Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Nasim Mansurov's 70-200 f/4 vs, f/2.8 head to head comparison - the verdict is in
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave_W" data-source="post: 112156" data-attributes="member: 9521"><p>Very interesting new post by Nasim on the 70-200mm f/4.0. You can read the entire post <a href="http://photographylife.com/nikon-70-200mm-f4-vs-f2-8" target="_blank">HERE </a>or just skip to the conclusion that I've cut and pasted below.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Candara'">Hence, unless you really need the fast aperture of f/2.8 for low-light situations and shallower depth of field beyond 13 feet (and maybe slightly better highlight bokeh), there is little reason to buy the heavy and expensive 70-200mm f/2.8G. Overall, there is little to complain about on the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR. Similar to the </span></span><a href="http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-50mm-f1-8g" target="_blank">Nikon 50mm f/1.8G</a><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Candara'"> and the </span></span><a href="http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-85mm-f1-8g" target="_blank">Nikon 85mm f/1.8G</a><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Candara'"> lenses, I will be recommending this lens over the f/2.8 version going forward.</span></span><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">I'm feeling very good about holding off on filling in this lens. As this pattern of newer pro-sumer lenses being better than the full-blown pro lenses, I think it's safe to say Nikkor has made a quantum leap in their lens design. I can't wait until Nikkor releases updated pro lenses using these new designs. </span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave_W, post: 112156, member: 9521"] Very interesting new post by Nasim on the 70-200mm f/4.0. You can read the entire post [URL="http://photographylife.com/nikon-70-200mm-f4-vs-f2-8"]HERE [/URL]or just skip to the conclusion that I've cut and pasted below. [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Candara]Hence, unless you really need the fast aperture of f/2.8 for low-light situations and shallower depth of field beyond 13 feet (and maybe slightly better highlight bokeh), there is little reason to buy the heavy and expensive 70-200mm f/2.8G. Overall, there is little to complain about on the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR. Similar to the [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-50mm-f1-8g"]Nikon 50mm f/1.8G[/URL][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Candara] and the [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-85mm-f1-8g"]Nikon 85mm f/1.8G[/URL][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Candara] lenses, I will be recommending this lens over the f/2.8 version going forward.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] I'm feeling very good about holding off on filling in this lens. As this pattern of newer pro-sumer lenses being better than the full-blown pro lenses, I think it's safe to say Nikkor has made a quantum leap in their lens design. I can't wait until Nikkor releases updated pro lenses using these new designs. [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Nasim Mansurov's 70-200 f/4 vs, f/2.8 head to head comparison - the verdict is in
Top
