ilnonno Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
trenchmonkey wrote:
Hmmm, except this:
Rubbish. I use a B+W 52mm quite often in mine.
Hey Nathan, I'll try and do a comparison for you this weekend...FX or DX??
Care to give some details on this?
I'd love to try filters on the 200/2, but never managed to find the Nikon polarizer.
Is it a special filter you use? (I dread the answer though: might be something like "no! normal B&W!", and I'd feel very stupid for never having thought of it! )
Thanks!
Lory
P.s.
as to the original poster, not to hijack the thread:
I own the 70-200 VR 2 and the 200/2 2.
The 70-200 is very sharp at short focusing distances, enough to compare with the 200.
Where the big lens shines is at a distance, where it retains its sharpness, and allows for extremely blurred backgrounds. There the 70-200 loses some of its quality, even stopped down.
My suggestion would be: do not think at how much better the 200/2 would be. Rather: how often you'd be willing to carry – and lift, and then put away, and then put on camera again, and then away again – that little monster.
It is certainly not a lens for a common outing, and the extra 1.5kg vs a standard 70-200 makes a world of difference. In my case, the 200/2 comes out only on purpose, and even then, only if no other lens can make it, or if I truly am going to need the "wow" factor (which, admittingly, is very evident).
|