200mm f2 or 300mm 2.8 ?

Started Mar 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
Regular MemberPosts: 410
Re: I own both...
In reply to SNRatio, Mar 18, 2012

SNRatio wrote:

scorpiuspix wrote:

...go for the 200/2 if you're choosing. With a 1.4x I notice no difference between it and the 300/2.8 personally. And it's stubbier, so you can more easily sneak it in past the rent a cops at sporting events, etc. And of course, f/2! It would be the very last Nikkor lens I would ever part with, if I had to part with all of my Nikkors one-by-one.


It will also probably be my route, as I have already got the 300/4 AF-S, which with 1.4 or 1.7 TCs makes fully usable 420/5.6 and 510/6.7alternatives. AF is quite OK on the D700 with the 1.7TC. And the 300/4 is so much lighter and easier to handle than the 300/2.8!

The 200/2 with 1.4,1.7 and 2 TCs will fill in this later, to give variants up to a fully usable 400/4.

But if you are shooting a lot of outdoor sports, and need a 600/5.6 in a pinch, the 300/2.8 (with TCs) is surely the way to go. There's no substitute for that, I think.

Very interesting. The D800 opens up a new world of possibilities with 200/2.0 since we have FF and 1.5 DX crop in one camera.

1) D800 FF mode + 200/2.0 (portrait and landscapes)
2) D800 + DX (crop1.5x) = 300/2.0 (bird in flight/ sports)

3) D800 + DX mode, the 200/2.0 + 2TCIII = 600/4.0. birding and wildlife

What do you think about this, especially the third option with the new 2E TC III?
IQ loss?
AF speed?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow