200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2009 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

dj dunzie
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Hey gang;

I'm toying - and still very early in the thought process - with adding a 200VR to my kit. I have seen so many amazing images and reviews of it, and I really think it will fit in well for shooting indoor sports on FX - which I do a lot of.

My concern is that I already have a heavy investment in a 300/f2.8VR, which I absolutely LOVE. It's easily - easily - the nicest piece of glass I have spent any significant time with.

To those that have owned or used both, do you think there's a big enough difference in FL to justify owning both? I realize that a 1.4X TC added to the 200VR gives me very close specs - and possibly even performance - to the 300VR, but I can also add a 1.4X TC or even 1.7X TC to the 300 and use it for outdoor sports. I do not want to get rid of that lens, period... it gets WAY too much use. Instead, I'd likely sell off my 70-200VR and 300/f4 AF-S to help support my NAS addiction here.

I'm dreaming about using a 2-body combo with 200VR on FX and 300VR on DX... man that'd be the ticket.

Any help is appreciated in terms of how the two fit (or wouldn't fit) in your kit?

Sep 11, 2009 at 07:30 PM

Avi B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Get the 85/1.4 instead.
Why? Because you'll love it!

(was that completely OT?)

Sep 11, 2009 at 07:37 PM

dj dunzie
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

HAHA!

I'm sure I'd love the 85/f1.4's IQ. Trouble is the FL isn't a big use to me - I have the f1.8 and it rarely gets used for the majority of my shooting. 200mm would be fantastic.

Sep 11, 2009 at 07:45 PM

Avi B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Okay, get the 200VR. I'll give you 1k for your 300 f/4 with Kirk collar. Yes, that's a lowball. But it's been well-used!

Sep 11, 2009 at 07:52 PM

gman1339
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

I think the 200 is too long (even on FX) to be your only indoor lens. Take your 70-200 and zoom all the way out to 200, slap it on your D700 and head to the rink. That will give you an idea of what shots you will get.

I'd rather have the 135 f/2.0 as my indoor lens on FX. Then I can switch on the fly between FX and DX to get either a 12MP 135mm shot or a 5.1MP 200mm (FOV) file.

Sep 11, 2009 at 07:58 PM

90 5.0
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Question,

Since you already have a 200mm lens and two 300mm lens you don't know how much of a difference in focal length that is to YOU already??

Why would it matter what others thought of the difference in fl's

?

I see a huge difference in 200 and 300mm to me and would never get rid of either focal length or give up such a useful zoom range to add a prime in the same max range.

I would add it, but not give up two extremely versatile and useful pieces of equipment.

I guess I look at my lenses like I do my tools, If I want to add another impact I'm not going to sell off a wrench set to get one, what happens when you need that wrench again

So you save up and add the impact when it's convenient.

Sep 11, 2009 at 08:00 PM

Zachs
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

you already have 200@2.8...1/3 stop difference is NOTHING. Especially when the 70-200 shines wide open. Poor investment in my opinion.

Sep 11, 2009 at 08:06 PM

andrewd01
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

f2.8 to f2 is one stop difference!

Sep 11, 2009 at 08:13 PM

Zachs
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

andrewd01 wrote:
f2.8 to f2 is one stop difference!

True, sorry. I was thinking about 1.8 --> 1.4

Still is not worth the price tag for 1 stop of light.

Sep 11, 2009 at 08:22 PM

dj dunzie
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

gman1339 wrote:
I think the 200 is too long (even on FX) to be your only indoor lens. Take your 70-200 and zoom all the way out to 200, slap it on your D700 and head to the rink. That will give you an idea of what shots you will get.

I'd rather have the 135 f/2.0 as my indoor lens on FX. Then I can switch on the fly between FX and DX to get either a 12MP 135mm shot or a 5.1MP 200mm (FOV) file.

My trouble is that I DO know I'd love 200mm on FX for indoors already. The vast majority of my shooting with the 70-200VR is done at full extension, or at least 150+, where the 70-200VR is at its worst. IQ at 200mm with the 70-200VR will not compete with the 200VR...

I pondered the 135/f2 for a bit too, although for me AF performance is critical and don't know that the 135/f2 would meet my needs there.

I don't enjoy shooting the FX bodies in DX crop. I know others have had good impressions of it... mine haven't been... especially at high ISO's where I shoot the indoor stuff.

Thanks for the comments GMan!

Sep 11, 2009 at 08:27 PM

dj dunzie
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Avi B wrote:
Okay, get the 200VR. I'll give you 1k for your 300 f/4 with Kirk collar. Yes, that's a lowball. But it's been well-used!

AVI, if I'd do that deal for anyone, it'd be you.

