Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR2 vs Nikon 200mm F2 VR2 - for Portraits and Sports

  
 
RSHPhotography
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR2 vs Nikon 200mm F2 VR2 - for Portraits and Sports


Ok guys,
So I have some cash freed up to get one of these lenses. I currently have the 70-200 VR2, which is a gorgeous lens, but I just recently shot with the 300mm and it's making me want to use it for portraits.

I also have developed a taste for Sports, with auto racing and air shows.

For those who used both lenses, which would you say is the smarter buy? I've never used the 200 f2 properly, only at a store.

Both would obviously be used with extenders to get the reach. So should i sacrifice one stop of light for better reach or vice versa? Thanks.



May 11, 2014 at 12:13 PM
Hardcore
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR2 vs Nikon 200mm F2 VR2 - for Portraits and Sports


I've never used the 200/2. I own the 300mm F2.8. I have also tossed around the idea of trading my 300mm for the 200mm. After a lot of thought, I kept the 300mm and am happy so far with the decision. I also own the 70-200mm and it is my most used lens. I just can't see myself pulling out the 200m F2 that often for a photoshoot, unless I went to say a 50/85mm f1.4 and 200m F2 combo with both lenses mounted on separate combos. Definitely more cumbersome on a photoshoot and in the end decided that the 70-200mm with the D800 on a photoshoot is what I am willing to stay with. 95% of the quality at half the weight and half the trouble of a 2 prime system on 2 cameras.

When I really want to blur the background and get that 200mm f2 type of photo, I shoot with the 300mm f2.8. While the same framing the 200mm f2 is going to give a shallower depth of field and better bokeh, the 300mm is no slouch either. Actually, the amount of blur may be slightly more with the 300mm f2.8 but I still prefer the look of the bokeh on the 200mm f2.... if ever so slightly.

The nice thing about owning the 300mm though is that it doubles for sports and wildlife. (not saying the 200mm doesn't...) The 70-200mm is a great sport lens as well and couples very good with TC's, so to have the 200mm f2 seems a bit too redundant. The 300mm on the other hand is my most used lens for wildlife giving me very nice results at 600mm F5.6. Something the 200mm F2 can't do. That said, if low light shooting is a priority, then the 200mm wins no matter which way you slice it... probably even for wildlife.

Also for planes in flight, I really like using the 70-200mm with the 2xIII so that I can zoom. Results have been very good imo. I guess, in a way I'm not trying to tell you what is best. Can't go wrong either way. All I know, that I'm really glad I kept the 300mm F2.8 for use with the 70-200mm. For me it is just a much more flexible combo than a 200mm F2 + 70-200mm F2.8.

Purely for portraits though, the 200mm F2 would be my pick.

Edited on May 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM · View previous versions



May 11, 2014 at 12:26 PM
trenchmonkey
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR2 vs Nikon 200mm F2 VR2 - for Portraits and Sports


I've had 2 copies of each over the years, the 300 2.8 was always the 1st to go.
Had this very decision to make last Fall and went with the 200 f2 for the speed.
My shootin' involves rodeo under the lights, however (as well as some portraits)
so my needs are probably a tad different than yours. I use the TC-20E III for my
400mm f4 VR when migratory BIF come calling every Oct thru Mar here in NM. I
will say the 300 does a nice job of subject isolation as well...best to have both.

street candid D3 w/300 f2.8 VR handheld SOOC


Edited on May 11, 2014 at 12:57 PM · View previous versions



May 11, 2014 at 12:30 PM
tntcorp
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR2 vs Nikon 200mm F2 VR2 - for Portraits and Sports


both lenses hve equally sharp optics. with the 300, unless you re strictly shooting head shots above the shoulders you will have to shout instructions to your subject(s). i would suggest getting the 300 to complement the ranges of your 70-200.

btw, the 200/f2 is good for indoor shooting such as volleyball, especially in venues with low lights.

how about the 200-400? for sports and auto racing, you cannot beat the versatility of a zoom. unless you are restricted to fast 2.8 and above.

good luck.



May 11, 2014 at 12:35 PM
Joseph.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR2 vs Nikon 200mm F2 VR2 - for Portraits and Sports


I would say 200 f/2 only because you will be closer to your subjects and it'll be easier to give posing instructions. You'll need to be very far to frame a group shot with the 300.

For sports, both will be equally good.



May 11, 2014 at 01:13 PM
Ryder
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR2 vs Nikon 200mm F2 VR2 - for Portraits and Sports


I'll add a couple things that I admit are tentative. I have an older 300 AFS II (no vr) and a 200 vr I, which I have only had a couple weeks and barely know, and a 70-200 vr I.

Im not a portrait guy but I like some landscapes with telephoto and my guess is that the same thing happens with portraits. Features are compressed. Things go a little flat. It is just what look you want. If you took the time to compare 200 to 300 my guess is the differences would not be hard to see. I shoot a few interiors/exteriors to pay the bills and I know if I step way back and get the 105-200 out all the angles of a nice home will tend to be kind of compressed into one plane. If I want to accentuate them I have to move in. The same things must happen with a face. For most faces I think there is a reason 85 and 105 are the traditional lenses.

The sharpness of the 200 can actually work against you. I've cringed at some portraits I've seen with the 200. Who needs to see every pore? Softness can be your friend.

The 200 is great with an extender but it's even better without one. Not because of any lost sharpness but just because the closer you get to your subject the more awesome the lens seems to be. I need to shoot a lot more with the two of them.




May 12, 2014 at 04:09 PM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.