200 f/2.8 S - so I cannot check. I have the f/2.8E FL (F-mount version), I am not able to remove the collar at a first glance. Maybe it is a mistake in the specs and they meant the tripod foot instead? It would not be the first mistake I have seen in Nikon specs online

 whoosh1's gear list:whoosh1's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z50 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 600mm F4E FL ED VR +8 more
RMcL Contributing Member • Posts: 905
Re: Any comparisons of the 70-200 f/4 (F-mount) and Z 70-200?

whoosh1 wrote:

RMcL wrote:

I had to adapt my carrying and holding practices because I do have some tendinitis in my left elbow, but all is good now.

Take care.

BTW, I thought you could only remove the tripod foot with the Z 2.8, not the entire collar, right?

In the specs here (https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_70-200mmf28_vr_s/spec.htm), they mention weight as:

Approximately 1,440 g/3 lb 2.8 oz (with the tripod collar);
approximately 1,360 g/3 lb (without the tripod collar)

Hence I assume the tripod collar is removable. I do not have the Z 70-200 f/2.8 S - so I cannot check. I have the f/2.8E FL (F-mount version), I am not able to remove the collar at a first glance. Maybe it is a mistake in the specs and they meant the tripod foot instead? It would not be the first mistake I have seen in Nikon specs online

Yeah, I assume they mean tripod foot as the tripod foot collar on the Z 70-200mm f2.8 is definitely not removable, not by normal mortals like us at-least 😊.

 RMcL's gear list:RMcL's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E III Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR +7 more
goactive Senior Member • Posts: 2,010
Re: Any comparisons of the 70-200 f/4 (F-mount) and Z 70-200?
1

I have both and going to sell my 70-200 F4.

But in reality, the new Z 70-200 2.8 is no sharper than the Tamron 35-150 F4 I have been using for portraits.

But the 2.8 is nice and the extra reach is nice so you can get a little better background compression.

It is very heavy.

Here is one from the new Nikon 70-200 2.8 I get this same sharpness with the Tamron 35-150 no problem but this gives some better background blur that's about it. the F4 VS 2.8.

Here is a comparison of the Nikon 70-200 2.8 at 2.8 VS the Tamron 35-150 at F4. Two different photo sessions and days.

The 2.8 gives a little better background blur and the extra 50mm of background compression. It's not much but I am starting to use it this year for the price I paid I better use it..lol But I still use the Tamron more.

If I had to pick one or the other I would pick the Tamron for the better range for weddings and portraits we shoot.

Started shooting digital back with the first 2MP cameras. Over 20 cameras later still going. I shoot family and people portraits, weddings, Sports and a little of everything.

 goactive's gear list:goactive's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon 1 J5 Nikon Z50 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +21 more
OP sirhawkeye64 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,035
Re: Any comparisons of the 70-200 f/4 (F-mount) and Z 70-200?

RMcL wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

RMcL wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

twomonts1 wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

awy wrote:

Beautiful photos.. F4 was good and bang for the buck...

But but but that z 2.8 is something else.. it seems like a completely different league of its own... I think fair comparison would be with f 2.8 vrii

However on any given day I would not be disappointed if I can get images like that on f4 lens

It probably would be closer comparison to the VR II, but my two options (for me) is either adapt and f/4 (mainly because I've heard some really good reviews regarding sharpness) or go native and drop $2600 on the Z version. I mainly just want to see if there's enough difference to merit the extra $1400+ over a new f/4 F-mount version.

I had the 70-200 f4, was very happy with it and it is quite sharp. then I updated to the 70-200E after reading about all the hype over it. It was worth the update, sharper, very fast focus, and better contrast, no regrets. While I have the 14-24 and 24-70 f2.8S, I have not bothered to get the 70-200S because the E and S are said to be very equal, especially if you do not use teleconverters. Also, with the E I can use it on my D500 as well as Z7ii. I have always found when I buy the lesser model I always regret the decision later. I would go for the Z, I am sure it is better in many ways except cost and weight.

OK good to know. If they are about the same, I might a well get the Z version then if I'm going to get a 2.8 version (as the E version I think is only marginally cheaper by maybe $200).

