Why is Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8G ED VR II better than Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F/4G ED VR? 30% wider aperture at minimum focal length ? f/2.8 vs f/4.0 The Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED VR is Nikon’s newest addition to the popular range of 70-200mm zooms. But this time it is not a replacement for an older lens but an alternative to the top of the range AF-S 70-200/2.8G ED VR. Both lenses are compatible with full-frame DSLRs and feature vibration reduction to counteract camera shake. For this next image the 80-400mm was left wide open and the 300mm + TC and 70-200mm + TC were both stopped down 1 stop to F8. You can see that going down 1 stop really brings the 80-400mm and the 300mm F4 + 1.4 TC much closer in terms of sharpness – however, the 80-400mm is still at F5.6 – a huge one stop advantage. Given the specifications, I doubt that this lens will match the 24-70 F4's IQ at any focal length, for starters the older lens takes larger filters (72 vs 67), suggesting at the very least, better corners at the wide end especially at large apertures. I see the 24-200 as an f/8+ lens. Buy Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S Lens featuring Z-Mount Lens/FX Format, Aperture Range: f/2.8 to f/22, ED, SR, and Fluorite Elements, ARNEO and Nano Crystal Coatings, Multi-Focus Stepping Motor AF System, Vibration Reduction Image Stabilization, Programmable Control Ring, Information OLED Panel and L.Fn Button, Weather-Sealed Design, Fluorine Coating. 80-200 ED vs 70-200 2.8 vr1. Sep 14, 2016. I recently purchased a Nikon 80-200 2.8 ed paired with a nikon d500 to shoot high school football. The picture quality is incredible, its built like a tank and I love it. However the lens seems to back focus and miss focus more than I would like it to causing me to miss some shots. AN8R. For travel and casual, the 24-200 would be fine. The 24-70 f/4 is a bit sharper (especially in the middle of the range) but the 24-200 is probably more versatile. I would say if your budget allows, buy the kit with the 24-200 and buy a second hand (used) 24-70 f/4 (you can get them used for around $400+). Went through the f4 vs f2.8 a couple of months ago. Decided not to keep the f2.8. It doesn’t afford you significantly more shooting practicality over the f4, it does the same, slightly sharper, slightly more background separation, slightly more shutter speed in the dark. It’s big and bulky, but balanced. Still, it becomes something I don What is the difference between Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm F/2.8G ED and Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm F2.8E ED VR? Find out which is better and their overall performance in the camera lens ranking. That said, I’m glad Nikon went this route rather than introducing the 14-24mm f/2.8 first. The 14-30mm f/4 simply has a broader appeal than the upcoming f/2.8 zoom, which will be significantly heavier and more expensive by comparison. NIKON Z 7 + NIKKOR Z 14-30mm f/4 S @ 14mm, ISO 200, 1/5, f/16.0 Lens Size and Weight Given the specifications, I doubt that this lens will match the 24-70 F4's IQ at any focal length, for starters the older lens takes larger filters (72 vs 67), suggesting at the very least, better corners at the wide end especially at large apertures. I see the 24-200 as an f/8+ lens. Nikon 70-200mm ƒ/2.8G ED VR II AF-S ~$2,400 This is the big decision many Nikon photographers will be looking to make: spend $1,000 to get an extra stop of light-gathering ability?

nikkor 70 200 f4 vs f2 8