200/f2

north w wrote:

Pro ; Fast AF. Ultra sharp, its optical as good as it gets.

Con; weight of 3kg, i am looking forward to the assumable lighter "FL" version if its not too expensive. The foot of the lens should had Arca swiss groves and been 1 inch longer, but RRS sell replacements.

Do any lens makers include Arca dovetails on their tripod mounts?  I know Nikon doesn't.

I can fit the tripod foot of my Sigma 120-300/2.8 into an Arca clamp, but I'm sure that's just coincidence, not design.

PerfectPoms wrote:

Marianne Oelund wrote:

I can fit the tripod foot of my Sigma 120-300/2.8 into an Arca clamp, but I'm sure that's just coincidence, not design.

Hi Marianne.

Is the Sigma 120-300 zoom ring rotation direction the opposite of Nikon? And is the lens varifocal?

Yes, and yes. Focus variation is most abrupt towards the long end of the zoom range, unless the subject is distant.

PerfectPoms wrote:

That's such a shame. I bought the Sigma 100-400 lens - and I think it's sharp - but with rapidly moving subjects - there is absolutely NO WAY that I can use this lens side by side with a 70-200 on a second body, and switch back and forth between them - AND intuitively remember which direction to twist the zoom ring to follow subjects.

Have you been able to do so?

Yes, but I don't use two cameras side by side; I only have the second camera on hand for backup.  I might change lenses once or twice during a competition, and haven't found it difficult to acclimate to the direction change.

Sometimes late in the day when I'm tired, I might start to turn the zoom ring the wrong way, but it's immediately noticed and corrected.

These days, with improved rink lighting and camera high ISO, it's not often that I will use the f/2.8 Sigma, preferring the 70-200 with a TC-14 instead.  Sometimes I can even get away with using the 80-400, which is nice for its wide zoom ratio, but the 70-200 is my favorite for handling with its nice light zoom touch.

Rexgig0 wrote:

north w wrote:

Pro ; Fast AF. Ultra sharp, its optical as good as it gets.

Con; weight of 3kg, i am looking forward to the assumable lighter "FL" version if its not too expensive. The foot of the lens should had Arca swiss groves and been 1 inch longer, but RRS sell replacements.

Congratulations; enjoy!

I certainly agree that the AF is quite fast, and the lens is, indeed, sharp. I bought a Hejnar foot, but have yet to install it. There is little need for the better foot, until I acquire a better tripod head, preferably gimbal-style.

The weight is somewhat mitigated, for hand-held shooting, by using the lens on an integral-gripped pro body, resulting in a better-balanced total package. Currently, this means my D3s. I have yet to decide whether to acquire a D4s or D5 next year. Being left-eye dominant, I can use Joe McNally’s technique, resting the base of the camera on my left shoulder, lessening the need for a tripod or monopod, a true advantage for left-eyed shooters when using gripped cameras.

I am also a left eye shooter and use the same technique as you do on the shoulder when possible. Regarding next camera choice i think one should consider an D850 or D4, depending on the mp needs. The D4 is the best sensor on the D-series for now, unless one is using extreme ISO primarily. I sold my D4 because the D850 have the same AF module and the additional AF chip as the D5. This is the first time Nikon have given the full AF capability to an non D-series camera, my D800 did not have the dual AF chips as my D4, the D800 was missing the second half of the brain for the AF. (The D500 does not have the dual chip either) I have not tested the D850 AF performance properly as i don't have the MB-D18 battery, there is a long waiting list for the battery grip even for NPS members.

The used D-series should be quite cheap now and that is an good argument for buying a used D-series, and its just as good picture quality ISO/DR etc. as D800/D850. (if one is not in need of high mp). I got the D850 to do everything, and it got the same pixel density/reach as an D500, but with the complete D5 AF system, so the D850 is a good deal actually that also can do high mp landscape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRC6dhUF-H0&t=1265s

My next piece(s) of equipment to try with this lens? I look forward to acquiring one or more Nikon tele-converters, and a gimbal tripod head.

I use the 1,4TC all the time on the 200/f2 and it gives no loss in Quality as i can observe on any of my lenses, but buy a MK2 or a new Mk3 of these. I assume it can work well with 2x TC also but i have not tried it yet on the 200/f2.

Regarding gimbal head i opted for a Wimberly, and use a Sirui 5214XL tripod that can be placed anywhere. The Sirui is the best of of 3pods, i can not recommend it high enough i use it over Manfrotto or my Gitzo 2543L all the time.

This will enable us to try more wildlife/bird photography, before committing to the purchase of the really expensive super-tele lenses. (We have zooms that reach as far as 400mm, but at f/5.6, not f/4.)

If money is of object, i recommend trying out a used Big prime if possible. I bought my 400/f2.8 new, but its not necessary regarding picture quality. Big primes are super sharp even if they are old and not of the last generation. (Nothing wrong with a new super tele but its 12-16ooo $)

I bought 200/f2 used. It was in production from 2004-2010, but its ridiculous sharp, its sharper than my new Nikon 70-200/2.8FL and on par with the Zeiss 135/f2 i think, my point is that these lenses can be ex. 13 year old and perform as the new ones. I don't think that its worth the 3-4x money to buy a brand new one regarding picture quality.

sh0wtime wrote:

not looking to start anything but curious as to why the D4 has the best sensor when obviously the 4S & 5 have followed....
what is the reasoning behind that ?

The D4 is set up toward more my use, its better below 3200 ISO than the successors, particular the D5.

Dynamic range is best at the D4 as it have its strength where most of my shots are made. The D5 have a set up for the extreme ISO past 3200 until a gazillion whatever ISO...

but only journalists or a paparazzi etc. needs ISO 408ooo++ just to capture something for the 0,7mp image on web, or as a proof/documentation for something. So the D5 was not made for the bird shooter that wanted to print something at 1m. The D5 was hard core made just to get the shot at any circumstance, and for that purpose it is the very best camera in the world, but the bird shooter is better of with D4/D4s i think and that's probably why D4s still on sale from Nikon.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5-versus-Nikon-D4s-versus-Nikon-D4___1062_945_767

PerfectPoms wrote:

north w wrote:

Pro ; Fast AF. Ultra sharp, its optical as good as it gets.

Con; weight of 3kg, i am looking forward to the assumable lighter "FL" version if its not too expensive. The foot of the lens should had Arca swiss groves and been 1 inch longer, but RRS sell replacements.

Funny - but I don't find the AF on my copy of this lens to be really all that fast at all. But I bought a used version of the VR I.

You are correct, after using my Nikon 70-200FL for a while the AF on 200/f2 is not that fast anymore, but it works ok and gives memories like this.

(and f2 gather light long after the other have left the mountain for the evening)

north w wrote:

The foot of the lens should had Arca swiss groves.

I modify the foot myself.

Did you make the "Arca threads" with a milling machine your self ?

I just bought from RRS, that it fits with the hood on backwards also.

north w wrote:

Did you make the "Arca threads" with a milling machine your self ?

Yes, with my Aciera F1 Milling Machine.