I don’t think you will regret this decision πŸ‘. Size and weight difference is there compared to the f4 w/FTZ, but honestly you adapt quickly. I’m not finding it bothersome in any way now and the combo with Z cameras is nicely balanced and stable handheld. I like having the tripod mount foot of the Z 2.8 in my left palm, my forefinger and thumb reaching the zoom control, with left elbow pulled in and resting on my chest.

OK. Yeah I might have to wait until Christmas and see if they go on sale or drop in price.

In that case start off with the f4 w/FTZ. It’s a good lens and you can judge for yourself from my images. What is not obvious from this discussion yet is that 70-200mm range has been my least used FL and I have traditionally preferred wide and normal FL’s. I have had the 70-200 f4 for a few years now, but rarely used it. It was only relatively recently that I felt I needed to try something different, so started playing with the lens again, then one thing lead to the other, or so it goes, right.

I'll probably do as I usually do and rent both and then decide.  On the one hand, it would be nice to have a native lens, but the FTZ has never really been a huge deal to me (and given that I'm primarily using this for landscape and portraiture, AF speed impact from the FTZ ,if any, is not a concern).

If I do get the f/4 I might also just try to get a used one (about $700) that way if I do get a 2.8 later.

 sirhawkeye64's gear list:sirhawkeye64's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z5 Nikon Z7 II GoPro Hero8 Black +14 more
RMcL Contributing Member • Posts: 905
Re: Any comparisons of the 70-200 f/4 (F-mount) and Z 70-200?

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

RMcL wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

RMcL wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

twomonts1 wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

awy wrote:

Beautiful photos.. F4 was good and bang for the buck...

But but but that z 2.8 is something else.. it seems like a completely different league of its own... I think fair comparison would be with f 2.8 vrii

However on any given day I would not be disappointed if I can get images like that on f4 lens

It probably would be closer comparison to the VR II, but my two options (for me) is either adapt and f/4 (mainly because I've heard some really good reviews regarding sharpness) or go native and drop $2600 on the Z version. I mainly just want to see if there's enough difference to merit the extra $1400+ over a new f/4 F-mount version.

I had the 70-200 f4, was very happy with it and it is quite sharp. then I updated to the 70-200E after reading about all the hype over it. It was worth the update, sharper, very fast focus, and better contrast, no regrets. While I have the 14-24 and 24-70 f2.8S, I have not bothered to get the 70-200S because the E and S are said to be very equal, especially if you do not use teleconverters. Also, with the E I can use it on my D500 as well as Z7ii. I have always found when I buy the lesser model I always regret the decision later. I would go for the Z, I am sure it is better in many ways except cost and weight.

OK good to know. If they are about the same, I might a well get the Z version then if I'm going to get a 2.8 version (as the E version I think is only marginally cheaper by maybe $200).

I don’t think you will regret this decision πŸ‘. Size and weight difference is there compared to the f4 w/FTZ, but honestly you adapt quickly. I’m not finding it bothersome in any way now and the combo with Z cameras is nicely balanced and stable handheld. I like having the tripod mount foot of the Z 2.8 in my left palm, my forefinger and thumb reaching the zoom control, with left elbow pulled in and resting on my chest.

OK. Yeah I might have to wait until Christmas and see if they go on sale or drop in price.

In that case start off with the f4 w/FTZ. It’s a good lens and you can judge for yourself from my images. What is not obvious from this discussion yet is that 70-200mm range has been my least used FL and I have traditionally preferred wide and normal FL’s. I have had the 70-200 f4 for a few years now, but rarely used it. It was only relatively recently that I felt I needed to try something different, so started playing with the lens again, then one thing lead to the other, or so it goes, right.

I'll probably do as I usually do and rent both and then decide. On the one hand, it would be nice to have a native lens, but the FTZ has never really been a huge deal to me (and given that I'm primarily using this for landscape and portraiture, AF speed impact from the FTZ ,if any, is not a concern).

If I do get the f/4 I might also just try to get a used one (about $700) that way if I do get a 2.8 later.

My Nikon 70-200mm f4 in mint condition may be on the market soon, lol... Haven’t quite decided yet as I may keep it for my D500.

