🐡 Nikon 24 70 F2 8 Vr Review

This 70-200 FL is a huge improvement over the old 70-200/2.8 VR II from 2009 because it weighs less and focuses much closer. While the rated close-focus distances aren't that much different, older 70-200s cheated and didn't really go to 200mm at close distances. This new FL lens really is 200mm at close distances. If you don't mind putting a big lens on the Z, an adapted AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR will scratch the f/2.8 itch while you wait for Nikon to release the native Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S, which is well, 24-85 f3.5-4.5 is the same tack sharp at f5-6 and costs 50% of 24-120 (comparing both 2nd hand). dxo says they both have max 8mpix on a d700 & 16mpix on d850. so, in 3/4 of cases you’d be wasting your money, you could instead put that money into a 70-200 f4 which is excellentissime. The 105mm f/1.4, 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, 600mm f/4, and 800mm f/5.6 are all exceptional on a D8xx body. The 105mm, 200mm, and 400mm are the best performers, but none of the others are very far behind at all. The MTF charts for these lenses tend to look as close to flat lines as you’ll find, and I find that produces One of my pet peeves about Nikon is how large the 24-70 f2.8 is (coming from Canon and the superb L 24-70 f2.8 II) and on the Z7 it feels ridiculous. Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain Above: Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 OS Art on D810 at 35mm, f2.8. Above: Nikon 24-70mm f2.8E VR on D850 at 35mm, f2.8. Above: Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 VC on a D850 at 35mm, f2.8. At 35mm focal length both Tamrons beat the Sigma and the Nikon in the DX image-circle while the FX-corner is won by the Nikon. Performance at 50mm: Like the 16-85mm before it, the 16-80mm f/2.8-4 isn’t a big lens, all things considered. It seems appropriately downsized for DX. Compared to the 24-120mm f/4 FX zoom it most directly compares to for FX, it’s 0.7” (17.5mm) shorter and almost 9 ounces (230g) lighter. This is exactly what we wanted from Nikon, frankly. .

nikon 24 70 f2 8 vr review