Reading mode: Light Dark

[Poll]: Nikkor 200mm/2VR owners

Go to last post
I have this lens. 100% satisfied. Some old photos taken with this lens



 
So far this poll proves one thing - there are not that many owners!

But for my vote, I'll take one!
--
I can only count from 1.4 to 2.8 - is something wrong with me?
 
Sent in, 4 weeks later it came back (after 'parts hold'), works fine now.
 
Never had a problem with the 200/2, best lens I own. My problem lens is the 85mm/1.4
Vince
 
from Kenrockwell.com

"""This beast was introduced in 2004. It is intended for photographing indoor volleyball. It is very expensive and intended when you absolutely need f/2.0, otherwise any Nikon 80-200 or 70-200 f/2.8 zoom gives the same results for a lot less money in a much smaller and less package."""

Can someone who has used all of these confirm his findings "any Nikon 80-200 or 70-200 f/2.8 zoom gives the same results"

I actually looked into this lens for my D3. I was a bit taken back by that review of his. I have not yet pulled the trigger. I haven't seen any other reviews. If anyone has any, I'd love to read them if you can link them here.

I know KR has his own opinions, but the guy does do test shoots. I assume he failed to get sharper shots with the 200mm f/2. I just find it hard to believe that the zooms could be as good as this lens.

--
Michael James - DigitalCoastImage.com (Hi-Def Video and Photography)
 
When I purchased 200/2 I noticed the focus was not super sharp as I expected. I returned it and replaced with new 200/2 but focus problem still stayed the same. Then I sent both D2X and 200/2 to NIKON service and they changed some parts and calibration in D2X. 200/2 was not defective (per NIKON). Since that time, there is no focus problem including D3 200/2 combination.
Yoshiki in Seattle
 
I've used the 200 f/2 for about 3 years now, primarily for night football. With my D2Xs I found the 85 f/1.4 was better for volleyball if you are using available light. Even with the 2.0 aperature the glass wasn't quite fast enough. The problem with the 85 f/1.4 is slower focus speed (since it isn't AF-S).

Now I have a D3. I've been thinking about selling my 200 f/2 in favor of a 70-200 f/2.8 for available light sports. But I can't bring myself to let go of this lens. The image quality is just too good. It's the finest Nikon lens I've owned in terms of image quality.

--
Gary Jones
http://www.TheWinningShot.com
 
Never had focusing issues wide open or otherwise. On various dslrs.
D200 @ F2 ( both images )





D40x with tc 1.4 @ F2.8



D40 @ F2 ( both images )





D2Hs @ F2



D50@ F20



P.
--
' Don't let outside negative forces affect the way you choose to feel '
http://matrixone.zenfolio.com/
 
The 70-200 and the various 80-200 are very good lenses indeed. Extremely useful, reall, really good image quality. I sure love my AF-S 80-200, it is my most used lens counting numbers of shots.

But the 200/2.0 (which I frequently borrow from a collegue) is a whole lot better then any of those at 200mm and f2.8, not to mention at f2.0 ... :) It focuses faster and gives more subject isolation (f2.0 is more then just a low light option)

I have used it for soccer, ice hockey, baseboll, crowd portraits, indoor events ... Everything but volleyboll it seems :) It shines wherever it goes.

So lets keep our eyes on the ball ... :)

Subject isolation, soccer at close range, D200, 200 @ 2.0, 1/1600, iso 400



My only grief is the handling which at first felt awkward (compared to for example a 300/2.8), it is a short stubby lens and it is very easy to iterrupt AF by mistakenly turn the AF ring when following a fast moving subject.

Ken Rockwell seem to often throw ut opinions in seemingly random directions, some spot on, others just plain stupid.

I recommend reading better informed reviews like these instead:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html
Digital Coast Image said:
from Kenrockwell.com

"""This beast was introduced in 2004. It is intended for
photographing indoor volleyball. It is very expensive and intended
when you absolutely need f/2.0, otherwise any Nikon 80-200 or 70-200
f/2.8 zoom gives the same results for a lot less money in a much
smaller and less package."""

Can someone who has used all of these confirm his findings "any Nikon
80-200 or 70-200 f/2.8 zoom gives the same results"

I actually looked into this lens for my D3. I was a bit taken back
by that review of his. I have not yet pulled the trigger. I haven't
seen any other reviews. If anyone has any, I'd love to read them if
you can link them here.

I know KR has his own opinions, but the guy does do test shoots. I
assume he failed to get sharper shots with the 200mm f/2. I just
find it hard to believe that the zooms could be as good as this lens.

--
Michael James - DigitalCoastImage.com (Hi-Def Video and Photography)
Click to expand...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
 
200/2 is for indoor sports (basketball, volleyball, gymnastic, indoor soccor) and any situation where one

(1) has limited high ISO capability and needs to keep shutter speed as fast as possible (typically 1/250-1/320 for indoor fluorescent gymnasiums) to minimize motion blur by using the widest aperture available

(2) the best subject isolation with enough nice bokey background blur to make the subject pop out of the background

Compared to my 80-200/2.8 AFS (and even the 70-200/2.8 AFS), my 200/2 is better. It focuses and locks faster and tracks better just because it is 1 stop faster than the zooms, has less glass to move to achieve focus, and at f/2 has a narrower depth of field to get better subject isolation. My 85/1.4 performs almost as well as the 200/2 and also is faster and better than the 70/80-200/2.8 zooms for the same reasons. Even stopped down to f/2.8, sharpness and pop on these 2 are better than the 70/80-200 zooms. I can improve the zooms by stopping down 1 stop from wide open, but then I run into the problems of losing 1 stop of light. The D3 with its high ISO low noise capability can make up for this.

Go for the zoom if you want flexibility. Go for the 85/1.4 and 200/2 if you want the ultimate in IQ for indoor sports.

Why don't you rent the lens and see how you like it.
Digital Coast Image said:
from Kenrockwell.com

"""This beast was introduced in 2004. It is intended for
photographing indoor volleyball. It is very expensive and intended
when you absolutely need f/2.0, otherwise any Nikon 80-200 or 70-200
f/2.8 zoom gives the same results for a lot less money in a much
smaller and less package."""

Can someone who has used all of these confirm his findings "any Nikon
80-200 or 70-200 f/2.8 zoom gives the same results"

I actually looked into this lens for my D3. I was a bit taken back
by that review of his. I have not yet pulled the trigger. I haven't
seen any other reviews. If anyone has any, I'd love to read them if
you can link them here.

I know KR has his own opinions, but the guy does do test shoots. I
assume he failed to get sharper shots with the 200mm f/2. I just
find it hard to believe that the zooms could be as good as this lens.

--
Michael James - DigitalCoastImage.com (Hi-Def Video and Photography)
Click to expand...
 
I bought this when it first came out, NEVER used it for Volleyball or even considered it for volleyball. I wasted such a good lens on ice skating and fencing venues never knowing it was meant for volleyball. I wish Nikon put a bulletin out stating it only works with pictures of a volleyball, I could have saved alot of money.

Seriously, this is my BEST lens, it is tack sharp at f/2 and gives great bokeh. The 70-200 is good, but when I had the D200, I needed the extra stop. With the D3, the zoom might be OK but the 200 is phenomenal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top