200mm Nikkor lenses discussion

Mitchell

**********************
mod edit: This thread started as a flea market post by 4labs looking to trade his 70-200VR. Some great discussion and example shots of Nikkor lenses in this focal range have ensued. Keywords: 70-200/2.8 VR AFS, 300/4 AFS, 200/2.0 AFS

********************

Eric,
Can you explain your thought process to me on your recent lens adjustments? My understanding is that the 70-200, 2.8 VR you are trying to swap is one of the most coveted of Nikon zooms. Why did you replace it with a new 200 prime lens? What were you looking to accomplish?

I can certainly understand your desire for the 28-70, 2.8 zoom. This is my absolute favorite lens which only rarely leaves my D2X. I use it for almost all of my portrait work. This lens may be the finest Zoom Nikon has ever made.

I'm curious, because I've often wondered why I don't own the lens you are trying to trade. It is on almost everyone's must have list.

I just got a new 300mm, f4 AF-s this week. Tried it out today at the soccer games. Haven't looked at the pics yet.

4labs

Mitchell wrote:

Eric,
Can you explain your thought process to me on your recent lens adjustments? My understanding is that the 70-200, 2.8 VR you are trying to swap is one of the most coveted of Nikon zooms. Why did you replace it with a new 200 prime lens? What were you looking to accomplish?

I can certainly understand your desire for the 28-70, 2.8 zoom. This is my absolute favorite lens which only rarely leaves my D2X. I use it for almost all of my portrait work. This lens may be the finest Zoom Nikon has ever made.

I'm curious, because I've often wondered why I don't own the lens you are trying to trade. It is on almost everyone's must have list.

I just got a new 300mm, f4 AF-s this week. Tried it out today at the soccer games. Haven't looked at the pics yet.

Hi Mitchell,

There are a few reasons. I do love the 70-200 but I realized that most of my shots with it were at 200 so why not get the best Nikon has if I could afford it? There is no comparison between the 70-200 and the 200prime. The 200 focuses much faster and is as sharp at 2.0 as the 70-200 is at 5.6. I have been using my 50mm and 85mm for portraits, so I really have no use for the 70-200 anymore. I figured the 28-70 would be good when I don't want to lug all my other lenses around. I have a sigma lens 24-70 lens which for the money is fine but it isn't great wide open and I am finding CA in very contrasty situations which is often. I will be very happy if I am stuck with the 70-200 or might just sell it if I can't work out a trade. If I ever need length I have the TC-20E which will give me 400 4.0 but I rarely if ever need the distance. I have become a much better photographer by learning to use my feet to zoom and compose.

Do I make any sense?

Andy

4labs wrote:

Do I make any sense?

Nope.

Just wait until Sam's at the age where she starts walking and running around. You'll wish you had that 70-200 zoom. And the one you have is a tasty one.

Keep it - trust me. Mitchell knows, too

4labs

Andy wrote:

Nope.

Just wait until Sam's at the age where she starts walking and running around. You'll wish you had that 70-200 zoom. And the one you have is a tasty one.

Keep it - trust me. Mitchell knows, too

I just figured the 28-70 would be a better option for chasing a baby around. The 70-200 is pretty heavy. Andy I could always reaquire it as you have taught us so well.:D

Andy

4labs wrote:

I just figured the 28-70 would be a better option for chasing a baby around. The 70-200 is pretty heavy. Andy I could always reaquire it as you have taught us so well.:D

and look at me - I sold my 70-200 IS and rebought it 2weeks ago. Used it a ton in the past two days! 28-70 great for indoors, and when she's little. But the 70-200 VR, really handy when she's 3+ and you are at the playground, beach, park, whatever....

4labs

Andy wrote:

and look at me - I sold my 70-200 IS and rebought it 2weeks ago. Used it a ton in the past two days! 28-70 great for indoors, and when she's little. But the 70-200 VR, really handy when she's 3+ and you are at the playground, beach, park, whatever....

so I have three yrs to get it back..lol. It will also keep my weight down by having to zoom with my feet as the 200m 2.0 weighs almost 7lbs..

Mitchell

Andy, I'm flattered that you think I know what I'm talking about!

Eric, I must agree with everyone else here. If you can swing it, you should keep the lens. It won't be long before Samantha is running around on the soccer field looking for flowers. That lens will be the one you take with you. Plus, you've taken some awesome action shots of your dogs with it. Don't stop taking those great photos now that Sam is here. We still love to see your lab shots!

luckyrwe

The only lens I really miss out of Nikon is the 70-200VR. It was one sweet lens. I do not feel the Canon 70-200 IS is the same at all.

zigzag

Andy wrote:

and look at me - I sold my 70-200 IS and rebought it 2weeks ago. Used it a ton in the past two days! 28-70 great for indoors, and when she's little. But the 70-200 VR, really handy when she's 3+ and you are at the playground, beach, park, whatever....

I dunno...I've seen some of the shots with the 200/2 VR. After that lens came out, it made the 70-200VR look...weak somehow. And the 70-200 is one of the most fantastic lenses out there! I haven't seen anything like the 200/2.

