Well, for the first time I’ve totally caved to popular demand and done a test I had little interest in doing. But after I did a Quick-Take post on the new Nikon 80-400 AF-S VR lens I received about two-dozen emails and comments asking if the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR II lens with a Nikon 2X III teleconverter was as good as, or better than, the new 800-400 AF-S VR.
4.690.000₫ 5.690.000₫. Ống kính Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8G ED VR II Nano là một ống kính tele mạnh mẽ và linh hoạt với khẩu độ tối đa không thay đổi rất hữu ích khi chụp trong điều kiện ánh sáng yếu. Đây là một ống kính rất được ưa chuộng bởi các chuyên gia nhiếp ảnh và
Just for the sake of it however, let's compare the Nikon 200mm f/2 vs. the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8. If you take a look at the images below, they're a comparison at 100% between the two lenses at
Makes a real difference. The 70-200 VR II has the best build quality I have ever seen. Its really built to take whatever you dish out and last. The F 2.8 speed is a bright enough lens to use a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter quite handily to give you 320 or 400 mm focal lengths. The F4 lens is a bit too slow for teleconverters.
Nikon 70-200mm ƒ/2.8G ED VR II AF not the least of which is its small profile and light weight. Nikon users have long looked at Canon with longing for a smaller version of the 70-200mm ƒ/2.8
In reply to ChapelThrill23 • Dec 12, 2016. ChapelThrill23 wrote: The Nikon 70-200/4 is a fantastic landscape lens and I highly recommend it. It is half the weight of a 70-200 and is excellent optically. Being able to go to 2.8 isn't a huge advantage for landscape applications and the VR is very good for lower light.
nTUUuE. 4ygyf1hvwk.pages.dev/4894ygyf1hvwk.pages.dev/534ygyf1hvwk.pages.dev/4014ygyf1hvwk.pages.dev/5814ygyf1hvwk.pages.dev/204ygyf1hvwk.pages.dev/3834ygyf1hvwk.pages.dev/2234ygyf1hvwk.pages.dev/287
nikon 70 200 f2 8 vr ii weight
