Nikon Z 70-180 f/2.8 - A very personal Review

 

I have now owned and used the 70-180 f/2.8 for a few months, taking it to Madeira and on various walks through the winter forest. It is probably time to write some words of review about this nice lens. You find my personal impressions here. A complete review is on the Photography Life site.

Like all good Nikon Z lenses, this is not really a cheap lens. It is only cheap relative to the 2000€ alternative, the 24-200 f/2.8 VR S. That is a bulkier S-line lens featuring VR and maybe a better coating. I can't compare to it here. And I do not want to spend that much money on a lens unless I really needed it. I believe that the 70-180 f/2.8 is most likely all you want, and there is not enough benefit going for the heavier, bulkier and more expensive S-line lens. 

The images above shows one of my three use cases of such a lens. 

• Portraits.
• Objects.
• Landscape.

The first image is taken from a distance, like street photography with a telephoto lens. If that is your style to shoot on the street, the 70-180 will fit. It does not look that much like an impressive professional lens, drawing immediate attention to you. You can get smaller, but not with a full frame body and a telephoto zoom.

You can come very close and you should. The lens will deliver good Bokeh then. Focus speed is okay for that kind of photography. The lens is wide enough to offer enough light for the AF system, even on my Z5. Of course, f/2.8 is a very shallow depth of field. You may want to use f/4 for people.

The type of background affects the quality of the Bokeh. If it is not optimal, go closer the subject or really use f/2.8. Selecting another background is not always possible, but worth trying. The Bokeh in the image above is a tad to busy for my taste. The reason is that I took f/5.6 by accident. In this case, f/2.8 would have looked much nicer.

You can use the lens also for wildlife if it is not too far away. Of course, the image above is taken in the zoo. This lens is not a Safari lens where you might be far away from your subjects. That kind of shooting is not my cup of tea anyway. But if wildlife comes close enough 180mm are long enough. The quality of this lens also allows some further cropping.

Birds are a different story and always difficult. 180mm is not good enough for birds high in the sky or small birds sitting in a tree. The macro converter (which works on this lens) is still not good enough. If you cannot get close, you need a much more powerful telephoto lens.

Macros, or rather micro shots, are my second use case for this lens. The lens is not really a macro lens. The maximal magnification rate is only 1:2.1, achieved on the 70mm end. If your object is large enough, it is much better to use the longer end to get a better background. The lens is capable of producing very nice Bokeh. It can replace a macro lens for non-tiny objects.

My third use case is landscape photography. Most people associate wide angle lenses with landscapes. This is true if you think of majestic mountain panoramas or wide open planes. Even then, a wide lens works only with a proper foreground.

In contrast to a wide lens, a telephoto lens will condense the distances and capture only portion of your view. That is easier to compose properly, and works more often.

If you call that a special look, I agree. The 70mm end, however, looks more normal and I use it frequently on my 24-70 lens. For some pictures, 70mm simply is not close enough.

I find the 70-180 f/2.8 enormously versatile for hiking or biking. I see more often a scene which fits the telephoto range than a composition for a wide angle. A long lens helps to select what you see much easier than a wide angle lens. And photography is more about leaving objects out of the frame than including everything.

If you are asking for sharpness or other lens issues, I have good news. It is sharp across the frame if you stop down to f5.6. Even wide open, the center is very good. I found no other disturbing issues with this lens. For comparison, the lens is optically much better than the 24-200 alternative in its range. I had that before, but never were really satisfied with its result out of the 35-70 range. 

Finally, I recommend this lens for the situations I described above. And that covers a lot of photography.