 RMcL's gear list:RMcL's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E III Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR +7 more
RMcL Contributing Member • Posts: 905
Re: there is this, and of-course there is this...
2

70-200mm f/4:

This one on the other hand reveals some of the weaknesses of older lens technology, i.e., significant flare:

Flare: Like it or not, it’s there...

I have yet to thoroughly test my Z 70-200mm f/2.8S in this type of lighting condition, but from what I’ve seen so far the Z lens suppresses flare a lot better thanks to the new coatings and overall construction. This is in line with the other two holy trinity zooms. On the other hand mirrorless in general (Nikon and some others) appear to suffer from some annoying primary colored dot artifact diffraction pattern when trying to capture sun stars. I see this big time with the Z 14-24mm f/2.8S, but not so much with the Z 70-200mm f/2.8S thus far:

Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8S:

I tried hard to find the sun ray dot artifacts and finally managed to induce them ever so slightly in this shot:

But, NO flare

 RMcL's gear list:RMcL's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E III Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR +7 more
OP sirhawkeye64 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,035
Re: Any comparisons of the 70-200 f/4 (F-mount) and Z 70-200?

RMcL wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

RMcL wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

RMcL wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

twomonts1 wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

awy wrote:

Beautiful photos.. F4 was good and bang for the buck...

But but but that z 2.8 is something else.. it seems like a completely different league of its own... I think fair comparison would be with f 2.8 vrii

However on any given day I would not be disappointed if I can get images like that on f4 lens

It probably would be closer comparison to the VR II, but my two options (for me) is either adapt and f/4 (mainly because I've heard some really good reviews regarding sharpness) or go native and drop $2600 on the Z version. I mainly just want to see if there's enough difference to merit the extra $1400+ over a new f/4 F-mount version.

I had the 70-200 f4, was very happy with it and it is quite sharp. then I updated to the 70-200E after reading about all the hype over it. It was worth the update, sharper, very fast focus, and better contrast, no regrets. While I have the 14-24 and 24-70 f2.8S, I have not bothered to get the 70-200S because the E and S are said to be very equal, especially if you do not use teleconverters. Also, with the E I can use it on my D500 as well as Z7ii. I have always found when I buy the lesser model I always regret the decision later. I would go for the Z, I am sure it is better in many ways except cost and weight.

OK good to know. If they are about the same, I might a well get the Z version then if I'm going to get a 2.8 version (as the E version I think is only marginally cheaper by maybe $200).

I don’t think you will regret this decision πŸ‘. Size and weight difference is there compared to the f4 w/FTZ, but honestly you adapt quickly. I’m not finding it bothersome in any way now and the combo with Z cameras is nicely balanced and stable handheld. I like having the tripod mount foot of the Z 2.8 in my left palm, my forefinger and thumb reaching the zoom control, with left elbow pulled in and resting on my chest.

OK. Yeah I might have to wait until Christmas and see if they go on sale or drop in price.

In that case start off with the f4 w/FTZ. It’s a good lens and you can judge for yourself from my images. What is not obvious from this discussion yet is that 70-200mm range has been my least used FL and I have traditionally preferred wide and normal FL’s. I have had the 70-200 f4 for a few years now, but rarely used it. It was only relatively recently that I felt I needed to try something different, so started playing with the lens again, then one thing lead to the other, or so it goes, right.

I'll probably do as I usually do and rent both and then decide. On the one hand, it would be nice to have a native lens, but the FTZ has never really been a huge deal to me (and given that I'm primarily using this for landscape and portraiture, AF speed impact from the FTZ ,if any, is not a concern).

If I do get the f/4 I might also just try to get a used one (about $700) that way if I do get a 2.8 later.

My Nikon 70-200mm f4 in mint condition may be on the market soon, lol... Haven’t quite decided yet as I may keep it for my D500.

I'm probably at least a few months away from a used f/4 and probably Christmas time if I decide to get a Z version.... in essence, not a huge rush (although I would like to have one for my upcoming trip in a few months--but I'll probably just rent a Z version for that).

 sirhawkeye64's gear list:sirhawkeye64's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z5 Nikon Z7 II GoPro Hero8 Black +14 more
mholdef Senior Member • Posts: 2,179
Re: Any comparisons of the 70-200 f/4 (F-mount) and Z 70-200?

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

mholdef wrote:

sirhawkeye64 wrote:

I'm at a point where I'd like to possibly p;ick up a 70-200 and am wondering how the F-mount 70-200 f/4 stacks up against the Z version (obviously the Z has a 1-stop advantage) but for me, cost is going to be a concern as a used 70-200 f/4 in good condition is about 1/3 or 1/4 of the price of a new Z version.

Anybody have these two that can share some insight and possibly photo comparisons?

I guess the extra stop of light is not a deal breaker for me necessarily. But I"m more concerned about sharpness comparisons really as this will be used for portraits and landscape (where mid and corner sharpness, at least for landscape, will be important...)

(I had a Tamron 70-200 G2 lens previously but ended up selling it as I wasn't exactly pleased with it for various reasons so I'm ruling out that one as a potential option obviously.)

I used to own the 70-200/4, 2.8 VR2 and FL before owning the Z.

The f/4 was a great lenses, but nowhere near the FL or the Z for that matter which is several notches better in all areas.

So even at equivalent apertures (ie. f/4 and above) the Z is still sharper?

Z is significantly  better vs the f/4 and marginally vs the FL

-- hide signature --

www.500px.com/MarkHoldefehr
www.facebook.com/fotomarklyon

 mholdef's gear list:mholdef's gear list
Nikon Z7 Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 Macro Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon Z 24-70mm F2.8 +2 more
brodgar Forum Member • Posts: 91
Re: Any comparisons of the 70-200 f/4 (F-mount) and Z 70-200?
1

Everyone has a different use case and that changes over your life. I am now a registered old fart and my equipment has changed accordingly.

4 years ago I did the Iceland thing with some D800s and the Holy Trinity. The country was magnificent but I did not enjoy the photography. My gear was just too heavy. I looked at my 70-200 F2.8 pics and I never shot wider than F4 -- just to get the best IQ.

So I bought a Z6 and have never looked back nor picked up my remaining D800.

I switched to a 70-200 F4 and use the FTZ and for me the results are spectacular. I suppose the 70-200 F2.8 for the Z would be more spectacular but how much do you need.

I often shoot opera from the rear seats or a balcony. I can do this with the silent Z6 and use the 70-200 wide open. I could not use a F2.8 even if I had one because I need the depth of field. The results are great and easily printable to 30x40.

So for my use case I am in a sweet spot with the F4. The advance in computational photography software also makes the f2.8 lenses moot.

In case I give the wrong impression, I also have a 300 F2.8 AFS which gets an outing on rare occasions. It needs a truck to carry it and a large tripod but it is an old friend that needs patting and holding every so often.

Andree Vuson New Member • Posts: 4
Re: Any comparisons of the 70-200 f/4 (F-mount) and Z 70-200?

I just got Z 70-200 and would like to know how to test a new lens to make sure it's a good copy. I had a Porta Pattern resolution chart for television and using this chart to test this camera.

Z7  70 @ 2.8

Z7 200 @ 2.8

MOD TOF guy Forum Pro • Posts: 16,119
Re: Any comparisons of the 70-200 f/4 (F-mount) and Z 70-200?
1

The lens is fine: sharpness is excellent and uniform across the frame

Vignetting is quite noticeable at 70mm as expected for this (and many others) lens.

In fact it’s excellent

-- hide signature --

Thierry - posted as regular forum member

 TOF guy's gear list:TOF guy's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR +6 more
vockman Contributing Member • Posts: 626
Re: Any comparisons of the 70-200 f/4 (F-mount) and Z 70-200?

I've used the F4 for years  on DSLR's and Now a Z6. It has been a very satisfying lens for it's weight, AF, VR and optical quality but it is showing it's age in that better lenses, especially for higher res sensors, have come along but they are all heavy expensive (Nikon) 2.8 zooms. As usual Nikon is completely missing any intention of updating the F4 zoom for Z mount. It took forever to make one for their DSLR's, when Canon had such a popular one for years.

Right now I am hoping Tamron will make their 70-180 2.8 for Z mount. It is the lens I most want to try out as a potential upgrade to my 70-200F4.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads