Nikon 70-180mm - Lighter, Cheaper, Smaller... BUT...🤔

[@mattgranger]

What would you like tested?? LINKS: Nikon Expert Setup Guide: learn.mattgranger.com/courses/zsetup K2 Filter System: geni.us/FREEWELLK2 The 70-180 at BH: bhpho.to/44kApGY July Photo Competition: mattgranger.com/live

[@inteliov]

I would love to see it tested against the 70-200 F4 F mount lens. Especially in the context of landscape photography. Looks like we aren’t going to get a Z mount F/4 replacement for it so it feels like the best progression for all the landscape photographers that have the old F4 for it’s sharpness and light and small build.

[@jmbballm]

I'd like to see it compared to the 70-200 f2.8 F mount with the FTZ adapter.

[@henningmartin2000]

I'm really curious how good the AF is compared to the S-line lens! Also, as mentioned before, please test it on lower end bodies like Z 6, Z 5 or Z fc cause this is what the target audience will probably use it on.

[@MarijnGoud]

@@inteliov same here, very interested in replacing my 70-200 f4 with this one

[@Michael-pm1tq]

This lens changes the equation for me. The 24-70 f4 + 70-180mm for a lightweight travel and landscape kit

[@Skulclaimr]

Why not 28-75 2.8?

[@csc-photo]

Excellent comparison, thanks Matt 👏🏻 I have the 70-200 and the combination of VR & IBIS is magical. I don’t mind the size & weight at all. This new 70-180 looks to be an excellent option too and I think Nikon will sell a lot of them. Offering two quality trinities to cover different use cases & budgets is a smart move.

[@robertkesilman2587]

Please test it with the teleconverters, both 1.4x and 2.0x, including focus accuracy, speed and image quality. Thanks!

[@AbimaelOrtiz]

I think it's okay to test that lens on advanced cameras like the z9, but considering the price, this lens is most likely the choice for users of lower-end equipment, so I'd like to see it tested on a z50, z5, z6, etc Personally I have a z6 and I see this lens as my best option to add a bright zoom to my bag. How about trying it out in car, skating and portrait photography? I can't afford 70-200, so for me there is no comparison. I can make the effort to acquire the 70-180. I need to know what I can expect from the lens in different circumstances.

[@pawel4636]

Totally agree. 70-180 is hardly a product for professionals who use z9. It would be great to see how it performs on Z6ii, Z7ii etc especially that this lens has no VR so let's see what the trade-off is in this regard.

[@ArsenijeRadenovic]

If you are on a budget, try adapting older 70-200 I just switched to Z mount 20 days ago, and still have my 70-200 VR (first version). It works better adapted on my z6ii than on D4 which I used for 6 years. And I am eying this 70-180 for events and portraits. It will surely be good if you don't obsess with pixel peeping. Edit: I agree on testing these kind of lenses on lower end of Z line of cameras.

[@jpdj2715]

