thx for the video, you helped me choose my next purchase. Well done

As a working pro of many years, the 70-200 has always been a key lens for me. Having moved from F mount DSLR to Z mount mirrorless, the only lens I have not replaced in my F range is the last edition of the 70-200mm F2.8 FLED. The reason for this is that the difference in performance, size and weight is not big enough to warrant the change and the F mount version is still an excellent lens today. But I borrowed a 70-180mm from a colleague and promptly bought one. Why? Sure, it’s not as well built as it’s more expensive counterpart, but when you are handholding your camera and lens all day, size and weight do matter. I’m not bothered about the buttons, I have never used them anyway, but the relative compactness and weight, with excellent image output, yes even for a pro kitbag, persuaded me to part with more money. So that’s a sale Nikon would not have got otherwise.

Subscribed. I like your delivery and construction of the video. Well done, succinct and to the point!

Thanks so much for the insight! I'm just getting started with my Z6ii and am looking at the next lens up after the 24-70 kit lens, so you've given me plenty to think about!

Thanks for video, interesting to watch 📷

Good video. I wish you would have had both lenses when you were changing scenery together to be both at same F-stop. The 70-180 was at f/3.5 and 70-200 was f/4.5, which made the images look sharper and more contrasty. I would have loved to seen them both at the same to verify sharpness.

Great channel, thank you.

Thanks for your video! I think an interesting test would be to compare the two with the 70-180 at f4. Nikon seems to have chosen to not make their own f4, so the Tamron fills that price and weight category while giving an extra stop of light vs the f4 counterparts from Canon, Sony, and others. The $1000 difference, significant weight savings and significant size savings make the Tamron a far preferable lens for travel, and allow many people a nice 70-200 that they can actually afford. The Nikon 70-200 is an incredible lens, but has the associated price and weight that aren’t benefits to all.

Just got mine today. First impressions are quite good. I have jobs coming next week where I'll need long range. I will put it to the test. But so far so good. Image quality is good. Sharp enough. The colors do look a bit dull but a bit editing will do. I am really enjoying the weight as I use a z6. Feels good in the hand.

The 70-180 makes a better choice for travel, and not every one wants to pay 2000 for a lens that they may not use often enough to justify the purchase. I would say that if you use your camera to photograph events or make part of your living from, the 70-200 is probably a better choice, but for hobbyist the 70-180 should be fine I wish that Nikon would open up the Z mount to Sigma but I don't know if that will happen, not everyone will be able to use a Z9 but on a 24 mp camera should be fine.

When I came from D3500 to Z6 I changed Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX for Z 35mm F1.8S, than 17-70mm F2.8-4.0 Sigma for Nikon Z24-70mm F4, than changed Z24-70mm F4 for Nikon Z 28-75 mm F2.8 because I need more light. Only one lens I have F mount and it's Tamron 70-200 mm F2.8 G2. I don't have money for Z70-200mm F2.8 and Z 70-180mm F2.8 looks downgrade for me than Tamron G2 version. G2 is heavier, not a Z glass, but still work very good on Z6 and zoom inside and I have more control with stabilization buttons

Interesting Video; Think another nod goes to 70-180 F2.8 to being a replacement for Nikon 70-200 F4 AFS VR lens ( without FTZ) similar length and weight. For me still got D800 and Z camera so keeping mixed of Z and F lenses, only want to buy when one of my F's give up ghost but may still buy a F replacement, but open for Z Replacement as well. For me if my 70-200 F4 does give up ghost possibly get Nikon Z 70-180 - should be good stopping down to F4 and having F2.8 is an option; but Img quality probably won't be in same league as 70-200 F2.8s for sure but may be on par of my existing 70-200 F2.8 MK 2 and maybe FL (used version if I get one).

You're F Stops are different for the video comparison of the cabin and forest. You should have locked the aperture to the same value.

The 70-200 is for Pro work and heavy usage, while the 70-180 can be considered a replacement for the 70-200 F4 that never came. Also, the 70-180 is better suited for casual use and travel due to its size.

Odd that you say they are two almost identical lenses then lay out the huge difference in weight, size and price. Its a shame is not the one with Lens stabilisation like the new FE mount one.

My thoughts. If Nikon at some point decides to make a Z counter part to the D500 then this lens (70-180mm f/2.8) would be a marvelous action, wildlife, and bird setup. Add a 1.4x TC to the bag and you have an excellent 150-400mm f/4 for a total weight of 800G. Hand held all day long, pretty small so it is easy to walk through bushes etc. and at an affordable price 😉

Good comparison, thanks for this vid. I have to say, regarding the sharpness samples - ya the 70-200 S is significantly sharper. Even here on KZfaq. Much better contrast (micro-contrast?). It's arguably the best zoom lens Nikon has ever produced. That aside, I love that Nikon offers a premium 2.8 trinity, and a lower cost 2.8 trinity. Unless I'm overlooking something, no other company can say this. Everything I've heard about the Tamron-designed 2.8's has been very positive, they're a great solution for those that don't want the weight / size / expense of the S-line 2.8's.

I dont own a Zamera . Kept the d850s pro glass is sunday best stuff ,

I love my Nikon Z 70-200mm f2.8, and it is my lens of choice for shooting dog "conformation" shows both indoors and outdoors. The primary attraction to me is the thought of taking a Nikon Z 70-180 on hikes and/or travel. My mid-70's body prefers the lighter Nikon Z 24-120mm f4 to the 70-200 f2.8 when hiking or when traveling, but the low-light capability of the new 70-180 f2.8 would be useful. When hiking I see a lot of my shots are taken in the 25-35mm range, or the 120mm maximum. So, I probably won't buy it, but I can understand the attraction in certain use cases.

I'd say its a canny move by Nikon. On the face of it it seems odd to have two lenses similarly specced but they are not aimed at the same market. The Tamron ( Ooops, I mean Nikon lol ) 70 to 180 is clearly aimed at the mid, non pro market. The price, weight and overall construction make that clear. The fact that Nikon only had to basically rebadge an exsisting ( and well reviewed lens ) Tamron lens meant there was little effort on Nikons part. Look over at Canon and their reluctants to allow cheaper 3rd party options is really a slap in the face given they acually beat Nikon in terms of body options across a wide price point. Its somewhat ironic that folk buying an entry level R series body have to pay pro lens prices, a real kick in the teeth to those on a budget. The branding of this lens being nikon gives buyers confidence that nikon will support it going forward. Nikon are not obliged to support any 3rd party lenses after all 😉

That's easy. I don't need to watch your video to answer your heading question. The answer is - the Nikon Z 70-200 f/2.8. Why? Because I have owned it for around three years!!! Two of the first trhree lenses I bought on switching to the Nikon Z mount system were the 24-70 f/2.8 and the Z 70-200 f/2.8. I am certainly not going to change eithedr now!!! I suspect there are many Z-mount adopters in the same situation.