Best 70-200mm f/2.8 Lenses Compared 22 April 2018 . Nikon DX vs. Sony A7 II, 24-70/2.8 GM & 70-200/4 G Comparison Feb 2017. All 24-70mm Lenses Compared 26 January 2016. Ultra-Ultrawides compared 26 March 2015 . Premium 50mm lenses compared September 2014. Nikon 400mm f/2.8 Lenses Compared 09 July 2014. Nikon 50mm and 58mm Bokeh Comparison 11

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM – $2,198. Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM – $1,999. Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED – $1,697. Tokina AT-X 24-70mm f/2.8 Pro FX – $937. It’s less than half the cost of each of the three current models, and only a little over half the cost of the previous Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G. Of course, DXOMark scores don’t tell you

Here is how both compare at 24mm: Here is the comparison between the two when we zoom in to 70mm: In short, the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR does not stand a chance against the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR at shorter focal lengths. At 70mm, the 24-120mm starts dropping in sharpness in the center, but still outperforms in the mid-frame and corners.
The Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 OS Art is a standard 2.9x zoom available in mounts for Canon, Nikon and Sigma DSLRs with full-frame sensors, and can also be used with Sony E-Mount bodies using Sigma's MC-11 mount converter. It has a very good image stabilization and is shorter, cheaper, produces less loCA, has a better Bokeh, and shows less vignetting Summary. Without a doubt, the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR is a very sharp and versatile lens that is optically comparable to some of Nikon’s professional lenses such as the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, yielding great results at comparable focal lengths. During my lab and field tests, my goal was to see how well it would perform against its bigger brother The Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR is not a heavy-duty metal lens that you can drive your car over, nor is it meant to be. At 570 grams / 1.25 pounds, it’s barely heavier than the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 kit lens (which is 500 g / 1.10 lbs). Nikon went with an external plastic construction to save weight, except for a few important points like the

This lens has gotten a bad rap. I've just tested my old Nikkor 24-70 f:2.8 next to my new Nikkor 24-70 f:2.8 VR, and in controlled (but not scientific lab) conditions I'm finding the new lens superior on all fronts. Sharper across the entire picture area. I think there might be a little hysteria going on out there.

The new NIKKOR 16-80 f/2.8-4 is sculpted from polycarbonate. Its older sibling, the NIKKOR 17-55 f/2.8, is a metal monster of a lens. The new lens’s satin texture makes the plastic body feel solid and keeps it from screaming, “Plastic!”. Rub your hands over it, however, and it definitely does not feel like painted metal.
The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 will be a lot better than the Nikon 24-85 - they are in different classes. One is supposed to be a budget lens, and the other is set to compete with Nikon's best. Or are you referring to the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? If you did mean the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8, then also consider the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 and the Nikon 28-300mm. nuZLt.
  • b7jmkobk35.pages.dev/61
  • b7jmkobk35.pages.dev/144
  • b7jmkobk35.pages.dev/265
  • b7jmkobk35.pages.dev/122
  • b7jmkobk35.pages.dev/280
  • b7jmkobk35.pages.dev/164
  • b7jmkobk35.pages.dev/443
  • b7jmkobk35.pages.dev/271

    • nikon 24 70 f2 8 vr review