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

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2014 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8

  
 
NathanHamler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


Does anyone have any "real world" comparisons of the same (approximate) scene at 200mm between f/2 and f/2.8? Of course, we all dream of "the chubby", but part of me KNOWS that at 25 feet, the DOF difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is less than 3" (9.2" vs. 6.5").....of course my 80-200 2.8 has a different blur than a 200mm f/2 @ 2.8, but i'm just wondering HOW different...i know the 70-200 vr2's are VERY creamy......so maybe a comparison of the 200mm f/2 at both apertures is what i need....i just don't think it can be THAT big of a difference...i dunno, maybe i'm delusional......lol

So who's got samples?



Aug 22, 2014 at 03:40 PM
Hardcore
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


This was the only real comparison I have found in my searches. I'm sure there are many more buried on blogs over the world.

https://fstoppers.com/gear/nikon-200mm-f2-vr-ii-worlds-best-portrait-lens-2768

Hope it helps
Corey



Aug 22, 2014 at 03:44 PM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


Hmmm, except this:
It also has the option to add a rear ND filter, which is a huge help if you’re trying to use this lens with strobes. I didn’t have one to play with, but it seems simple enough, just unscrew the slot and place the filter in. I can’t imagine it would be anything short of awesome, although what I have heard from someone who has used the filter, is that it is somewhat frustrating because the slot is only narrow enough to accept proprietary Nikon filters, which are of course much more expensive than other options.
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??



Aug 22, 2014 at 04:14 PM
NathanHamler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


Thanks trench...FX....much appreciated!! The fstoppers review looked like the 2.8 was back-focused a bit, although that really was only an issue of sharpness, not dof...


Aug 22, 2014 at 04:28 PM
Christian S
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


A Nikon 200f2 vs 70-200f2.8 @200mm comparison by my red neck pool. Minimally edited JPG's loaded on my iPad.
I marked show Exif. It's not showing. The 1st is 200f2 @f2, 2nd is 200f2 @ f2.8, 3rd is 70-200 @f2.8. Shooting distance approx 5ft.

















Aug 22, 2014 at 04:41 PM
NathanHamler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


Thanks Christian! Def some breathing going on there with the 70-200...wondering if at further distances the difference is closer...of course, no need to shoot a test specially for me, i appreciate it!!


Aug 22, 2014 at 05:21 PM
Joseph.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


Here's another quick comparo that's been around for a while:
http://www.kern-photo.com/2009/10/coffee-shop-class-11/

Interestingly, our friend james moro has recently added a reply and started ranting about how the 70-200 "focus breathed" on this test and the test isn't fair bla bla. Problem is, he failed to realize that the lens being compared is the 70-200 VR1 which does NOT focus breathe at all




Aug 22, 2014 at 05:32 PM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


If I remember correctly there was a rush to get rid of 200/2VR1 a few months after the release of 70-200VRII.


Aug 22, 2014 at 06:34 PM
Next39
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


There's NO comparison between the 200 f2 and 70-200. The 200 f2 is just magical. And I agree with Will on the ND, I carry a 2 stop B+W, takes 30 seconds to make the swap.


Aug 22, 2014 at 09:11 PM
ilnonno
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


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).



Aug 23, 2014 at 03:59 PM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


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


Normal B+W for the ND's Now the CirPol's a different fish to fry. You'll need a
dedicated Nikon drop-in with built in wheel (for adjusting)



Aug 23, 2014 at 04:14 PM
ilnonno
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


trenchmonkey wrote:
Normal B+W for the ND's Now the CirPol's a different fish to fry. You'll need a
dedicated Nikon drop-in with built in wheel (for adjusting)


So I just buy a normal B+W ND, 52, and it'll slip in and work, no damage done?
Holy cow!

Thanks!
Lory



Aug 23, 2014 at 04:15 PM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


Yup, I'm currently using a 2 stop B+W
The box reads 52 102 N.Density 4x 72858
After a year of bumping up against 1/8000th SS
with the D3/D700 (base ISO200) I took matters into
my own hands and tried unscrewing the Nikon NC 52
and was pleasantly surprised when a $26 ND filter slid in
there like we knew what we were doin'



Aug 23, 2014 at 04:28 PM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


Nathan...some down and dirty handhelds from 25' with the D700 ISO200

1. 70-200 f2.8 VR [email protected]
2. 200 f2 @ f2.8
3. 200 f2 @ f2

Focus was on the leftmost pod in each
Note the lil focus breathing in the first, pretty much gone by 30'
HTH, Will

















Aug 23, 2014 at 05:28 PM
mongoose777
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


The 200 f/2 will blow away the 70-200 vr2 all day long period!!!


Aug 24, 2014 at 04:22 AM
workerdrone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


Owning both, I agree 100%. But if I didn't, I think I'd read this thread and decide to get the VRII and save myself $4k.


Aug 24, 2014 at 05:56 AM
Taoguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


ilnonno wrote:
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
...Show more

Well said.
I have both as well and the 'Stubby/Chubby' only comes out of the dark when there is a purpose that I want that bokeh only 'Stubby/Chubby' can deliver @ 200mm.

The question I would ask is how many times I shoot at 2.8 and needed 2.0? If its the bokeh you seek the 200/2 delivers. Photographers notice the bokeh far more than the average person, esp. the difference between 2.0 & 2.8. The 70-200 VR 2.8 beats the 200/2 every time between 70mm and 199 mm. 200 mm and up the 200/2 shines. I don't use extenders on zooms but I've seen many that do with great results but the 200/2 wins here.

If there is the big question in your mind about whether it's worth the extra $$ or it's a stretch to convince yourself to spend the $$, the 'Stubby/Chubby' probably isn't worth it. I use my 70-200 VR 2.8 far more than the 200/2.

Gerard



Aug 24, 2014 at 09:19 AM
Joseph.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


Nice comparison shots, Will. Where do I mail the beer?

That was a VERY messy background, but the 200 f/2 @ f/2 still managed to wipe it out. On the first pic, the background is still trying to compete for attention, but not on the last pic. There's no question what the subject was.



Aug 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM
SoundHound
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


I own both the Nikon and Canon 200mm F2.0 lenses. I agree with another poster that these lenses are Magic. There is no way to appreciate this magic by tables and charts. Also, to some extent, by a test photo or two.

I can tell you after thousands of shots, in comparision to other very fine lenses, I find the 200mm F2.0s to be very special (IMHO even the Canon 300mm F2.8 doesn't measure up). I alway look to shoot at F2.0 and, spat that apeture, the color, sharpness and especially contrast are of the highest order.



Sep 12, 2014 at 11:39 AM
badmintonhu
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 200mm f/2 vs. 2.8


I had 200f2 too. It's magic. The only PAIN is to carry it. FAT is not a good thing. Somehow 105DCf2 has similar trait as the 200f2. The images they took are 3D. Look at the Monkey's post here.


Nov 21, 2014 at 08:12 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

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.