nikon 70-200 vrii vs 200 f2 vri

Started Mar 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
azoele
Contributing MemberPosts: 629
Like?
Re: nikon 70-200 vrii vs 200 f2 vri
In reply to BEERandBBQ, Mar 7, 2013

BEERandBBQ wrote:

Thanks all for the replies so far. Let me slightly modify my original statement. The 70-200 does focus rather quickly, Ive just been frustrated lately trying to capture lower light action shots (given we've been stuck in the house with bad weather), and Ive not really found a great solution, even the Sigma 35 has been lacking a bit in focus time. Indoors, the 70-200 is generally too long.

Anyhow, I was merely wondering if the 200 f2 was worth the upgrade, given I usually use the 70-200 near 200mm range. I absolutely love the samples Ive seen of the 200 f2, it truly seems like one of the best if not the best nikon lens out there. Also I generally use the 70-200 at 2.8 rarely any lower aperatures, mainly because I just any chance for decent bokeh. I also have the 105 dc, which is great, but often a bit too short, and for action shots, way too slow.

Really my biggest worry is turning heads with the bigger lens and preventing good shots because people are so aware of the lens! Holding/carrying the weight/size Im not so worried about.

As usual, Mike is spot on!

My comments mirror his perfectly: the 70-200 VR II is an exceptional lens, but the 200/2, especially at a distance and wide open, blows it out of the water. At f2 it is already exceedingly good (on the low res bodies I own, D3s/D4).

Nothing to add technically, so I'll add something about the useof the beast: the 200/2 is a hell of a lens, very heavy. I train almost daily, and am youngish and of large build, but still, handholding it for some time is really a strain. Swinging it, or crouching with it, requires some will
Carrying it is even more of a hassle, as it is huge, and you'll be very careful, given the cost involved Planes become difficult, as if feels a large chunk of my onboard luggage, for instance.
I travelled 15 days with it through Turkey, and I can tell you, that was a hard choice. You really feel it on your back after a day of walking.
Also, while performance is mesmerizing, get ready for much frustrations: F2 requires an excellently tuned autofocus and lots of practice.

If you can, it's just the ticket to extraordinary images. But as you'll see after the initial amazement, it is a lens that requires much commitment.

Lory

p.s.

Surprised you find the 105DC too slow for "action", unless you're shooting very fast objects coming at you. If it is properly tuned (few are, mine would like a +25 probably...), it is relatively good at tracking once the initial acquisition has been made, as it requires very little focus movement.
Pro bodies have a very torquey autofocus motor, and our D3s gets the 105DC to really pick up focus fast. I suspect the D600 has a quite less powerful motor giving you less than stellar performance.
I took shots of a 5 a side soccer with it, and was quite pleased by the results even at f2 (horrible lighting, iso 12800, f2, 1/250s or so, very, very yellow).

-- hide signature --

'The human race is a race of cowards. And I'm not only marching in that procession, but carrying a banner.'
Mark Twain

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