That is inexpensive compared with Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for $1600. But why Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 (I believe without VR) costs $1200, compared with Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for only $1000?
That is inexpensive compared with Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for $1600. But why Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 (I believe without VR) costs $1200, compared with Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for only $1000?
WENXUECITY.COM does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by other users.
Copyright ©1998-2025 wenxuecity.com All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Terms of Use & User Privacy Protection Policy