Weight: 855g. Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 Di III VC VXD G2 (Black) at Amazon for $1,299; Key features. There was nothing really wrong with the feature set of the original Tamron 70-180mm. Our only real criticism was that, as with the Nikon Z 70-180mm f/2.8 version of the lens, it lacked optical image stabilization. Sure, all but the first generation Nikon Nikkor Z 70-200mm F2.8 VR S Weight: 3: Zoom Ratio: 2.9 x: Nikon Z 6 II + TC-2x, 230mm, f/5.6, 1/250-second, ISO 200. Autofocus is available as well. Response is speedy, with elements The highest performance is found on the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 due to its performance at f/2.8 and f/4, but it’s extremely close in the shared aperture range. I’m very impressed by how well the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 does here, since the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 is the sharpest zoom lens I’ve ever measured. At 2.99 pounds (1,360 grams), the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S Nikkor is a bit lighter than the latest-generation F mount 70-200mm lens, which weighs 3.15 lbs. (1,430g). Size wise, the two 70-200mm Is anyone using the Tamron 70-210 f4 on a Nikon Z ? I have a Z6ii and have the Sigma Sport 70-200 f2.8. It’s an excellent lens and doesn’t get used regularly. Even though it’s tack sharp, it’s just heavy 4#. I’m looking for an alternative. I also have the 24-120 f4 F mount, which I could use and have to crop. usS0. Hi can anyone share their thoughts on the z6ii and z 70 200 combination please . Am trying to compare it to 24 200 z lens thanks. I like the 24-200 because the performance is excellent considering the range, weight and price, but the 70-200mm f2.8 S is simply one of the very best zoom lens ever designed. German fotomagazin did test RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM vs. NIKKOR Z 70–200 mm 1:2,8 VR S in its latest issue 11/2020. Overal score: 5 of 5 stars for both optics: 95 vs. 91 of 100 mechanical built: 90 vs. 100 of 100 Optically the RF wins in resolution, vignetting and distortion, esp. wide open up to f/5.6 with only more distortion @70mm. It’s not as unusually well-priced as the 800mm f/6.3, but it’s still a good value compared to Nikon’s usual trend. Hats off to Nikon for that. Still, prospective buyers should note that the $3250 MSRP is higher than that of the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S and Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S, which retail for $2600 and $2700 respectively. I recently chose the 24-200 and 35 f1. 8 as my vacation kit. The 24-200 was great during the day for touring and landscape, then the 35 was my go to for late day /after sunset when we were in town or at dinner. Light weight, compact. It worked out perfectly. I own the 24-70 f2. 8 and 70-200 f2. 8 for work, but they are waaaaay heavy for casual Z 70-200 2.8; Z 100-400 4.5-5.6; If music festivals are your gig, and you will be shooting at night or indoors, then the 70-200 f/2.8 would be the lens to choose. You will want the larger aperture under those conditions. The 100-400 is more useful for outdoor sports and wildlife, although 400mm isn't really long enough for small birds. The Nikon Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR S achieves a pretty decent maximum magnification of around 1:2.5 in close-up shooting at 400mm focal length and 0.68m working distance. The area of sharp focus is just 60 x 90mm. The crops shown below are from 0mm, 14mm, and 19mm off the center of the sensor respectively.

nikon z 70 200 f2 8 weight