Focal Length Range : 70 -200 mm, Minimum Focus Distance : 3.28 ft. Optimized for capturing high-quality stills and HD videos on both FX- and DX-format cameras. Nikon's high-performance f/4 fixed aperture zoom lens. Weight- Approx-30.0 pounds. 20 elements in 14 groups (including 3 ED lens elements, one HRI lens element and lens elements with

The 70-200 mm 2.8 will give me an professional grade lens in a range that I use very often. With the TC, it will also give me the extended range that I sorely miss for the occasional birding / fleet week / wildlife shooting / super moon opportunity. I am very tempted to go with this option.
Your DXO comparison is between the old F 2.8 vs. The F mount 70-200 f/4. The new Z is significantly sharper than the old F 2.8. I actually posted this exact question a few days ago. I bought the F mount 70-200 f/4. It is quite a bit sharper than the 24-200, VR works excellent, AF is fast and accurate on a Z7. While the Tamron is sharper then other 3rd party 70-200 f/2.8 lenses it is not as sharp as the Nikon @ f/2.8 (old or new). I've got 100's of images that prove this and i have yet to see a paid photog (field reporter, sports shooter or anybody who's bread-n-butter lens is a 70-200 f/2.8) walking around with a Tamron.
Nikon D5500 Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Tokina 11-20mm F2.8 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-6.3G VR +1 more Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Hello, I own a 70-200 F2.8 VR II, which is a great lens. 47 Nikon Software; 26 Nikon Deals; 760 General Discussions; 49 Gear Reviews; 180 Other Manufacturers; 105 But for many of us, the 70-200 mm lens is our bread and butter. f/4 vs. f/2.8 – which 70-200mm lens do you need? Most lens manufacturer’s offer the 70-200 mm lens in two speeds…f/4 and f/2.8. The f/2.8 lens is a full stop faster, slightly heavier and more expensive (in Nikon, the price difference is about $800). Re: 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D vs. 70-200 f/4 vs. Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC In reply to Josh Jones • Oct 5, 2013 Thank you for the reply, there seems to be a lot of love for the 80-200.
I did have a 70-200 f4 5.6D. First the 180mm 2.8 d, I love the image quality and light weight of this lens but the fixed fixed focal length I do find limiting at times and the focus is slow compared to my other Nikon Lens. The 70 200 f4 5.6 very good image qulity and light weight, not fast focus but not too bad. Not better than 70-300VR, no VR
Nikon D750+Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR+Nikon 70-200 F4 VR+Nikon SB700 Tony Lau's gear list: Tony Lau's gear list Nikon Z7 Nikon AP-F 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 Nikon Z 85mm F1.8 Nikon Z 40mm F2 +7 more
The options are: Nikon 80-200mm F2.8D for €600. Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR II for €950. Read a lot of good things about the 80-200, built like a tank, great image quality, more budget friendly. I'm only worried will not be fast enough to my liking. The 70-200mm is newer, no doub it's optically just as great as the 80-200 but also a bit more

Agreed but this is true when using 70-200 2.8 or 70-200 f4 at 120mm f4. When it comes to 24-120 f4, the lens is at its weakest spot at 120mm f4. If you are capturing landscapes using small apertures (f8 to f11 or f16), then 24-120 f4 is the better choice as corner and edge sharpness is weak between 24-45mm on 24-70 2.8g lens.

http://www.artoftheimage.com - Nikon 70-200mm f4 BEATS the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR Nikkor Zoom Lens on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2hVjirm
At 100mm the 100-400 is f/4.5 vs f/2.8 so at lower focal lengths, the 70-200 wins, but when you extend out to 400mm you will be getting the equivalent DOF. Let’s be clear, I’m not proposing the 100-400 as a shallow DOF portrait lens, just saying under the right conditions you could achieve similar outcomes.
lz8CG.
  • 716p18wzmh.pages.dev/331
  • 716p18wzmh.pages.dev/250
  • 716p18wzmh.pages.dev/557
  • 716p18wzmh.pages.dev/54
  • 716p18wzmh.pages.dev/451
  • 716p18wzmh.pages.dev/83
  • 716p18wzmh.pages.dev/133
  • 716p18wzmh.pages.dev/573

    • nikon 70 200 f4 vs f2 8