Home · Register · Software · Software · 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       3       end
  

Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4
  
 
Desertcruiser
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


EDIT: Now available, scroll down...

Does anyone has some comparing shots?
Full body portraits (or something else) wide open.
Just wondering how they're rendering.
Most welcome SOOC!

Do you have samples, post it here, if you like!

70-200 the VRII and FL version would be nice to see...


Edited on Jul 26, 2017 at 06:41 PM · View previous versions



Jul 26, 2017 at 06:49 AM
mbphoto_2.8
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


Marianne did quite a lot of testing regarding the bokeh and oof rendering of different lenses.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4031515

Scrolling down on page six you can find both the 105/1.4E and the 200/2VR
The zoom lens comes nowhere near either of the two in terms of subject isolation and bokeh.



Jul 26, 2017 at 08:51 AM
Paul_K
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


Don't have the 1.4/105mm (and not considering it either) but hopefully can help you with some 2.8/70-200VRII vs 2/200 VR shots

2.8/70-200 VR










Nikon D800 1/500s f/4.5 at 200.0mm iso1600

2/200VR I





Nikon D800 1/800s f/2.8 at 280.0mm iso280





Nikon D3 1/4000s f/2.5 at 200.0mm iso280





Nikon D3 1/800s f/2.2 at 200.0mm iso2500





Nikon D3 1/800s f/2.2 at 200.0mm iso4500

The 70-200 is sharp and fast, but IMO adds not much extra's (as far as bokeh, image rendition etc is concerned).
That said, it's an excellent 'workhorse' lens, and the flexibility of the zoom and undeniable sharpness make it an indispensable must have tool in a working photographers camera bag

The 2/200VR (even the VRI copy I've got) is much sharper and in my experience has faster AF then the 70-200, while also having a much more characteristic bokeh and OoF rendering (admittedly an acquired taste)
That said, the weight makes it a burden to 'just' take it along all day in case something interesting might pop up, and its size (with the huge frontlens and hood) make it very intimidating for a model, professional or not

I have my 2/200 for over 10 years now, love it and won't part with it
But nowadays rather use my 2/135 DC instead for outside location shots, much lighter to lug around all day, much more discrete, maybe not as ridiculously sharp as the 2/200, but the bokeh wide open is nearly as good





Nikon D800 1/800s f/2.5 at 135.0mm iso560





Nikon D800 1/800s f/2.5 at 135.0mm iso1000

HTH

Edited on Jul 26, 2017 at 04:22 PM · View previous versions



Jul 26, 2017 at 10:13 AM
milkod2001
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


I've seen direct comparison between 200/2 and 70-200 vr2. The difference in bokeh and rendering was not day and night but 200/2 results were clearly better. New 105/1.4 seems to render similarly to 200/2. Both 105/1.4 and new 70-200 E complement 200/2 nicely but cannot replace it if you are very picky on rendering and bokeh.


Jul 26, 2017 at 12:37 PM
Dj R
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


I have a lot of experience with the 70-200 II, the E, and the 105 1.4, having owned each of them, one of them more than once.

I can't tell you which one is best for you. I will not answer your question about the rendering, sorry. But perhaps this can help... I am always good for a salesman's approach tutorial!

The 200mm is the beast and best. But it should be, obviously, for that price, size, and weight. The rendering isn't the end all with these, IMO. All three render well enough for any professional. To me, it's about budget. It's about the need/desire to have a ton of tools vs. one swiss army knife tele. The less is more approach, is what I've been after lately. If you're shooting people, and it's not about budget, the E wins. Packing a 28mm 1.4, 58mm 1.4, and a 70-200E, gives me 99.9% of what I need. And when Nikon releases a 50mm 1.4e, I'll complete my holy trinity!

The 105mm is a special tool, for a craftsman. It really doesn't get any better than this, for a prime tele. But that is just it... it's a lot of size, weight, and money, for a prime tele. You can use it for portrait time, at a wedding. And during ceremony too. But when you're standing in that center aisle and the bride is walking towards you, a 70-200 would be much more useful!

The G II is not really 70-200. So all that size and weight... to not really get 200mm is sad.

The E. This lens is the answer.

1. The lens is so sharp, has amazing color, ridiculous AF (2x as good as the G II), amazing VR (again, improved and 2x as good as the G II)
2. The weight and length have been reduced, when compared with the G II! This is a huge deal for me. I can dual wield much more comfortably now.
3. You are REALLY getting 85, 105, 135, 200 all in one package now. I don't miss the 105 at all!!!!
4. It's expensive, but see #3. You are getting THREE primes (it's tele and @2.8, let's face it, you're still able to blast the background).
5. Versatility. Again, going back to #3. You have an 85mm (which is where I typically start with this lens). But you can snipe at 200mm during cocktail hour. With the G II, you really couldn't snipe as good. It's not really 200mm with the focus breathing (which is real). Plus the new VR is so improved, it's easier to snipe/hand hold at 200mm with the E.
6. Swiss Army Lens. I can validate having this size and weight (and cost/value) in my bag, b/c again, #3. Some folks own an 85L, 135L, and a 200L. And they are sitting there packing, deciding what can come and what can't. Now the whole gang is welcome.
7. It's E. So it's already updated. The G II is not. The 105mm is, obviously. But it's a specialized tool, wasn't getting used enough for me to keep it. I sold it after a year.

Hope this helps in some way!



Jul 26, 2017 at 12:58 PM
milkod2001
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


@Desertcruiser

it would be easier if you have stated what you looking for. To complement 200/2 with other lens/es, replace it with other lens/ses, can't decide between 105 and 70-200 or something else?



Jul 26, 2017 at 04:57 PM
Desertcruiser
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


Hello again...

Thanks for your very helpful answers, my friends!

Spontaneous i could make a free afternoon and organize a 70-200 FL for a shootout.
Then i took my own 200/2 and my 105/1.4 as well as my girl to a location.

It was not to easy, because of changing lights with clouds coming and going...
So there is harder and softer light on different pictures.

Then i made a comparison for myself and want to share with you now.

All pictures made with my D810 with ISO64. All nearly SOOC, but must use the luminance controller a bit for some degree of balanced exposure. No crop, automatic white balance. Later some use of flash with a softbox.
Lets begin...

First part 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 FL:

Little bit harder lights here.
200/2 @f2


200/2 @f2.8 for comparison with the following 70-200 FL. The vignette is gone mostly...


70-200/2.8 @ f2.8 and 200mm, softer light, but stronger colours and a bit stronger contrast. Relative heavy vignette but very pleasant. As sharp as the 200 @f2, or sharper. No focus correction.




Second part: 70-200/2.8 FL @ 105mm vs 105/1.4E

70-200/2.8 @f2.8 and 102mm (sorry, should be 105mm) vignette is mediocre


105/1.4E @ f2.8 nearly no vignette


105/1.4E @ f1.4 here we are. Strong but pleasant vignette and the swirl.


To be continued...

Dj R wrote:
1. The lens is so sharp, has amazing color, ridiculous AF (2x as good as the G II), amazing VR (again, improved and 2x as good as the G II)
2. The weight and length have been reduced, when compared with the G II! This is a huge deal for me. I can dual wield much more comfortably now.
3. You are REALLY getting 85, 105, 135, 200 all in one package now. I don't miss the 105 at all!!!!
4. It's expensive, but see #3. You are getting THREE primes (it's tele and @2.8, let's face it, you're still able
...Show more

Total agree with you after thinking about and testing a little bit...
Have had a 85/1.4G, sold it for the 105 i'll keeping.
Same with the 135/2. There are now a few primes: 24/1.4G, 58/1.4G, 105/1.4E, 200/2G and the "swiss army lens"

I see, we have too much to choose and that makes it more difficult. Really a material prosperity.......


Edited on Jul 26, 2017 at 06:31 PM · View previous versions



Jul 26, 2017 at 06:08 PM
Desertcruiser
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


Now added a flash because of less light.

