most stupid question you'll find here, but someone has to be the one...

2650€ for a mint 200mm 2.0. Ok, I know, but those who own it, how often do you use it? 5% or 30% or... and what for and when not? (Personally I like the darker moments.) That would clarify a lot to me, decisionwise, thanks!
Bart

There's plenty of questions on this forum that are much more stupid:

"I'm shooting a wedding this weekend...what lenses do I need?"
"Going on Safari in Kenya...do I need a long lens?"
"Why is the (fill-in-the-blank) out of stock?
"When will Nikon have "pro-quality" 70-200 f/4 available"
"Why did Nikon raise its lens prices?"
"Should I sell my (fill-in the-blank)?

And many others.

If you want a 200 f/2, and can afford it, why not? I can't say what is a good price in Euros, but worst case, you can probably sell it after a year for 90% of what you paid. Is 260 Euros worth the price of playing with a great lens for a year? That's your decision, but it's probably true, and if you decide you like it, it's yours forever!
--
Kevin

Something is only worth as much as someone else is willing to pay for it.

If that's the going rate, then it is worth the price. But maybe not to you.

If you're a pro, then you may get a return on the investment, and already know the answers to the right questions.

If you're not, then the real questions to ask would be, "is this an exceptionally quality lens", "is it sharp wide open", "does it have great IQ corner to corner", "any CA", "good or bad bokeh", "do I actually have a use for this?" and let's not forget "do I have the money to spend on this?"

I am not a pro (anymore - once upon a time, but that was government work) . I am barely an amateur but value is something that is universal.

Greg

In the realm of stupid questions, yours doesn't qualify, it's a reasonable & practical question which I've dealt with in the past, and for me the answer was that I could not justify the cost, size & weight for the very little use the lens would see. It would be more of a "trophy lens" rather than one that would get heavy use.

I have a nikkor 180mm F/2.8 AF ED which is small & compact and does a killer job when compared to standard pro primes (nothing really compares to the 200mm VR F/2.0) , but even the 180mm F/2.8 doesn't get used that much

Hey, if I don't flatter myself, who will?? ;-)

6 months ago I bought a used but mint 14-24 for my D3. I ended up using it almost 75% of my time in Turkey (also with me: 15fish, 20-35, 28-70 and 80-200) If the 200mm would surprise me as much (as for time used) I'd be delighted. But it remains a hefty sum and your (all of you) balanced opinions are greatly appreciated.

Bart Van Der Smissen said:

Hey, if I don't flatter myself, who will?? ;-)

Click to expand...

I'll flatter you, Bart: You're amazing! Fantastic! One of a kind!

How's that?

I must confess I have a fondness for the name "Bart." My grandmother was widowed in 1936, and was told it would cost one dollar per letter to carve "George Lowe" on his tombstone.

Her reply was, "Thank God I didn't marry Bartholomew O'Donoghue!"

Regards!
--
Kevin

Greg Kopp said:

Something is only worth as much as someone else is willing to pay for it.

If that's the going rate, then it is worth the price. But maybe not to you.

Click to expand...

Agree, just offer what it’s worth to you, but be fair. You never know what the sellers situation is.
There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Dear Mr Simpson,

Well with a christian name like that!!! Have you looked at B&H or Adorama in the USA? I know I know, tranport, customs etc. but I paid half price for a NEW 200/400 compared to european prices.

On the subject of the original question - if you want it you must surely have a use for it so buy it. Life's too short.

For that kind of money, it's a steal. Just shut up and buy the thing already. Chances are you'll love it. And if not (doubtful) you could probably sell it for the same amaunt or more.
--
Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a Nikon owner.

from someone looking at my 14-24...

That is a very good price, esp for Europe. You do not describe your shooting
style, or what other lenses you shoot with, so t is hard to say whether the f/2
is worth it to you.

There are a few very practical reasons for owning/using the 200 f/2 :

If you do much low-light shooting and the range is within your normal style,
then the lens will make you very happy.

If a FF camera figures in your future, then you will be set up with a beautiful
lens for the longer end of the portrait window.

If you shoot sports in this middle range, then the f/2's speed and subject
isolation are an absolute joy. In tennis, for instance, ( or other sports )
where you have a single player in action, the subject sharpness against
background blur are enough to make a grown man cry

If you are a shooter who enjoys bokeh as much as ( or more ) than the
actual subject of the image, then the lens will satisfy everything that your
little heart desires.

If you shoot at events of any kind, or are a confirmed street shooter, the range
and speed and low-light capability are worth every penny.

If you secretly harbour a thirst for longer range and more mm, the f/2 takes
TCs very well, the 1.4 and 1.7, without too much deterioration in IQ. Some
of the special magic changes, but you get the pure range.

If NONE of those things appeal to you, you may not get enough use out of
the lens to make a purchase worthwhile.

Agree w/ VRII - the 180mm f/2.8 is so good at all the above, and so much
cheaper and smaller and lighter than the f/2 that the main thing swinging
the deal for you would be the faster aperture.

The lens is very obvious in general use. The big lens-protecting hood extends
way beyond the actual lens and makes it look much bigger/longer. I was
shooting a road-race some months ago and had several runners jeering in good
humour as they raced by, cheering at this huge lens

In some ways, the f/2 lens is easier to handle than longer telephotos. It is
relatively short and chunky, and balances nicely on the camera, however 3Kg
is a lot to handhold for any length of time . . .

Agree w/ Kevin, one course of action would be to buy it at this great price,
enjoy the experience, and then sell it at close to the original price after a
couple of years, if you are not using it enough.

Good luck in choosing !
Keith

--
. . .

The trouble with this lens is that it'll absolutely, completely, irrevocably and totally spoil all your other lenses for you. I can tell a photo I've shot with this lens anywhere.

I agree with many others here - if you can afford it then buy it. You can always resell it but I doubt you would want to.
--

Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status.

• Laurence J. Peter

Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress at all, but just terrible things.

• Russell Baker

Thanks for pushing my wallet a little closer to the edge!
Yes, all if's apply to me ;-)
Still I'm wondering about the use %.
Think I'll take the plunge if it's still available.

Bart

Bart Van Der Smissen said:

Still I'm wondering about the use %.

Click to expand...

Forgot to address that question in my earlier reply:

I bought this lens on 2009-04-15. In that period, I would estimate it's been used for about 25% of my shots. I do a lot of event & sports photography (amateur) and it's been to Costa Rica this past summer. My next big decision is whether to take it with me on a trip to Northern India at the end of December. I think that ultimately I'll end up taking the 70-200 instead and just hope I don't regret it.
--

Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status.

• Laurence J. Peter

Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress at all, but just terrible things.

• Russell Baker

...if it suprises you that much again, you might consider using nothing else and sell the rest

to be honoust, I wouldn't bet on that. Though a great lens, it has a much more limited use than that zoom. And just to be a bit more conservative, I would drop that 2/3 of a stop in sensitivity, sell the 80-200 and get myself the new 70-200 VR II. It will not disappoint you and it's cheaper.

lock

Yep truth, choises and weight and money...

Ha yes, let's bring on the new 70-200 to simplify my decisionprocess... I find I use the 80-200 mostly at it's extremes and sometimes in the 100-135 range. (occasionally between 160 and 190) I do use it intuitively, I just find those numbers to show up most afterwards.
thx, Bart

Took the plunge. Very happy!
Heavy, but I don't need a monopod, thus far.

The tripodcollar is ridiculous indeed (Björn Rörslets comment) and I'll make an adaptor or a foot combining D3 and lens for those occasions.
Thanks for push-processing me ;-)

Wimberley/USA makes a very light Arca-Swiss lens plate for about $50.
It's about 4 inches long, but only has one screw-opening to fit into the
current 200 f/2 tripod-foot hole.

I'm sure they could mail it to ya . . .

http://www.tripodhead.com/products/lens-plates-main.cfm

Keith
--
. . .