Sep 11, 2009 at 08:28 PM

dj dunzie
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Zachs wrote:
you already have 200@2.8...1/3 stop difference is NOTHING. Especially when the 70-200 shines wide open. Poor investment in my opinion.

You might be right about the poor investment, but it wouldn't be my first either...

I guess I'm spoiled by the IQ on the 300VR, and just find it a TINY bit too long for hockey, where the 200VR would be ideal, and similar IQ.

I doubt I'd ever get return on that investment, but it'd be fun trying, no?

Sep 11, 2009 at 08:29 PM

dj dunzie
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

I'm now wondering how the new 70-200VRII is going to be at 200mm, because even at its price I'm going to be looking at a much less expensive investment than the 200/f2VR. If it's (1) improved on FX and (2) better at the full 200mm FL, maybe that's a better and more sensible route. Guess I'll wait for some reviews.

Sep 11, 2009 at 08:34 PM

solomon10
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Get the Nikon 200VR F2 and fullfill your dreams. I came over to the dark side because of the 200mm. Its much better than i expected, since i was coming from 300mm f2.8 IS and 85mm f1.2. I am sure you will wish you had bought it sooner

Sep 11, 2009 at 08:38 PM

millsart
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Why not get a 200 f2, sell the 300 2.8 and get a 400 2.8 instead ?

Then you've got 200 f2, 280 f2.8, 400 f2.8 and 550 f4 from 2 lenses and a 1.4x TC ??

Far more bang for the buck than just a 200 and a 300 because then you've got a lot of money in glass but still are going to be suffering for reach

Sep 11, 2009 at 09:50 PM

allstarimaging
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Hi Dj,
As you may be aware I've gone through quite the lens shuffle in the last couple of years having owned and ultimately sold the 200 2.0 VR, 300 2.8 AFS II, 200-400 F4 Vr, and a 400 2.8 AFS II. Here is my take on your situation for what it's worth.
The 200 2.0 VR is probably the best lens in the Nikon lineup. It's IQ is unmatched. However, the 300 2.8 isn't far behind. For the limited extra stop you get and the low light abilities of the D700 I question the need for the extra stop the 200 2.0 VR will give you. For most of your field sports your going to find it too short especially on the FX sensor.
I would wait a few months and see what kind of performance the new 70-200 2.8 delivers. If it's anywhere in the league of the 14-24 and 24-70 then you'll be selling your current 70-200 and making the upgrade and have the 200mm focal length covered. So I'd say wait a few months for the new 70-200 and you may find a better investment for your 4k maybe a 200-400f4 VR. I just covered the PGA Deutsche Bank with one on my D700 and it's awesome. The flexibility of the 200-400 is tough to beat. Better investment if the majority of your work is outside in reasonable light. Good luck with your decision.
Jack
Here's one with the D700 +200-400 @400mm F4

2012 © allstarimaging

Sep 11, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Fstr.
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

You want that lens, you know you want it, so do what I did, order one

and start waiting. Your lens lineup is going to be astounding.

Sep 12, 2009 at 01:14 AM

dj dunzie
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

millsart wrote:
Why not get a 200 f2, sell the 300 2.8 and get a 400 2.8 instead ?

Then you've got 200 f2, 280 f2.8, 400 f2.8 and 550 f4 from 2 lenses and a 1.4x TC ??

Far more bang for the buck than just a 200 and a 300 because then you've got a lot of money in glass but still are going to be suffering for reach

I love the theory there that is for sure, unfortunately the 400/f2.8 is WAY beyond my means, especially after adding a 200/f2 and selling the 300/f2.8. I think you might be right in that being the ultimate long combo in the 200 and 400, but just way too expensive for me right now. If I were to come into a chunk of money, though, you might have my answers...

Sep 12, 2009 at 01:52 AM

dj dunzie
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

allstarimaging wrote:
Hi Dj,
As you may be aware I've gone through quite the lens shuffle in the last couple of years having owned and ultimately sold the 200 2.0 VR, 300 2.8 AFS II, 200-400 F4 Vr, and a 400 2.8 AFS II. Here is my take on your situation for what it's worth.
The 200 2.0 VR is probably the best lens in the Nikon lineup. It's IQ is unmatched. However, the 300 2.8 isn't far behind. For the limited extra stop you get and the low light abilities of the D700 I question the need for the extra stop the 200 2.0 VR will give you. For most of your field sports your going to find it too short especially on the FX sensor.
I would wait a few months and see what kind of performance the new 70-200 2.8 delivers. If it's anywhere in the league of the 14-24 and 24-70 then you'll be selling your current 70-200 and making the upgrade and have the 200mm focal length covered. So I'd say wait a few months for the new 70-200 and you may find a better investment for your 4k maybe a 200-400f4 VR. I just covered the PGA Deutsche Bank with one on my D700 and it's awesome. The flexibility of the 200-400 is tough to beat. Better investment if the majority of your work is outside in reasonable light. Good luck with your decision.
Jack
Here's one with the D700 +200-400 @400mm F4

Jack... that is exactly the feedback I was after, and I think I will heed your advice and wait to see how the new 70-200VRII stacks up at 200mm, because it will be more financially reasonable and if it's good at 200mm on FX will give me even more flexibility in the kit.