Third part: 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8

200/2 @ f2:


70-200/2.8E @f2.8



Fourth part: 70-200/2.8E @105mm vs 105/1.4E

70-200/2.8E @f2.8


105/1.4E @f2.8


105/1.4E @1.4



milkod2001 wrote:
@Desertcruiser@

it would be easier if you have stated what you looking for. To complement 200/2 with other lens/es, replace it with other lens/ses, can't decide between 105 and 70-200 or something else?


I was looking for a comparison only. Maybe the 70-200FL tougether with the 105/1.4 can replace my beloved 200/2.

*****

The image look of the 70-200FL wide open surprised me! Colourful, more contrast and sharp as a razor.
For full body shots, the 105 maybe can replace the 200/2. Genious look as well.
Now i have something to think about.

Made a test to infinity as well for doing landscape. Took the 200/2, the 70-200 @200mm and the micro AF 200/4 for this.
To infinity the 70-200 and the 200/2 are on par @ f2 and 2.8. The colours of the zoom are stronger.
The micro 200 not even close.
All @ f4 the zoom and f2 are on par as well. @ f8 all three are close with sharpness. Colours of the zoom and 200/2 on par. The micro a bit sluggish/weak.



Jul 26, 2017 at 06:15 PM
Dj R
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


@Desertcruiser
DUDE REALLY WELL DONE
@elijah and I were just chatting about this last night, so I had some material ready for you (earlier).
cheers



Jul 26, 2017 at 06:58 PM
agelessphotog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


All 3 look great. This is another comparison though that I look at the 105 1.4E and the 200 F2 and keep thinking it's about a wash. So glad I was able to sell that expensive heavy lens. Don't get me wrong I loved it, just too heavy.


Jul 26, 2017 at 09:54 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 

        


Elijah
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


Desertcruiser wrote:
Now added a flash because of less light.

Third part: 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8

200/2 @ f2:
http://up.picr.de/29906596ey.jpg

70-200/2.8E @f2.8@
http://up.picr.de/29906597ap.jpg

Fourth part: 70-200/2.8E @105mm vs 105/1.4E

70-200/2.8E @f2.8@
http://up.picr.de/29906598gx.jpg

105/1.4E @f2.8@
http://up.picr.de/29906599uo.jpg

105/1.4E @1.4
http://up.picr.de/29906600cb.jpg


I was looking for a comparison only. Maybe the 70-200FL tougether with the 105/1.4 can replace my beloved 200/2.

*****

The image look of the 70-200FL wide open surprised me! Colourful, more contrast and sharp as a razor.
For full body shots, the 105 maybe can replace the 200/2. Genious look as well.
Now i have something to think about.

Made a test to infinity as well for doing landscape. Took the 200/2, the 70-200 @200mm and the micro AF 200/4 for this.
To
...Show more

I was almost set to sell my 105E in favor of the 70-200E.
This just made me realize that I simply need to add a 70-200E to my kit and not sell the 105E.
There is a significant difference between the two lenses... The 105E wide open blows the 70-200E out of the water when comparing the creaminess of the background...
---------------------------------------------

Dj R wrote:
@Desertcruiser@
DUDE REALLY WELL DONE
@elijah@ and I were just chatting about this last night, so I had some material ready for you (earlier).
cheers


Thanks mate



Jul 26, 2017 at 11:11 PM
agelessphotog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


I debated this also. Considered the 70-200 Nikon FL or Tamron G2. I also wanted something better for sports. But i'm just going to keep my 50 1.8 and the 105 for now. The 70-200 doesn't come close to the 105 1.4E IMO. I don't think i'm getting another portrait lens until Nikon updates the 135 or 200...


Jul 26, 2017 at 11:29 PM
toupac
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4




Desertcruiser wrote:
Hello again...

Thanks for your very helpful answers, my friends!

Spontaneous i could make a free afternoon and organize a 70-200 FL for a shootout.
Then i took my own 200/2 and my 105/1.4 as well as my girl to a location.

It was not to easy, because of changing lights with clouds coming and going...
So there is harder and softer light on different pictures.