As the 24MP Nikons have an OLPF [1] and the higher than 30MP ones don't (for full frame) there is a difference in contour sharpness (presuming the raw processing [2] software can make it visible). (A D500 DX camera does not have an OLPF as it has the photosite density of a 45MP full frame camera.) If so, then the non "S" class 70-180 is an excellent choice for a 24MP Nikon. The difference between 180 and 200 is too small to want to use an older F-mount 70-200, except when you need to VR on top of the IBIS you already have. If you read the notes below, you can imagine that comparison of digital cameras in raw processing software depends a lot on (a) the core of that software and (b) the profiles available for each item in the comparison. When you leave Adobe Camera Raw (ACR - in Lightroom Classic) set to the profile called "Adobe Standard" then you get a profile specific for your camera that processes towards a kind of neutral rendition that Adobe prefers (not vivid) and makes cameras look alike a lot. If you want to see what level of detail is in your images, by all means blow them up in Topaz's Gigapixel AI - depending on the kind of image [3] you may be positively flabbergasted at what you see as it may be much better than the results from ACR. [1] OLPF - Optical Low Pass Filter - disperses a bit of the light travelling to photosite [x,y] to the immediate neighbours thereof. (Photosites are the light sensitive photodiodes in the surface of the sensor with a C-MOS circuit to store photons-to-electrons light levels. This is analogue and colour blind.) The Bayer filter grid over the sensor filters the light down to either red, or green, or blue and consequently each photosite records a light level for one humanly visible colour band of the spectrum. The OLPF disperses a bit to the neighbours of the photosite as hardware help to make raw processing easier. [2] As the raw data elements are monochrome (mono=1/single, chrome=colour), the raw image cannot be rendered as such or the looks of it would make your eyes compete with Niagara Falls. So raw processing is what happens in software as a way to guess what the missing colours might have been. While this is done in a mathematically precise and repeatable way, it basically is wild-assed guessing. Generally it is written in a way to first make course guesses - this step is called deBayerisation - where monochrome data elements are converted into RGB pixels. But quick and dirty deBayerisation generates a boat load of digital artefacts - the generation of these artefacts in deBayerisation is called "mosaicking" - and so this then needs to be repaired by "demosaicking". The OLPF makes this easier, but its dispersion reduces contour sharpness, reduces low light sensitivity, reduces colour space, reduces dynamic range and contrast envelope, and increases vignetting. With increasing resolution, its cons become a pain in the anatomy and Nikon Eliminated the OLPF for the first time in the D800E version of the D800 (over 10 years ago now). That did not mean however that the likes of Adobe created a new algorithm for the raw processing of images from cameras without OLPF. With the addition of the "AI Denoise" function - optionally triggered by the user - Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) finally has been adapted to cameras without OLPF. (ACR does the raw processing in both Lightroom Classic and in Photoshop. You can run ACR stand-alone from Adobe Bridge to see what ACR can do and ACR will save its/your edits in an ACR sidecar file.) IMO, while Adobe have addressed "noise" (generated by raw processing, or wrongly converted at that) they still need to improve of detail loss or detail recovery from raw (or prevention of the generation of digital artefacts). [3] "Kind of image" is important in digital photography, raw processing, people/eye detection autofocus (planes, trains, birds, animals, etc.) - when it relies on AI, for example of the learning kind where human-supervised training sessions work towards learned rules and these then are applied later on. We recently have seen learning AI solve complex problems but as its learning continued, probably unsupervised, beyond an optimum, it became much less smart. The AI in your camera knows about "exposure", "white balance", "sharpness", certain compositions that need adjusted exposure or WB, subject recognition autofocus, and more. In raw processing, the colour guessing depends on subject recognition too. This can be something simple like "edge detection" as a way to prevent cross bleeding of colours (in the guessing) between bordering blobs of different colours. We saw that cross bleeding a lot in the past, no longer today - because of better AI, more powerful chips /computers (and Moore's Law).

[@pasakuma6113]

I'd love to see how it behaves in event photography, where people are moving and shutter speed needs to be higher, and VR is less important

[@bassangler73]

If your a new photographer and are sure what brand you want to shoot buy the best glass possible..You can get some beautiful shots from the budget lenses and they are sharp, if you don't shoot a lot they are fine but if your out shooting 2× a week get the best glass you can...Don't be afraid to buy used because the lenses are built to last and most used dealers offer at least 6 months warranty..Take this from someone who learned the hard way...

[@ninjainajar]

I learnt the hard way by getting tamron 24-70 f2.8, tamron 70-200 f2.8 and 90mm f2.8 SP Di macro, all of which aren’t compatible with my Z fc using FTZ II adapter. Nikon z lenses are too expensive though and I’m hesitant for the tamron sigma option after my previous experience

[@musiqueetmontagne]

Good advise.. All the modern cameras can produce great images, it's glass that's important.

[@Bartek_Sobolski]

This lens can be used with teleconverters, so I'd like to see the results with 1.4x and 2x TC (vs for example 100-400 VR).

[@mjak993]

Seconding this - especially since with the 2x you get down to 1:1 macro, which adds an extra level of versatility.

[@vueport99]

and while you're at it get the actual Tamron G2 version of this lens which is readily available for Sony mount so you get even better image quality compared to this Nikon rebrand version which is actually Tamron G1. Just be careful with moist / wet conditions.

[@ZeDestructor00]

F mount 70-200 2.8E FL ED VR is the comparison for me, cause they're very close when you look at used 70-200 2.8Es.

[@jaimeduncan6167]

This lens could prove to be a godsend for many portrait photographers that are starting with Nikon. I will love to see how it performs in the lesser bodies (Z7 II or Z6 II) and how it performs against an adapted 70-200mm E. Thanks!

[@ckwu1437]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mp2Tm4efg6iGosU Not good as 70-200 but smaller and lighter.

[@eikonise]

I think its exciting (more so than the 200-500 replacement that got all the attention) it's on of the precious few lenses that actually follows through on the promise of the z mount to provide nore compact lenses (without slower maximum apertures than their f mount equivalent). The 1:2 magnification ratio is also a very nice to have feature. Not denying that the 70-200 is better, but for non pros and poors like me, the value proposition is compelling. Also while i was hoping that Tamron would release more z mount lenses, I find this current solution (badge engineering) to be acceptable as well.

[@larsv9907]

It was designed for the Sony E mount (assuming here that it's actually a Tamron), so the design wouldn't really take full advantage if the Z mount diameter.

[@caleidoo]

I'm currently using a Tamron G2 70-200 F2.8 OIS (with FTZ of course) on my Z6II's - which is an excellent lens in its own and was in some aspects better than the older Nikon 70-200 F2.8 F version. But it's really big and long (with the FTZ). I think the 70-180 will suit me fine. I don't use it in lowlight or slow shutter speeds, so the lack of lens VR won't be a problem. Still wished it was 1000-1200 instead of €1500 though. The Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2 is currently €1250. A comparison in size on a Z camera with this lens - or at least the older F version - would be welcome of course. Also optically, how both lenses behave at minimum focus distance. Some 70-200's behave more like a 140mm at that distance - I think the second Nikon F version is known for this. And because you already miss 20mm, I would like to see how the 70-180 performs under those circumstances.

[@vueport99]

a simple solution for you would be to get the Sony mount version of the Tamron 70-180 G2. And then using an adapter to make it E to Z mount. That way you get the better optics which the Nikon rebrand isn't giving you while saving money at the same time.

[@HR-wd6cw]

In regards to those who like to "bash" Nikon on the whole Tamron "re-badge" thing.... Does it matter? If you don't like the design or the optical quality, then don't buy it. I mean Nikon has the Z 70-200 which is an excellent lens, but it also costs 2x as much as the cheaper 70-180 version. These types of lenses (even if they are Tamron re-badges) offer consumers an option, where befrore they're only native option was a $2500 70-200, which not everyone can spend $2500 on a single lens, and some might be willing to make some sacrifices in order to save money, and so that's where I think the "Rebadged" 2.8's (the 17-28, 28-75 and 70-180) have their place. It would let someone buy TWO fast lenses (the 28-75 and 70-180 for example) for the price of a single Z 70-200. For everyone else we have the Nikon versions (the 24-70 and the 70-200). I also think that the "rebadging" is also a benefit to both consumers and Nikon. For consumers it generally means lower prices since these lens are not necessarily top-end premium, but still good quality. And it saves Nikon money on development, and they can focus on more important things like the high-end glass or more cameras. Now not that the 70-200 is excessively heavy, but I could see people getting the 70-180 (who already have the 70-200) possibly for lighter-duty stuff like travel or hiking, where the extra weight of the 70-200 may be a factor (or the size may be a factor). the lack of VR is a let down, but I think it does help keep the price down, and you're effectively paying half price as you would the Z 70-200 so I think it's a bit fair, but still a let down. I would rather have seen a $1400 or $1500 version perhaps with VR but that's not what we got. On a side note, and somewhat of a question: Is the 180-600 a modified variant of the Tamron 150-600 designs for DSLR? Someone suggested to me that this may be the case and may also be either a Tamron rebadge too, or a join design by Nikon/Tamron with Nikon making the design with Tamron input, but perhaps Tamron providing the building....?

[@marcusbraun8889]

AF-P 70-300E VR on Ftz vs 70-180 2.8 with teleconverters. Perhaps add 24-200 Z lens. It's more about compactness than price. Never mind how much better a Z 70-200 2.8 S or a Z 100-400 S are, that's not lenses I want to bring anymore on long trips where I carry my equip the entire day, day after day.

[@johnmajors1449]

Matt - I think a comparison of the basic fundamentals of performance of the Z/2.8 S 70-200 vs the Z/2.8 10-180 in terms of lens sharpness, distortions, chromatics and bokeh, including the TCs would be appropriate, The VR and IBS differences are worthy to discuss the impact on hit ratios, but not sure an in-depth comparison is worth it and it is somewhere subjective, just something the consumer needs to be aware of as you have already stated in this video. The Z/2.8 70-180 may be a better alternative to the Z/4-6.3 VR 24-200, which many have said is not very sharp, even when action shooting at higher focal lengths are considered (F2.8 may make up for lack of VR), especially when there are sales on the 70-180.

[@franknurnberger1102]

If I may add a Tamron 70-180 e-mount perspective: it really depends on what kind of photography you do. If your aim is to take photos of birds at the lowest ISO value possible (longer exposure time), the better VR in the Nikon lens most probably does help and then - if you can afford it - you should go for the Nikon 70-200. If you predominantly shoot "BIF" birds in flight or (like in my case) people talking at conferences or on podiums, you need to be at 1/250th of a second or shorter anyway in order to avoid subject blur. Then, the additional in-lens VR might not be so important after all. I am not sure I would have chosen the Tamron if I was using a Nikon as my camera. Trying to be the "fly on the wall" at my conferences, I try to avoid drawing attention to my presence - in order to get great unposed moments. With a WHITE Sony 70-200 it is more likely that people notice the photographer lurking nearby. If the Sony was black (especially the new and lighter V2 version) I would certainly have bought it instead of the Tamron, no matter the cost. To all people wondering whether a Tamron/Nikon 70-180 could be used professionally, I can assure you it absolutely is up to the task of shooting events/weddings/portraits - at least if you don't happen to reagularly do this in the Arctic or the Serengeti😉

[@Wallace0333]

Thank you Matt, always appreciate your videos over any others especially for the Z content. Love your Expert Setup Guide as well!

[@mattgranger]

Glad you like them!

[@leniehulse1621]

Thanks Matt! How about the performance with converters?

[@shagstroem]

Would love to see it compared to some of the 70-200 f-mounts lenses with an FTZ-adapter. Focus speed, image quality, etc.

[@lolkebergsma7105]

Me also

[@barbarabialon6866]

I would like to see comparison of 70-180 used with 1.4x and 2x TC used on full frame and crop sensor vs new Nikon Z 180-600mm

[@HussainAli-pv7kk]

180-600 is better, even 100-400 is better than 70-180 with 2X

[@jemostrom]

I would be very interested in how it works in sports photography (martial arts indoors in my case). I currently use a Z7 with an F-mount 70-200/2.8 (I have actually forgotten which brand) + FTZ II and it's not a good combo, lot of missed photos because of autofocus misses and occasions where the lens/camera locks up. The 70-200 is out of my price range so I'm interested in something cheaper with decent performance.

[@williamchan8866]

Of course for any kind of sports action photography VR makes no difference…..in overall every day use the 70-180 is a much wiser choice.

[@jeffrey3498]

I'm surprised Nikon hasn't made an f/4 version of the 70-200/ 2.8S VR.

[@carlosbecerril7218]

I agree

[@stephaniesablan]

I’m really interested in this lens. Can you please compare it to Nikon’s 70-200 f4 F mount lens?

[@GlennSchultes]

Can you test it with a tele extender? I'm interested with any sharpness losses

[@2222paulr]

I currently own a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro Lens that I adapt for my Nikon Z5. I would love to see how it compares to it and if its worth the upgrade. I am not a professional, but shoot for fun as a hobby.

[@myvideobuffet5398]

Many owners of the F or Z mount 70-200 f2.8 use it for event, sports, action photography. Would be curious about auto-focus speed / performance. I realize you already mentioned VR. I usually shoot 1/500 or higher. The 70-200 is also an excellent portrait lens. A comparison against the 70-180 would be good to see. Thanks

[@carlmcneill1139]

It may be a rebranded random but if it has Nikon's name on it that tells me they have their hands in the build quality. It's probably a better lens than what Tamron by themselves would have come up with. But no VR is a no deal for me. I have a sigma sport that I'm adapting now but one day I plan to upgrade to the Nikon version. Maybe I'll find a good deal on a used one.

[@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas]

It's a clever strategy from Nikon. More choice for customers at different price ranges than a narrow-minded company like Canon. Nikon customers don't care if the underlying lens construction is a Tamron design because the lens looks like any other Nikkor lens but offers additionally a customizable control ring and can take teleconverters unlike the Sony E-Mount version. Due to being a Nikon product It offers full compatibility and support unlike other third-party lenses.

[@connorbowen3704]

Thanks Matt! Thoughts on the lens as an option for portraits? Thanks!

[@nespressoman]

I would love to see this 70-180 compared to the old 70-200 f4 AF-S lens. Thanks.

[@sumansen1807]

Wondering how this might compare to the old Nikon 180mm F2.8D prime lens (knowing they are not entirely apple to apple)

[@Bill-NM]

Buy the Nikon/Tamron 70-180 *AND* the Sigma 135/1.8 ART (perhaps used) for the same-ish money as the Nikon 70-200. The 135/1.8 will take dreamier photos than the 70-200/2.8's.

[@starbase218]

What I’d like to see is: - What sort of VR performance can I expect on a body with IBIS? - How does it perform with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters? I think it might make sense to test both things on both a 24 and 45MP body (Z5/Z6 and Z7/Z8). I’m only doing photography when I travel and would never take a 1.5kg 70-200 with me. My current telezoom is the F-mount AF-P 70-300. F/2.8 and the macro capabilities are appealing but I don’t want to give up range. Hence the question about TC performance.

[@mjak993]

The longer the focal length, the worse IBIS performs compared to in-lens VR. Other, more upmarket bodies may have more advanced tech in them, but on my Z5 I notice that at 180mm (not this lens, the old AF-D fixie) the IBIS is really struggling to get to maybe 2 stops of improvement.

[@starbase218]

@@mjak993 Ok, but 2 stops is still 1/200 > 1/100 > 1/50, right? I mean, at 1/50 subject movement may be a bigger factor anyway.

[@mjak993]

@@starbase218 Yes, it depends entirely upon the subject - if you are shooting anything that can move in a way that causes unwanted blur on the target, then of course any kind of image stabilization is going to be pretty much... worthless, or a moot point anyways. But if you are shooting landscapes for example (yes, telephoto lenses have their use in that area as well), then you might find yourself in a situation where bringing a tripod with you is just not feasible, and you have to rely on stabilization. If the ratio of keepers dips below a certain level because with in-lens stab you would have like 80% and with IBIS only you get 20%, then you have to factor that in your purchasing decision. (And it's a bit of a PNOOMA / guesswork on the percantages, but I hope I could get my point across...)

[@marcusbraun8889]

Agree. I've been looking at this 70-180 f2.8 to replace my AF-S 70-300E VR, so would be interested in IQ und performance with teleconverters. As for the VR question - if you get two stops courtesy of IBIS alone, gain at least 1 stop vs an f4.5-5.6 lens, then there's perhaps not that much difference overall - at least not in the 70-180 range? Then how about once you add the TC's? I feel that under 180 the 2.8 has a certain advantage as faster shutter speeds are worth something, too, not just the slowest handheld possible. Above that the 70-300 might have the edge, but by how much? Usually even with VR and IBIS I try to stay at least at 1/60. Slower is possible, 1/30 and 1/15, but those give less and less real sharp images, plus one needs to be real well blocked to hold cam as still as possible, which cannot be done in every situation. In short I would like to see a comparison of the 70-180 and converters vs the AF-P 70-300E on the Ftz. Not interested in 100-400 or 70-200 S as I use the thing on travel and mountain bike tours, weight and size count here, and the AF-P 70-300 is the max I like to go for as space is limited and I carry the gear the whole day, day after day.

[@katscurry]

I have a Z8 and am using the 2009 70-200mm f/2.8 F mount with FTZII. Would be curious what your impressions are. I could sell my 70-200 FTZ combo and put towards this lens. My thinking has been that I'm better off keeping what I have already. I will be using it for concert photography mostly.

[@georgegaab1375]

Would like to see a comparison between the 70-180 & the 24-200

[@labalia30]

What a pleasure to see those pigeon photos!

[@scotimages]

I would be grateful if you could do a very brief comparison of 180mm and 120mm on this lens vs 120mm on the 24-120mm as part of a longer review. This would help me decide wether or not the new lens would be useful.

[@DeRose05]

I'm very excited to see this tested. If it is close, the price is right.

[@GnawPhotography]

It would be great to see how it compares to the 70-200 f4 (IQ, contrast/color). I had the 28-75 f2.8 briefly, but the color/contrast didn't work for me (on a Z6), and have since bought the Z 24-70 f2.8, which produces better results (Z6/Z6 II/Z8)

[@vueport99]

you're comparing a S lens....not quite a fair comparison at double the price!

[@larsv9907]

Coming from F mount to Z9, I'd like to hear a few words of comparison to the Tamron 70-200f2.8 G2. Apples and oranges, sure, but for me it's a reference point at this time.

[@ryansorensen3885]

Love to see how it performs with a teleconverter

[@MattisProbably]

No in lens VR is kind of a deal breaker... Because it means that this "budget" lens wouldn't have any VR on something like a Z50. For the same price you could get the F mount Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2 which still is s great lens and which does have VR. You'd just need the FTZ adapter.

[@caleidoo]

It's a huge size difference though. I'm probably going for the 70-180 in the future, currently using the G2 & FTZ on my Z6II and it's just too big for my use. If I can't shoot the 70-200 at 1/500s & ISO 4000, I use my 105 F1.4, so I wouldn't find the lack of VR a deal breaker if I had a Z50. And the 20mm missing on the tele end is barely noticeable.

[@dougsphoto]

I wonder how its sharpens would compare to say the 24-120 f4 S on the Z8 in DX mode as that turns into a 180 crop

[@lsaideOK]

Does the lack of OS make a difference when you're shooting at higher shutter speeds? I wouldn't mind seeing how this lens works on a DX camera. 105-270 is a nice range

[@leniehulse1621]

Never heard of adapters for z lenses to crop sensor nikon cameras.

[@lsaideOK]

@@leniehulse1621 The Z50, Zfc, and Z30 are all z mount crop sensor cameras. One problem is none of them have image stabilization. So one would be going old school shooting with the combo. Might be a deal killer.

[@senseofeverthing]

How about throwing the 24-200 and the Tamron 70-300 in for comparison? Could be interesting

[@yvonnerichard6099]

Thanks for this intro Matt. I would be really interested in a pet photography comparison between the 70-200 and the 70-180.

[@tonytfuntek3262]

If I need to shoot 2 to 3 stops at faster shutter speeds, what is the purpose of having a f2.8 lens ?? Nikon should release a 70-200 F4 at the same price point as the Nikon/Tamron lens.

[@kpluk84]

For me the 180-600 if you can loan that one. This is because both are not S line lenses. Also the handheld shots with long shutterspeed.

[@mattgranger]

Thanks - but I dont have access to that one yet, and I will focus the comparison on overlapping focal lengths.

[@dominiclester3232]

Thanks Matt! More testing on this lens please.

How it does for video (focus breathing, bokeh, focusing perofrmance and noise, etc)?

[@NemanjaNedic]

I'd like to see a comparison with Tamron 70-210 f4 F-mount lens. Mostly sharpness and focus speed.

[@jimwlouavl]

Nikon's Z lenses give lots of choices right now. If the 135 f/1.8 S comes out as expected and takes teleconverters, I'm thinking a 14-30 f4, 24-120 f4, 135 f1.8 and both TCs will be a nice combo for landscape work. One could supplement with a wide prime, one of the 85s, the 105 macro, and a 100-400 or 180-600 to cover a huge range of focal lengths.

[@Gronvoll]

I would love to see a comparison to the nikon Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S for portraits.

[@romainplagnol882]

Thanks Tamron making this lens possible

[@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas]

It's a clever strategy from Nikon. More choice for customers at different price ranges than a narrow-minded company like Canon. Nikon customers don't care if the underlying lens construction is a Tamron design because the lens looks like any other Nikkor lens but offers additionally a customizable control ring and can take teleconverters unlike the Sony E-Mount version. Due to being a Nikon product It offers full compatibility and support unlike other third-party lenses.

[@LDam-pf6lx]

Sports. Especially compared again the old F-mount version 70-200 with an FTZ adapter on it.

[@Telly26]

I'd like to see this lens compared to the Nikkor 85mm 1.8 S lens and the Nikkor 105mm MC f/2.8 lens in the realm of portraits.