I think it makes perfect sense. If I had the $$, I'd get the 200/2 and a 28-70/2.8, just like 4labs. They'd be the first two lenses I'd buy. But I don't, so...it's a 35-70 and 80-400 for me.

Mitchell

4labs wrote:

I just figured the 28-70 would be a better option for chasing a baby around. The 70-200 is pretty heavy. Andy I could always reaquire it as you have taught us so well.:D

I just went back and read this comment. Eric, does the 200mm really weigh 6.4lbs??? Now thats heavy! Gotta have VR with that weight on a D2X along with some pretty big guns.

4labs

Mitchell wrote:

I just went back and read this comment. Eric, does the 200mm really weigh 6.4lbs??? Now thats heavy! Gotta have VR with that weight on a D2X along with some pretty big guns.

It does weigh alot but it is shorter than the 70-200vr and I actually find it just as easy to handhold.

Mitchell just a PS I was surprised you bought the 300 and not the 70-200. The Wider apeture would have come in handy especially because it seems you can sit right on the sidelines at the soccer games and the extra reach wouldn't seem necessary.

4labs

luckyrwe wrote:

The only lens I really miss out of Nikon is the 70-200VR. It was one sweet lens. I do not feel the Canon 70-200 IS is the same at all.

I am looking at the shot Andy posted with his 70-200 wide open I would say it sure is as good as anything I got out of the Nikon, what differences do you see?

Mitchell

4labs wrote:

It does weigh alot but it is shorter than the 70-200vr and I actually find it just as easy to handhold.

Mitchell just a PS I was surprised you bought the 300 and not the 70-200. The Wider apeture would have come in handy especially because it seems you can sit right on the sidelines at the soccer games and the extra reach wouldn't seem necessary.

Eric,
I thought about the 70-200mm, but now that my older daughter is playing on a full size soccer field, I need more reach. I was also concerned about the image quality of the zooms at the extremes. I've heard of issues with distortion, light falloff, etc. Like you, I'm learning the joy of primes. Since I'm shooting daytime soccer, I went with the 300mm, 4.0 and not the pricey 2.8. You solve some of these problems with the TC that you own. Again, I was concerned about the theoretical issues regarding decreased image quality and loss of speed.

Here is a 300mm shot of the other team's keeper. Taken across a full length soccer field from 10 yards behind our own goal. That prime lens is sharp and long for less than $900.

Mitchell

4labs wrote:

It does weigh alot but it is shorter than the 70-200vr and I actually find it just as easy to handhold.

Mitchell just a PS I was surprised you bought the 300 and not the 70-200. The Wider apeture would have come in handy especially because it seems you can sit right on the sidelines at the soccer games and the extra reach wouldn't seem necessary.

The 70-200mm weighs in at only 3.4 lbs. Little more than half the weight of the 200mm. How are you going to carry that bad boy around? Has your wife tried using it? Mine gripes about the weight of my 28-70mm (2.5lbs) on my D2X! If I put the 200mm on, she would think I was crazier than I already am!

4labs

Oh it definately is sharp! It is just the DOF that I am not in love with. tradeoff I guess, sharpness vs DOF. You coudl always blur the backround in PS.



This is with the 70-200 fully zoomed. I don't consider it super sharp but I like the shallow DOF. Are you able to hand hold your 300. That is a consideration as well..

Mitchell

I gave up trying to handhold at these soccer matches. I'm now the geeky photo dad with my big camera and monopod.

The coach from the other team this past weekend asked if I would take some shots of his team and email them to him. Perhaps I could quit my day job, stay home with Samantha, and sell soccer action photos to parents on the weekend.

Here's one from the other team.

DoctorIt

Mitch, Eric,
You guys are putting up some good example shots and discussion. Mind if I move most of these posts out of the flea market and into a new thread in cameras/equipment about long Nikkors? This would be really beneficial for others looking for info on what is a pretty popular focal length.

4labs

Sure I don't mind.

DoctorIt

It has been done. Please keep posting example shots and pros/cons!

JohnR

How about the 80-200mm f/2.8 lens? Granted, it's not VR, but you can take some really sharp pics with it.

chuckice

The 70-200 VR
It's tack sharp. I've tried about 4 different 70/80-200ish zooms and have yet to find one faster or more sharp on a D200 or D2X. And btw, my D200 with the batt grip is bigger and heavier than the D2X. I took almost 1000 pix at the final time trial at the Tour de France last year with that lens. Seven hours in one place holding the body/lens and it worked great. Seven hours was about all I could take but that's mostly because it was just so crowded and couldn't move. It's a very manageable size but not a good carry around lens. Here's a sample...VERY sharp...


These were all taken with that lens if you want more samples....it's so fast and sharp outdoors. When all else fails in life I have my 70-200.
Cycling Gallery with 70-200 VR

zigzag

I don't own either the 80-200 or the 70-200VR (wish I did). I don't think a zoom lens exists that can beat the VR, period. Still, the 200 prime, even with considerably more weight, considerably more money, and less (in focal length) versatility, looks like a dream lens.

Wish I could post shots from another forum taken with that lens, but I think it'd be a no-no. Unbelievable stuff, though.