Then i made a comparison for myself and want to share with you now.

All pictures made with my D810 with ISO64. All nearly SOOC, but must use the luminance controller a bit for some degree of balanced exposure. No
...Show more

Wow. Great job with the comparison. I've been thinking about getting the 70-200 f2.8FL and letting go of my 200 F2. Decisions decisions.

The 105 f1.4E, however, looks amazing wide open vs the 70-200 f2.8FL wide open at the same focal length.




Jul 27, 2017 at 01:20 AM
Nathan Padgett
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


The 105E is my favorite Nikon lens ever. Period. Unparalleled sharpness wide open and stunning bokeh. It's special.

It makes my 70-200 VR2 (which is a very good sharp lens) look bad by comparison. I've really been reaching for my 70-200 less and less lately. Really only comes out for wedding ceremonies. And my 200 F2, never comes out of the bag, mostly because of size.



Jul 27, 2017 at 03:03 AM
low325
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


Desert. Very well done. Thanks for these pics


Jul 27, 2017 at 03:32 AM
swifty168
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


I'm sort of in a similar position in that I'm trying to justify keeping both the 105/1.4E and 70-200/2.8FL.
Around the 105mm FL it's a no-brainer as the 105E reigns supreme. Which means I'd be keeping the 70-200 mainly for the long end.

Not sure if you had the chance but did you happen to shoot the 70-200 and the 105 from the same distance with both wide open? (ie. 105 @1.4 and 70-200 at 200mm and f2.8?)
With a D850, a 2X crop from a 105E would still yields more than 10MP.
But the 70-200's AF significantly beats the 105E and has VR too.
*sigh* Tough choices.
If a modern 180mm f2.8E (maybe PF) exists, that'd make my decision easier. Sell the 70-200 for the a 180 prime.



Jul 27, 2017 at 05:36 AM
agelessphotog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


swifty168 wrote:
I'm sort of in a similar position in that I'm trying to justify keeping both the 105/1.4E and 70-200/2.8FL.
Around the 105mm FL it's a no-brainer as the 105E reigns supreme. Which means I'd be keeping the 70-200 mainly for the long end.

Not sure if you had the chance but did you happen to shoot the 70-200 and the 105 from the same distance with both wide open? (ie. 105 @1.4 and 70-200 at 200mm and f2.8?)
With a D850, a 2X crop from a 105E would still yields more than 10MP.
But the 70-200's AF significantly beats the 105E and has VR
...Show more

From my understanding if you look up there are two of the same shots of the 105 and 200 with him at the same distance. More zoomed in / compressed with the 70-200 but the 105 still has way more and better bokeh, smoother blown out background, looks way better to me. I have the 105 1.4E myself and debated getting a 70-200 2.8 mainly for sports shots. Have you guys considered the Tamron 70-200 G2? From what I hear it's sharp, not quite as sharp as the Nikon 70-200 FL but some people said it actually has as good or better bokeh. And it has VC, and I think the AF is snappy too. Seems like maybe a good option if you want to keep the 105 and get 95% of the 70-200 FL but at less than half the cost.



Jul 27, 2017 at 12:29 PM
CATProductions
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


I have tested the 105 1.4E more than once and just recently got the 70-200 2.8 FL; just want to re-iterate how fast the AF is on the new 2.8 FL. It's really fast so if you're shooting an event or need really fast & reliable AF, the 2.8 FL is incredible. The updated VR is also amazing & should not be underestimated when shooting handheld. The 105 1.4E is also great when you have more time to frame and consider a shot.


Jul 27, 2017 at 01:15 PM
Desertcruiser
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


An other comparison...












Jul 27, 2017 at 06:18 PM
Elijah
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Comparing shots 200/2 vs 70-200/2.8 @200 vs 105/1.4


Desertcruiser wrote:
An other comparison...


Wow.

I don't care how good the 70-200E is, the 200/2 looks much sexier & will always be.



Jul 27, 2017 at 06:26 PM
1
       2       3       end






FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password