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 http://www.artoftheimage.com - DOWNSIZING from Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 to 70-200mm f4 & WHYNikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR on Amazon at http://amzn.to 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. Nikon Z 70-180mm VS 70-200mm F2.8 Nikon 600 PF f6.3 vs 600 F4 TC vs 400 F2.8 TC Tuesday, 28 November 2023 04:33. $4800 vs $15500 - Is this a fair fight?? F2.8 give an extra stop of light, shallower depth of field wide open, are generally larger, heavier and more expensive. Depends on the lens but a 2.8 stopped down to f4 is usually sharper than a f4 lens wide open. Sharpness, colour rendition, contrasts, distortion, aberrations etc. depends on the lens. 1. Dubdah. Vignetting is not an issue with either of these lenses. The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 has negligible vignetting at any setting, while the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 only has noticeable vignetting wide open at f/2.8 (and even then, it’s not bad). Stop the 70-200mm down to f/4, and especially f/5.6, and vignetting disappears. 4. 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 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. Vay Tiền Nhanh Chỉ Cần Cmnd.

nikon 70 200 f4 vs f2 8