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!
Zachs wrote:
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
trenchmonkey wrote:
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
TM I was hoping you'd give me some input, although secretly I was kinda hoping you'd say not to bother... it's an extremely tempting lens, and your posts are a big reason why...
So you're advocating I jump in the doghouse for a year or two (and take amazing photos while I'm in there huh?)
I'm gonna rent it and see if I can make a rational decision. (Pfffftttt, yeah right)
DJ, just take a pic of your wife with it...not as the subject but 3rd fiddle. I bought the lens for a specific wedding,
promising I'd sell it right after. Her words...."you will not sell THAT lens" No doghouse, everybody's happy.
Gimmie a minute, I'll find the shot...here ya go. Obviously nothing special but she liked how she looked
from the #3 position. Go figure!
HAHA... okay I'll try to pull that quick one on her... I'm guessing she'll still give me the death stare and threaten to use sharp utensils on me as I sleep if it doesn't go back!
dj dunzie wrote:
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.
Are you in Toronto ?
My current lineup is 14-24, 24-70, 60G macro, 200 VR, 300 2.8 AFS II, 1.4x, 1.7x on D700. The 200 is out of this world, even with the 1.4x on it. IMO, it is less special with the 1.7. I shoot sports so the longer lenses get the most use. 200 indoors is fantastic on full frame. I find 2.0 extremely useful because it allows me to keep the SS high for action, yet can keep ISO reasonably low. I don't find it too long indoors but obviously would be if shooting hockey from the penalty box. Great for basketball, volleyball, swimming, gymnastics.
I prefer the 200 with 1.4 to the 300 alone. The 300 has great utility if I want to go longer but since that is infrequent, I am planning to sell it. I might feel different if I had a crop body to use it on, then the spread between the 200 on FF and 300 plus converter on say a crop camera would give great coverage.
I had the 70-200 and 80-200 for a short while but didn't think they compared to the Nikon primes. Maybe this new one will be different so its worth checking out. Even so, it won't be capable of doing what the 200 VR can do.
rjk55425 wrote:
I had the 70-200 and 80-200 for a short while but didn't think they compared to the Nikon primes. Maybe this new one will be different so its worth checking out. Even so, it won't be capable of doing what the 200 VR can do.
That is my assumption as well. As good as many feel the IQ is on the 70-200VR and 80-200's, the prime 200/300/400/500/600's are really at a completely new playing level, and once you get a taste for that, it's tough to let go.
trenchmonkey wrote:
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
You and I both know that that is not a fair comparison! I use to shoot with a 1D + 200 1.8 and I preferred the 70-200 over that any/every day. The fact is, is that it is just and awkward lens to shoot with, same with the 200 f2. