Z 70-180 : Verdict

Bob Hullinger · Jul 31, 2023

Nimi said:
I agree with your conclusion.

Tamron, whose largest/controlling shareholder is Sony makes both adapted and private-labeled lenses and is the largest lens company in the world. Their agreement with Sony is that they would not sell clones, because most likely the Sony G lenses are manufactured by Tamron. I think they have a similar agreement with Nikon and a non-compete on the S lenses.

If you study Sony's rapid ascension in still photography you'd credit Tamron (and Minolta and Aptina) for a big contribution.

* yes, there is also a large institutional investor with +/- 2% from Sony but they don't play an operational role.

Nimi said:
"But hey, look at that price..."

I'm a lens elitist, wouldn't even consider it.

I'm going to begin by wishing every photographer what I wish for myself every time I visit a photo store website. I wish everyone wins a billion dollar lottery so price becomes no object when it comes to buying top line gear. It's definitely a drag seeing the price of a lens and realizing that one could own a decent used Lexus or BMW or Benz...or pay off a huge chunk of their mortgage...for the price on a 600mm or 800mm system lens.

It's sad when anyone with long term debt or kids to feed and educate prioritize $16k lenses over important life costs but it happens. Generics have an important place in photography.

Putting in the time using cameras and lenses will always lead to better composed and exposed photographs than any gear buying decision made by someone who buys something and expects the brand name to make them better. The first element to becoming a better photographer is never going to be gear.

I do like the elitist reference portion of your remarks. Put a check mark next to my name on that one. If I can afford a system lens, which I usually can, and will be able to use it more than two days a year, which is any lens that will focus within the length of my living room, I'll always buy the system lens designed for the camera I am using. It's a no brainer. Buying top of the line bodies to attach just alright lenses to has always been disappointing because when I see results side by side, the system results are always better (when an experienced photographer is holding the camera) when an image is composed and exposed.

It's my opinion that the user is always the most overlooked cog in the performance of any system. There is good reason that people who shoot any OEM lens system on a regular basis will likely never be thrilled with generics. Generics are less inexpensive because of what's left off of them.

I've got a pile of perfectly usable Sigma and Tamron lenses whose time in my photo life has come and gone that make appearances once in a while, but they will never be Nikon system (or Sony or Canon) designed lenses. But they will be used plenty by whoever I meet who needs a better lens than they already can afford and I give them to them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any lens if it works for someone but it's impossible to tell what's missing or deficient about a generic lens until you shoot it next to the proper system lens.

If someone is truly enjoying themselves the next time they release their shutter the gear they are using is just fine.

StefanSC · Jul 31, 2023

I've shot the Tokina 12-24 f4 alongside the Nikon 12-24 f4 and found the Tokina lens to be better.

I've shot the Sigma 105mm OIS alongside the Nikon 105mm VR and found the Sigma to be better.

Ages ago, on the 10Mpx sensors, I shot the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 alongside the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and found the Tamron better.

Sigma's 50mm f1.4A vs Nikon's 50mm f1.4 was not even funny, the difference was so big.

Not to start on more specialized lenses like the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, the Sigma 24-35mm f2.0 and 150mm f2.8 macro, the Samyang 135mm f2.0 and so on that OEMs don't really have alternatives for them.

I always give and follow this advice:

If money is no object, then go for it, you only live once. Otherwise, focus on what's most important and good enough for the rest.

And always keep in mind: "An elitist and his money are easily parted!"

Jerry Watson · Jul 31, 2023

StefanSC said:
I've shot the Tokina 12-24 f4 alongside the Nikon 12-24 f4 and found the Tokina lens to be better.

I've shot the Sigma 105mm OIS alongside the Nikon 105mm VR and found the Sigma to be better.

Ages ago, on the 10Mpx sensors, I shot the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 alongside the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and found the Tamron better.

Sigma's 50mm f1.4A vs Nikon's 50mm f1.4 was not even funny, the difference was so big.

Not to start on more specialized lenses like the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, the Sigma 24-35mm f2.0 and 150mm f2.8 macro, the Samyang 135mm f2.0 and so on that OEMs don't really have alternatives for them.

I always give and follow this advice:

If money is no object, then go for it, you only live once. Otherwise, focus on what's most important and good enough for the rest.

And always keep in mind: "An elitist and his money are easily parted!"

I also found my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 had better sharpness and contrast than my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8.

Roy · Jul 31, 2023

Bob Hullinger said:
I'm going to begin by wishing every photographer what I wish for myself every time I visit a photo store website. I wish everyone wins a billion dollar lottery so price becomes no object when it comes to buying top line gear. It's definitely a drag seeing the price of a lens and realizing that one could own a decent used Lexus or BMW or Benz...or pay off a huge chunk of their mortgage...for the price on a 600mm or 800mm system lens.

It's sad when anyone with long term debt or kids to feed and educate prioritize $16k lenses over important life costs but it happens. Generics have an important place in photography.

Putting in the time using cameras and lenses will always lead to better composed and exposed photographs than any gear buying decision made by someone who buys something and expects the brand name to make them better. The first element to becoming a better photographer is never going to be gear.

I do like the elitist reference portion of your remarks. Put a check mark next to my name on that one. If I can afford a system lens, which I usually can, and will be able to use it more than two days a year, which is any lens that will focus within the length of my living room, I'll always buy the system lens designed for the camera I am using. It's a no brainer. Buying top of the line bodies to attach just alright lenses to has always been disappointing because when I see results side by side, the system results are always better (when an experienced photographer is holding the camera) when an image is composed and exposed.

It's my opinion that the user is always the most overlooked cog in the performance of any system. There is good reason that people who shoot any OEM lens system on a regular basis will likely never be thrilled with generics. Generics are less inexpensive because of what's left off of them.

I've got a pile of perfectly usable Sigma and Tamron lenses whose time in my photo life has come and gone that make appearances once in a while, but they will never be Nikon system (or Sony or Canon) designed lenses. But they will be used plenty by whoever I meet who needs a better lens than they already can afford and I give them to them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any lens if it works for someone but it's impossible to tell what's missing or deficient about a generic lens until you shoot it next to the proper system lens.

If someone is truly enjoying themselves the next time they release their shutter the gear they are using is just fine.

I have some very expensive lenses but i try to buy fit for purpose.
If you need a particular focal length and cant afford the genuine then get the third party.
Its better to get the shot with whatever lens you have than to miss it.
Having said that its also better if you can afford it to go genuine.
The real Z lenses are usable wide open and will have better firmware supports in the future.
Also they tend to be tougher made and nicer to use.
Lenses like the Tamron made Nikon 70-180 have a purpose but are a little old fashioned in comparison.
I've been lucky to be an overpaid product photographer for most of my life ...

ajrmd · Aug 1, 2023

I've been very impressed with this little lens with tremendous range and function on the Z8. Sharp wide open at 180mm with nice bokeh. Though it doesn't have built in VR, with the in-camera stabilization, it is more than adequate for ES. It's a nice, discrete, lens, perfect for everyday use and travel. Next up, trying it with the 1.4x TC.

sdk · Aug 1, 2023

ajrmd said:
I've been very impressed with this little lens with tremendous range and function on the Z8. Sharp wide open at 180mm with nice bokeh. Though it doesn't have built in VR, with the in-camera stabilization, it is more than adequate for ES. It's a nice, discrete, lens, perfect for everyday use and travel. Next up, trying it with the 1.4x TC.

I really like the 70-180 with both of the Z-TCs. Like you said... a great little kit!

Jerry Watson · Aug 1, 2023

Verdict: I guess I am getting it!

fcotterill · Aug 3, 2023

Fyi

What Makes for a Great Lens? | Cameras and Photography Explained | Thom Hogan

What are the things that make a lens great?

bythom.com

Roy · Aug 3, 2023

The only thing I like about the new 70-180 is the price ...

Len Shepherd · Aug 3, 2023

Calson said:
I am especially attracted to the new lens with its close focus distance of only 10.6 inches. After losing the use of the 200mm f/4 macro lens with the move to Z cameras the 70-180 may be an adequate replacement.

I was similarly attracted - though after a couple of hours ownership found it not very good for "near macro" - and sent it back.

Nikon point out that although it does near half life-size at 70 mm it does not have a flat field at these settings.

At 180 mm it has only a quarter life size ability.

IBIS is probably worth about 3.5 stops at 180mm at longer focus distances - and less when focussed closer.

I consider the lens to be a good optical performer with fast AF at a low price - but some way from ideal for close near macro.

Craig Yuill · Aug 3, 2023

I think that it is good to have alternative lenses at various price points. I like to own top-notch lenses, when I can afford them. But when money is tight, and I need a lens, I won’t hesitate to consider lower-cost alternatives that have a good reputation. I can’t take pictures unless I have a lens - and I won’t have a lens if I can’t afford it.

For various reasons I gradually acquired a “budget” trio of used lenses that I mostly use with my D500 - F-mount AF-P DX Nikkor 10-20mm, 18-55mm, and 70-300mm VR “kit” lenses. I have been pleasantly surprised by how good they are optically. With thoughtful use and technique I have no problems with getting sharp images out of these lenses. They won’t suit photographers needing wide apertures and rugged construction, but they mostly meet my needs.

I doubt very much that Nikon would have introduced Tamron-designed lenses unless they had good optics. I am sure that the 70-180mm lens is a good lens. It lacks some buttons and VR. If those features are important to you then this is not the lens for you. But if the lens’ features meet your needs and the price is friendly to your budget, why not consider it?

fcotterill · Aug 16, 2023

Review fyi

Nikon 70-180mm f/2.8 Lens Review | Thom Hogan

Review of the Nikon 70-180mm lens for the Z-mount

www.zsystemuser.com

To quote:
"....Final Words

I’m really glad that Nikon produced the Tamrikon f/2.8 trio of lenses. In particular, the 17-28mm is an extremely good performer, and with some limitations, so is the 70-180mm.

One might argue whether or not Nikon should have made an f/4 trio instead, but given the smallish size and weight of these f/2.8 lenses, coupled with their shared 67mm filter size, I’m not sure how much would have been gained. Plus the extra stop is useful as the light goes down, not so much for shutter speed as it is for focus performance. If you used these lenses at f/4 lenses, you should be getting really nice results.

That said, the 70-180mm f/2.8 is clearly weaker at f/2.8 than the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S, so if you’re needing edge-to-edge performance wide open all the time, this new 70-180mm f/2.8 might not be the right choice for you.

The full set of Tamrikon f/2.8 zooms strikes me as particularly intriguing and useful to the Z5 and Z6 crowd, both of whom would be more on a budget and less likely to see any compromises in image quality in the corners. A Nikon 24-70mm f/4 S and 70-180mm f/2.8 make for a pretty lithe two-lens set, and adding the 17-28mm f/2.8 or 14-30mm f/4 S would round you out very nicely from very wide to moderate telephoto, without breaking the bank.

DX users also might find the 70-180mm f/2.8 a useful addition, because it gives you a 105-270mm equivalent zoom that is actually quite good in the DX boundaries. Moreover, the smaller size and lighter weight (compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S) is decidedly more DX friendly. The bummer for DX users is that none of the current bodies nor this lens have VR, so you’d better be handling your camera well.

The 70-180mm f/2.8 should make everyone look a bit more questioningly at our 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S lenses. Yes, the latter is clearly better optically wide open and outside the central area, plus it has in-lens VR. But it just looks big and heavy in my safari bag compared to the 70-180mm f/2.8. Moreover, the 1:2 capability of the 70-180mm f/2.8 opens up potential new uses (though not without limitations). Simply put, the 70-180mm f/2.8 travels more friendly without making any deal-killing compromise.

But compromise it does. If corners need to be tight and controlled, particularly wide open and closer up, the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S is the right option. If you need the best possible image stabilization, again the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S is the right option. But absent that, most folk should be happy with the 70-180mm f/2.8, as will their bank account.

Recommended (2023 to present).... "

Nimi · Aug 16, 2023

Maybe they should follow it with a 180-600 Tamrikon. Oh, wait...

NorthernFocus · Aug 16, 2023

There's a design concept known as "fit for purpose". This lens is a compromise just like a 70-200 f4 is a compromise vs 70-200 f2.8. It's pretty simple. For those not willing to compromise who can afford that decision(and haul the weight) this isn't the lens for you. Like most things in life you get what you pay for. It's not a bad thing. But paying for one thing and expecting another is a recipe for frustration.

Roy · Aug 16, 2023

NorthernFocus said:
There's a design concept known as "fit for purpose". This lens is a compromise just like a 70-200 f4 is a compromise vs 70-200 f2.8. It's pretty simple. For those not willing to compromise who can afford that decision(and haul the weight) this isn't the lens for you. Like most things in life you get what you pay for. It's not a bad thing. But paying for one thing and expecting another is a recipe for frustration.

Agreed - Its far beeter to have a lens that does the job than miss the shot waiting for the "perfect lens" ...

Ivy · Aug 17, 2023

I have Tamron's 70-200 f/2.8 but don't travel with it because it is too big to carry along with Nikon 300/500 PF or Tamron 150-600. So I bought Nikon's Z 70-180 knowing the downsides. Upside is I will be able to carry a fast lens with macro capabilities that takes a TC. Even though it is advised not to shoot wide open, I will shoot wide as needed and run photos thru Topaz. Will still travel with 300/500 PF for wildlife but mainly counting on replacing Tamron 150-600 with Nikon's Z 180-600 which will likely be my go to for wildlife. I think the 2 Z lenses will cover the bulk of my needs for the Z8 and Z9 alongside F mount 300 PF, 500 PF, 24-120 and 20 (astro). For me the 70-180 seems a better choice than the 100-400 given that I will usually have the 180-600 on the camera.

Photographer_Bill · Aug 17, 2023

NorthernFocus said:
For wildlife, landscape, and occasional indoor high school sports it does just fine. I replaced the 70-200 2.8 with the f4 version years ago after shooting both with no discernable difference in IQ other than bokeh. Now I'm replacing the 70-200 f4G with the Z 70-180 again with no discernable difference in IQ but gaining a stop and getting improved bokeh. So it's all good. The only thing I'm not crazy about is that it is not a fixed length zoom. There always seems to be some compromise....

Interesting as I just sold my 70-200 f/2.8 S after using it since late last year, I also have the 70-200 f/4G which has been a phenomenal performer for me from my old DSLR days but this lens performs even better on the Z8, in fact, in some ways I prefer the bokeh of the f/4G more than the f/2.8 S as the 2.8 S can sometimes render OOF areas somewhat busy depending on the background. Even with the FTZ the f/4G is light and snappy to maneuver at 975 grams. The Nikron 70-180 f/2.8 presents an interesting option especially since it is compatible with the TC's, with the 1.4 TC you have a 100-250 f/4 lens that is 1005 grams (only 30 grams/ 1 oz heavier than the 70-200 f.4G with FTZ). My biggest question would be how good does the 70-180 with 1.4x TC render OOF areas. I won't know the answer to that until I get my hands on a 70-180 but have decided to hold off until next year after prices settle a bit, in the meantime I've decided to be an early adopter of the 180-600 lens and hope this lens performs above my expectations for a non-S lens.

Jerry Watson · Aug 18, 2023

I did a hummingbird burst with the 70-180. The results are mixed. To be fair the sun was behind the bird and not close. I switch to DX and did a AF handoff from Wide Area Small to 3D. I had to bring up the shadows in post processing and clip.