[@UnconventionalReasoning]

When Nikon reps were at my local camera store around the launch of the Z8, they acknowledged that all three non-S f/2.8 zooms are made with Tamron.

[@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas]

It's a clever strategy from Nikon. More choice for customers at different price ranges than a narrow-minded company like Canon. Nikon customers don't care if the underlying lens construction is a Tamron design because the lens looks like any other Nikkor lens but offers additionally a customizable control ring and can take teleconverters unlike the Sony E-Mount version. Due to being a Nikon product It offers full compatibility and support unlike other third-party lenses.

[@UnconventionalReasoning]

@@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas Canon has been getting a lot of push-back on their policy, and it seems they may be reconsidering. Nikon is trying hard to balance its own offerings with what Tamron and Sigma produce. With Tamron, they're taking the dual approach of releasing some as Nikon lenses and letting Tamron release others, like the 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3. Sigma has released three f/1.4 APS-C primes (the best indicator for a Z70 or Z90 some time soon). With the full frame 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.2, and likely 35mm f/1.2, Nikon may allow one or both to release f/1.4 lenses at those focal lengths.

[@pjimmbojimmbo1990]

"You can't expect it to be Half the Price, have 85% of the Range, and No Downsides" A lot of Z8 owners, certainly expect their Z8 to be the Z9. Not gonna happen

@mattgranger Can you compare to Nikkor F Micro zoom?

[@rondoudou8746]

is it possible to test it with the tc 1,4 x ?

[@mattgranger]

I will try

[@RussandLoz]

side by side same photos with both the lenses, I doubt it'll be much different

[@shivboy09]

Can compare with Tamron 18-200?

[@mattgranger]

Thanks for the suggestion, but sorry that won’t work. I’ll focus on things that will help the most people. 👍🏼

[@Commonyou7149]

I would like to have a tamron 85mm f1.4 or 35 f1.4

[@Blackbereh]

Nifty lens, but man Nikon needs to hurry up with more 1.4/1.2 primes, or even some unique zooms like the 28-70mm f/2 they have on Canon RF. I know Tamron came out with that one Z mount lens too, but if the third party guys like Tamron and Sigma started pumping out tonnes of their current lenses on the Z mount, it would do so much more for Nikon. Adapting old F mount glass is getting tiresome.

[@ThyWorshipMetal]

Don’t think Nikon will ever release 1.4’s but I’m sure Tamron and Sigma will fill in that gap - I do agree about the unique zoom though!

[@csc-photo]

@@ThyWorshipMetalTotally agree

[@Blackbereh]

@@csc-photo Yeah Tamron/Sigma need to speed up on that! Feels like you either have to spend a fortune on some f/1.2 glass, or go the budget route and get f/1.8's. The zoom selection is fine I suppose, but F-mount glass was so abundant and cheap for the value, but now they've fallen behind Canon/Sony's offerings in price/performance/size

[@larsv9907]

Nikon is managing licensing of the Z mount tightly. They don't want overlapping specs, i.e. no competition with Nikkors.

[@Blackbereh]

@@larsv9907 yeah and that sucks. If they’re gonna hog all the toys, at least have more of them. There’s barely any lenses at all

[@carlosquijano2827]

BUT has not been released yet...

[@CC3GROUNDZERO]

The biggest problem with the "new" "Nikkor" 70-180 2.8 is that it's way overpriced compared to the Tamron original for Sony E. Nikon is surcharging ~200 bucks on it, just for the nice Nikkor trademark on the lens.

[@jean-claudemuller3199]

@6:48 oh no, VR will not help when the subject isn't steady, it's even worse with VR and slower shutter speed when the subject is moving 😉

[@himalayareaders]

The practical review.

[@solidstream13]

I believe the 70-180 is not comparable with teleconverters. That's a big deal to some users.

[@joerg_koeln]

Both lenses will find their customers...

[@steverealtyandfinance8171]

So if you shoot wildlife, get the 70--200. Otherwise the 70-180 is an excellent option.

[@stkuj]

Nice to see Tamron making Z lenses!

[@d.k.1394]

Nice

[@DaleGDavis]

Matt- I'd just like to make a plea that you do not wear a black shirt for these videos. I could not see any details in the lenses against your black shirt. Dale

[@mattgranger]

I think you need to upgrade your monitor my friend. It is a green shirt and I can see the lenses clearly against it on my display.

