Lenses with maximum apertures of f2.8 allow the camera to use all high precision sensors. In low light or other situations that are hostile to autofocus, that’s a big deal. Lenses with a maximum aperture of f4.0 use only the center focus sensor in its “high precision” mode, and use the other sensors in their “horizontal line” only mode. 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D vs 70-200 f/4. I'll admit this is a case of not knowing exactly what I want So I have a 70-300VR as my long telephoto on my D600. I want something faster. The 70-200/4 is intriguing and caused me to even make this comparison. Let's say the choices are new 70-200/4 @ $1400, new 80-200 AF-D @ $1100 and used 80-200 AF-D @ $750 While the Tamron is sharper then other 3rd party 70-200 f/2.8 lenses it is not as sharp as the Nikon @ f/2.8 (old or new). I've got 100's of images that prove this and i have yet to see a paid photog (field reporter, sports shooter or anybody who's bread-n-butter lens is a 70-200 f/2.8) walking around with a Tamron. Focal Length Range : 70 -200 mm, Minimum Focus Distance : 3.28 ft. Optimized for capturing high-quality stills and HD videos on both FX- and DX-format cameras. Nikon's high-performance f/4 fixed aperture zoom lens. Weight- Approx-30.0 pounds. 20 elements in 14 groups (including 3 ED lens elements, one HRI lens element and lens elements with And also own a 300 f2.8 VR and 500 f4 AF-S. The 70-200 f2.8 VR is both versatile and sharp on all three of my cameras: D300, D300s and D7100. And it has some useful range for wildlife with the TC-14E. With DX I just can't see giving up the shallow DOF with all three of my current long lenses. . F-Mount Lens/FX Format. Aperture Range: f/2.8 to f/22. One XLD Element, Five LD Elements. eBAND, BBAR, and Fluorine Coatings. Show More. A popular telephoto zoom for a variety of shooting applications, this Nikon F-mount SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens from Tamron is characterized by its bright f/2.8 constant maximum aperture, as well as While the Tamron is sharper then other 3rd party 70-200 f/2.8 lenses it is not as sharp as the Nikon @ f/2.8 (old or new). I've got 100's of images that prove this and i have yet to see a paid photog (field reporter, sports shooter or anybody who's bread-n-butter lens is a 70-200 f/2.8) walking around with a Tamron. If Nikon made a 24-70 f/4 you'd probably see something similar to what people see in the 70-200mm f4 vs the 70-200mm f/2.8. For what it does, the 24-120mm f/4 is really a very good lens. The VR is excellent. However as others have suggested, if you don't mind carrying two lenses, you might be better off with the 24-85MM VR + the 70-200 f/4 Captured with the 70-200mm f/4 lens. As a landscape photographer, it’s rare that you need f/2.8, especially for the type of images I tend to capture. It’s more important for me to save weight (1540 gm/3.2 lbs versus 850 gm/1.9 lbs) since my backpack gets quite heavy when carrying all my lenses and cameras, a tripod, and other accessories. 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

nikon 70 200 f4 vs f2 8