16-35mm f/4 VR (2010-today) top. 16-35mm VR. For Nikon FX DSLRs, The 16-35mm is sharp, sharp, sharp, even wide open, and even in the corners. I've shot a lot of fixed 24mm, 20mm, 18mm, 17mm, 15mm and 14mm lenses in my days, and this zoom is sharper. The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S is the precursor to the 16-35mm VR.
As I mentioned earlier, the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L is $2700 and the Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 is $2600. Still, lower cost 70-200mm f/2.8 options exist, such as the $2350 Nikon F-mount 70-200mm f/2.8E FL and some third-party options like those from Sigma or Tamron that are well under $2000 (though lower-end lenses overall). Otherwise, the Nikon I had bought the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (non stabilized) in 2007, used it for a few months and traded it out for the Nikon 70-200 VR. So my review is with reference to 3 year old models and not the latest. Nikon over Sigma + Nikon has faster focus speeds + There were more keeper shots thanks to the VR feature compared to the non-OS Sigma Amazonian Toucanets. In late 2012 I decided to buy a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and coupled it with my new D7100. My hope was that the sharpness and versatility would outmatch my 55-300mm mounted on my D5100. Regrettably, I was in budget mode and opted for the $800 Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di IF. Although brand new, it was an old design.The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is up there with the best of the best lenses for bokeh. Who is the Nikon 70 200mm VR II for? Because of the long focal length possibilities, the Nikon 70-200 VR II should probably be in your bag if you shoot Nikon and you do portraits. The Nikkor 70-200 also is really good for sports photography.If I could rank them overall I'd say Nikon VR ii, Sigma Sport, Tamron G2, with the Nikon E FL being the best. You really can't go wrong with any of those four though. As far as image quality goes, with pixel peeping you might swap the Sigma and Tamron in my ranking but I'd really say they are basically tied for 2nd place. 3. 6ZxEc. 360 279 236 371 141 274 227 301 113