Photos OK to edit. Aug 12, 2014. #8. Thom Hogan's 70-200 VR II review shows side-by-side image comparisons, and yesthe Nikkor 70-200 VR II loses a TON of effective focal length at minimum focusing distance at 200mm, where the VR II is actually134mm in measured, effective, real, actual focal length.
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 youNikon D750, 100% crop, 70 mm@f2.8, left Nikkor 24-70G, right Tamron 24-70 G2. G version of Nikon lens slightly outperforms new VR version in central sharpness (except of 24mm in this comparison). The difference is most pronounced at 70mm. Where VR version shines above all 20-70s is edge of frame.All reviews of the Nikon 24-70 refer to AF speed and reliability as being impeccable. Just ordered a Refurb 24-70 2.8 N (non VR) from Nikon USA. They have 10% off now and was able to get at equivalent to roughly 'Excellent' condition used price of most used retailers. USD1,350 for a Refurb 24-70 2.8 is pretty good I think.
Nevertheless, here’s the list that we have tested in the lab and can guarantee out-resolve the 24 MP sensor of these Nikon Z cameras: Sigma 14mm f/1.8 A ( our review) Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ( our review) Nikon 19mm f/4E PC ( our review) Nikon 20mm f/1.8G ( our review) Nikon 24mm f/1.4G ( our review)
. 197 138 10 56 11 244 489 93