BEAUTIFUL shot by the way... I'm gonna miss seeing your image posts on the Sports Forum and around here if you scale back mister! Thanks again.

Sep 12, 2009 at 01:54 AM

dj dunzie
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Fstr. wrote:
You want that lens, you know you want it, so do what I did, order one

and start waiting. Your lens lineup is going to be astounding.

I do want it, I won't lie. I think I am going to rent it a time or two this winter and put my ability to resist at stake. Cheers.

Sep 12, 2009 at 01:55 AM

Chris Noyes
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #21 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

DJ, I think I'm living in a parallel universe with you . . . at least as far as lenses is concerned. I seem to be a few months behind you in lens acquisition. I just put my 300 f2.8 AF-S II into action shooting soccer the other day, and I'm speechless/astounded with my results.

As much as I too would love to add the 200 f2 to my list of lenses, I think the 70-200 is just too good and too versatile to give up for the type of shooting you do (primarily hockey). While the 200 f2 is unrivaled at 200 mm, it ain't gonna get the job done at 150 mm or less. Are you really willing to give up the close range shots? If so, go with the f2 200.

Personally, I get too much mileage out of the 70-200 to consider replacing it with a fixed 200 mm. I agree with the advice to wait on the new 70-200 before taking the plunge either way. Also a good idea to rent the 200 f2 a few times and see for yourself whether you will miss those close range shots.

Sep 12, 2009 at 03:12 AM

nhanson2004
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Hi DJ, I own the 200/2 VR, 300/2.8 VR and now a 400/2.8 VR. Yes, there are many outings I used the D700+200 and D300+300 or vs vs. Both 1.4x extremely well. Mostly in my kit is the 200 and 400, the 300 is just there so I can shoot 400mm+ on two bodies at airshows (me and sig other). Anyways, at one time I owned the 70-200 VR and 200-400 VR too. I've offloaded both for the primes, although both are great lenses. I want the sharpest image possible and deal with the added weight. But for versatility, a good sports kit might be a 200/2 VR and 400/2.8 VR. Likewise, a good nature kit might be a 300/2.8 VR and 500/4 VR. My problem is I shoot both categories and more! Hope this helps... best dj (another DJ)

Sep 12, 2009 at 03:39 AM

dj dunzie
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #23 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Chris I wouldn't wish my "universe" on anyone!

I think you're right, I've basically restrained myself to at LEAST waiting to hear what the new 70-200VRII is going to be all about. If they can tweak it to make the 200mm results just as good as the 100mm results I'll likely spring on that upgrade. As I said, until I got the 300VR I lived in ignorant bliss not knowing just how good the very top Nikkor glass is. Once you get a taste for it, and particularly in the primes, it's hard to not want more FL's with equal IQ.

NHanson... wow you've gone through a dream kit of glass haven't you? Nice. You are likely right in that the 200 and 400 would be a great combination for pretty much all the stuff I wanna do, it's just that the price tag on that 400 is other-wordly, and the 300 reacts VERY well to the 1.4X TC. For the field sports I shoot, I don't mind typically going f4 or greater - especially on FX - so it's mainly the indoor stuff I had the 200VR pegged for. I appreciate the feedback. If you ever need someone to give your high end glass a run to keep it from getting stale, give me a holler!

Sep 12, 2009 at 08:11 AM

trenchmonkey
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #24 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Zachs wrote:
andrewd01 wrote:
f2.8 to f2 is one stop difference!

True, sorry. I was thinking about 1.8 --> 1.4

Still is not worth the price tag for 1 stop of light.

That's like saying the 300 f2.8 VR isn't worth it over the AF-S 300 f4

There's much more to it than just 1 stop

I own the 200/300 VR's and can tell you finer glass you won't find.
Shooting FX and DX it's like having 4 amazing lenses at your disposal.
I'd rather lose an arm than part with either one. They're THAT good.

I shoot the hell out of the 70-200 f2.8 VR with great results...but it's no 200 f2 re: AF/IQ

Sep 12, 2009 at 10:50 AM

brent f
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #25 · 200VR... fit in a kit with a 300VR?

Sep 12, 2009 at 01:31 PM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end