[@JessDemant]

It is a Tamron lens that is not sold as cheaply as it should be, because it has been given a Nikon brand, a bit sad for all Nikon users!

[@mattgranger]

It adds a function ring and costs $50 more than the Sony E version

[@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas]

It's a clever strategy from Nikon. More choice for customers at different price ranges than a narrow-minded company like Canon. Nikon customers don't care if the underlying lens construction is a Tamron design because the lens looks like any other Nikkor lens but offers additionally a customizable control ring and can take teleconverters unlike the Sony E-Mount version. Due to being a Nikon product It offers full compatibility and support unlike other third-party lenses.

[@AbhishekDharan]

canon rf 70-200 f2.8

[@terrygrehan3210]

I would like to see a head to head on the Nikon 70-180 Z and the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E ED VR AF-P Lens (and FTZ), just for image quality purposes, as although the focal lengths are similiar, I don't use longer lenses very often, so I doubt there would be much benefit in me getting a 70-180mm.

[@csc-photo]

That F 70-300 AF-P was easily one of my favorites. Fast & quiet to focus, sharp(!), and worked flawlessly on the Z bodies. It’s the best $500 zoom on the market IMO

[@starbase218]

Seconded; I have the AF-P 70-300 as well.

[@Youtuber-ku4nk]

I wish Nikon put VR in more lenses in the wide and normal focal length range. IBIS ruin my videos because of that wobbling look it gives.

[@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas]

Use a gimbal and the problem with videos is gone.

[@Youtuber-ku4nk]

@@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas that introduces another problem/downside: weight, cost, another device to manage. It’s for hiking and boat trips etc I want better stabilization system.

[@mattgranger]

@@KZbinr-ku4nk S5ii

[@Youtuber-ku4nk]

@@mattgranger yes, looks like the Ibis is really good. But I just bought a Z8 :)

[@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas]

@@KZbinr-ku4nk Just contact the Nikon customer support and describe precisely your issue with some examples.

[@luka3rd]

Oh, 80% of the video not related to the subject...

This should have been MICRO 😊

[@carlosandreviana9448]

I think you are wrong. I NEVER heard a bad review of this lens. In some tests it got better results than the 70-200 regarding chromatic aberration and fringing. Why birds? This is a lens for events because of it's weight and VR is not even necessary, because we need to shoot above 1/200 You didn't even bother to say it accepts tele converters and reaches almost 1x macro with it. Sorry, medíocre review

[@Tap-a-roo]

Smaller lighter and cheaper but … it’s made by Tamron. Lolololol.

[@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas]

Who cares? You have additionally a control ring that can be customized and full support / compatibility from Nikon. Furthermore it's not possible to use teleconverters on the Sony version.

[@Tap-a-roo]

@@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas it’s made by TAMRON you r e t a r d.

[@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas]

@@Tap-a-roo It's a clever strategy from Nikon. More choice for customers at different price ranges than a narrow-minded company like Canon. Nikon customers don't care if the underlying lens construction is a Tamron design because the lens looks like any other Nikkor lens but offers additionally a customizable control ring and can take teleconverters unlike the Sony E-Mount version. Due to being a Nikon product It offers full compatibility and support unlike other third-party lenses.

[@Ed-lz4jv]

rather see more photos taken and it mounted on a z6 or close, dont care how much lens inside bla bla bla...unboxing? people STILL do that ? lol

[@possisvideos]

its a rebranded 70-180 tamron. so what.😮

[@mattgranger]

yeah, so what?

[@possisvideos]

@@mattgranger the trick is, the Nikon branded Tamron is much more expensive than e.g. the same Tamron for Sony.

[@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas]

@@possisvideos You are here for troll comments and not interested in facts. So what?

[@mattgranger]

$50 more, with a control ring. Covered in the video.

[@Nevermanvideo]

you click on the video and hope for an interesting watch. then you notice Matt Granger.

[@mattgranger]

…you realize that your reading and comprehension skills keep failing you.

[@Nevermanvideo]

@@mattgranger nice comeback

[@ropeyarn]

Your choice of pretty woman is fine with me. No skateboarders please.