200mm f/2 VRI, am I crazy?

Started Jul 23, 2014 | Discussions thread
TwistaCatz
OP TwistaCatz Regular Member • Posts: 144
Re: 200mm f/2 VRI, am I crazy?

munro harrap wrote:

THe VR is because it is so big. You have a D600 and it does high isos just fine-better than a D800 does anyhow. So buy a 180f2.8 instead. I got mine secondhand for £150. It is beautiful. It is as sharp as you will ever need and weighs little. It works on every Nikon made since AI began and you need to get real about your photography. A 200mm f2 lens at F2 has almost no depth of field at all to speak of. Great for birds at infinity (where they are too small!). Great for the moon, but you will never use it and lose a fortune for a mindless status symbol. Its real advantage is brighter viewing but this only works in film bodies. DSLRs cannot give a brighter image just because the lens is fast, so from f2.8 and up you gain nothing . I used to hire a 300mm f2.8 for work, but I promise you these things are way too heavy and big to carry around outside. OK for studio and press conferences-head shots, and Wimbledon, but the 180mm is much better!!! F2.0 lenses were created because we used Kodachrome ! (25iso....)

Thanks for tossing another lens into the discussion. The 180mm f/2.8 looks very stellar but correct me if I'm wrong but an AI lens on the D600 or D7000 would have to be focused manually right? I do enjoy manual focusing at times but to not have the option to use AF is a turn off for me. And while this lens is sharp much like the other alternatives in this thread it does not have the same feel as the 200mm f/2 from the pictures I just looked at. Also it has overlap with my 70-200mm f/2.8.

bgmonroe wrote:

TwistaCatz wrote:

bgmonroe wrote:

maljo@inreach.com wrote:

It's just too heavy to carry around. If you need to shoot at f2 and 200 mm then that 's the lens to get, but I have found I rarely use it. The 70-200 zoom is also excellent at the long end.

The 200 f2 is truly an excellent lens, but I find my 300 f2.8 and 500 f4 much more useful.

maljo

I agree with malio 100%. I rarely ever use mine as well (will probably sell it). If you really want a new lens, you would do better to sell your 70-200 VR1 and buy the 70-200 VR2. You will find it a MUCH more useful (and lighter) lens than the 200. The 200/2 is really a specialty lens. If you really feel strongly about getting it, I'd say rent it for a weekend first and see how you feel about it then.

Brett

Brett,

I appreciate your comment but why would I buy the 70-200 VRII and how is that relevant to this discussion? How is the 70-200mm VRII more useful then the older version?

The VR2 is a better lens then the VR1. It's better in almost every way (faster focusing, better contrast, better VR, etc). I mention it only as a way to satisfy the G.A.S. (and a way to save you money). If you are really happy with the VR1, then I'd say don't get any lens 200mm lens.

I'm sorry but I've read otherwise about the newer version. You might feel that the newer version is better but I disagree. Faster focusing? I've heard other wise. Better contrast? Maybe due to the Nano coat. Better VR? Without a doubt. All of this comes with a trade off: Focus breathing and lack of focus lock of the focus lock. I'm sure the newer 70-200 is great but I'm thrilled about it, I can't imagine that it would make me happy at all.

I thought about renting the 200mm it but the pricing to rent it seems to high to me. Also I really don't feel the need to as I'm more interested in the results that it produces which I can view online, ya know? I know it's heavy but I really don't care. Beyond it being heavy you really can't knock it.

Wait, you are ready to drop $4k on a lens but renting for the weekend (~$100 in Seattle) is too much?

Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic lens. But remember, it's an expensive lens. The people that tend to buy these lenses are professional photographers and they tend to take really good photos (regardless of the tool). Just because you see lots of great photos with this lens doesn't mean the lens will make all your photos great. Sorry, I certainly don't mean any disrespect but I think a lot of the people reading these forums tend to think that all they need to do to get great photos is great gear and it just isn't true.

Brett

When I looked at renting the 200mm F/2 I looked on lens rentals dot com and the price with insurence with no discounts at a minimum was $214.00. I plan to buy the 200mm f/2 used on the bay and I see them available right now for "buy it now" at $3600 hopefully I can beat that price. I rather just invest the $214 into the outright purchase. That might sound cheep or backwards but thats just how I feel.

Please understand I'm not trying to buy my way into good pictures. I understand what your saying about people and there purchases. I'm not sure if you play golf but what your describing is common in golf as well. You see a lot of people try to buy there game. In golf they come out with gear every year. Some people spend thousands of dollars every season buying the latest gear in hope that it improves there game instead of putting in the actual work and practicing the fundamentals of the game. People do the same thing with photography. Rest assure I'm not that guy.

I'm not looking to buy this lens to look cool or with the belief that this lens will elevate my photography. I can't say it enough but I'll say it again. I'm a big fan of the way this lens renders pictures, period. I enjoy the sharpness, bokeh and overall IQ that this lens provides.

 TwistaCatz's gear list:TwistaCatz's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon D800 Sony a6300 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +9 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
xtm
xtm
xtm
xtm
xtm
xtm
xtm
(unknown member)
xtm
xtm
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
xtm
xtm
xtm
(unknown member)
xtm
xtm
xtm
xtm
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow