200mm f/2, day 1: a few image samples + initial thoughts

fpessolano said:

I am saying that for as nice as the rendering in the photos are (please note, I am not commenting on the photos themselves), if they are representative of the lens rendering it is not what I would expect from a 6000 euro lens.

For that price I always think Nikon 200/2 quality in terms of rendering, OOF transition and so on.

Click to expand...

Yes I see what you mean, and I agree - this lens will not magically turn your Fuji into something other than a crop-sensor camera. It will also not magically turn me into a better photographer, which you should remember when comparing these photos to others you may see from big tele primes!

The OOF transition, etc. are related to sensor size in an unavoidable way. Would the Nikon 200/2 (or 300/2.8, which this is more closely aligned to) on a full-frame sensor beat it in terms of pure IQ? I would think so! Bigger sensors usually produce better images from a technical standpoint.

This lens is really for people who are heavily invested in the Fuji system for other reasons than sports, but that want to have a great telephoto prime for the occasions they have to use it. Honestly I think it's at least as much for hobbyists as it is for pros. If you're a pro sports shooter, it's unlikely you shoot Fuji - there are so many more lens options from CaNikon, not to mention full frame sensor size.

Putting the Nikon 200/2 on a D500, and comparing it to this is the more appropriate test, and one I'd like to see! Have you used the Nikon 200/2?

I rented it, but I cannot justify it … in the end this is hobby with occasional work for my companies or partners for PR or web photos. Not to mention it is HUGEEEE.

fpessolano said:

I rented it, but I cannot justify it … in the end this is hobby with occasional work for my companies or partners for PR or web photos. Not to mention it is HUGEEEE.

Click to expand...

In all practical scenarios I see the 50-140 2.8 and 100-400 4.5-5.6 covering most people's tele requirements with the 55-200 as a nice practical mid tele when you just need light and flexible. Interestingly, for a full body shot with the 50-140 you would need to be within 50 feet of the subjects, c/w with 70 for the 200, not sure if this was practical in this case but if it was the f2 would give an advantage of around 1ft less total dof/subject isolation, not a lot at 50 feet and probably not that noticeable to the image either. If you had to fit the 1.4tc to the 140, then things would look more noticeable imo, 2.5ft more dof. It is a real shame Fuji didn't see the 200 range as compliment lens to the 50-140 2.8 and make it also as a smaller, cheaper, lighter and ultimately more practical solution as a 200 2.8. I think of all the lens Fuji has made this is/was a very specific niche lens for a very few specific shooters, I didn't get it when they announced it and I still don't get it.

Blue Swan Media said:

The OOF transition, etc. are related to sensor size in an unavoidable way. Would the Nikon 200/2 (or 300/2.8, which this is more closely aligned to) on a full-frame sensor beat it in terms of pure IQ? I would think so! Bigger sensors usually produce better images from a technical standpoint.

Click to expand...

Curious about your Nikon comment. There is someone I follow on Flickr that recently posted a picture that impressed me, IQ wise. It can be found here and was taken with a Nikon 200f2, but on a D5 (FF).

Do you not think that the Fuji 200f2 could produce similar [not equal, not better] IQ, even on our smaller sensors? Or, is it possible that no matter how amazing the glass is, it's irrelevant because the sensor is the weakest link in the chain?

In looking at the few pictures in the 200f2 group on Flickr , I'm impressed by this lens. I want something longer, am not blown away by the 100-400 and prefer not to overlap 2 of my primes with a 50-140 which is also a bit short for me.

baobob said:

here is the first file processed first with RFC EX3 developped as a TIFF PP in PS with Adobe camera raw filter

Impressive sharpness given the ISO the original was definitly worth my 5 mn, wonderful shot indeed thx

Bob

Click to expand...

WOW!

That's quite a remarkable difference while not destroying all the details. The noise has disappeared so I'm going to have to download and play with SP.

Thanks,

Bob

--

I honestly could not say, I moved to FF in nikonkand long ago and never tried the better Nikon glass in a asp sensor. The 200/2 has always been an amazing lens ... but way beyond my budget given it is a speciality nature even more so now.

G3_4_ME said:

Blue Swan Media said:

The OOF transition, etc. are related to sensor size in an unavoidable way. Would the Nikon 200/2 (or 300/2.8, which this is more closely aligned to) on a full-frame sensor beat it in terms of pure IQ? I would think so! Bigger sensors usually produce better images from a technical standpoint.

Click to expand...

Curious about your Nikon comment. There is someone I follow on Flickr that recently posted a picture that impressed me, IQ wise. It can be found here and was taken with a Nikon 200f2, but on a D5 (FF).

Do you not think that the Fuji 200f2 could produce similar [not equal, not better] IQ, even on our smaller sensors? Or, is it possible that no matter how amazing the glass is, it's irrelevant because the sensor is the weakest link in the chain?

In looking at the few pictures in the 200f2 group on Flickr , I'm impressed by this lens. I want something longer, am not blown away by the 100-400 and prefer not to overlap 2 of my primes with a 50-140 which is also a bit short for me.

Click to expand...

Take that bald eagle pic and crop it to APS-C size. That's what we can expect in terms of OOF, fall off, rendering, etc. Detail, sharpness etc. could conceivably be the same but 45MP, full frame D850 should always beat 24MP X-T3. Should be on par with D500 or better.