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.
I have this 55-200mm VR, the 70-300mm VR, the 80-400mm VR and the huge 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-s. This tiny 55-200mm VR is the first tele I grab for my D40. I grab the 70-300mm VR for larger FX or film cameras, but not for DX. I never use the 80-400mm VR or 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-s because they are too big. The Nikon 55-200mm VR is very inexpensive. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR II Nano Zoom. āļāļēāļĢāļ—āļģāļ‡āļēāļ™āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļĢāļ°āļšāļš VR āļˆāļ°āđ€āļ—āļĩāļĒāļšāđ€āļ—āđˆāļēāļāļąāļšāđƒāļŠāđ‰āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāđ€āļĢāđ‡āļ§ āļŠāļąāļ”āđ€āļ•āļ­āļĢāđŒāļŠāļđāļ‡āļ‚āļķāđ‰āļ™ 3 āļŠāļ•āđ‡āļ­āļ› ( 8 āđ€āļ—āđˆāļē) āļāļēāļĢāļĨāļ”āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļąāđˆāļ™āļŠāļ°āđ€āļ—āļ·āļ­āļ™āļŠāļģāļŦāļĢāļąāļš have Nikon D810 had exactly the same problem with brand new Nikon 70-200 VRII 2.8 lens was good first and the it started clunking, bought on line, complained to Nikon , took it in numerous times was serviced in Toronto a couple times and problem remains after 2 1/2 years - bottom line though is it takes excellent pictures and Nikon keeps telling me nothing wrong with lens - still "clunks

What struck me is that despite this ‘latest’ model being called VRii, its version of VR is certainly not the latest, being 8 years old now. Compared to the 70-200/4 or 200-500/5.6, the VR is not particularly good. Additionally, the weight is basically the same as the old model I’ve got, i.e. it’s a bit of a beast!

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 Below you can see four fast telezooms side by side; from left to right, the Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS USM, Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm F2.8 G, Tamron 70-200mm 1:2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro, and Sigma 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG Apo Macro HSM II. All are well built and finished lenses which are (not surprisingly) pretty similar in size and weight, and share Look at the MTF curves; this tiny 50-250 is superior to the ultra-pro 70-200/2.8 VR II. Especially as I write this, you should get this 50-250mm lens along with a Z50 as a kit for very little extra money. It's an extraordinary lens and far better than trying to adapt an old lens to your awesome new Z50. Video Version of this Review
Weight: 6.4 Oz (plate, Nikon. NIKON LENSES. Plate Recommendations for: 70-200 2.8 VR II: P-20: P-20: P-20: 70-200 2.8 E FL VR: P-20: P-20:
Nikon 70-300mm VR. OVERALL. It performs better than any of the previous 70-300mm lenses. This is the lens to get if your subjects hold still. If you need to shoot moving things in lower light, get the faster 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D instead. If size, weight and cost are no object (they are for me), get the 70-200mm VR or 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. Dariusz Breś compared three different 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses on the Nikon Z7 mirrorless cameras (see his previous guest posts here): Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR lens for Nikon F ; Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports lens for Nikon F ($1,379) Nikon Nikkor Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S lens for Nikon Z .
  • 7mvgh1b32y.pages.dev/130
  • 7mvgh1b32y.pages.dev/321
  • 7mvgh1b32y.pages.dev/380
  • 7mvgh1b32y.pages.dev/471
  • 7mvgh1b32y.pages.dev/375
  • 7mvgh1b32y.pages.dev/78
  • 7mvgh1b32y.pages.dev/128
  • 7mvgh1b32y.pages.dev/266

    • nikon 70 200 f2 8 vr ii weight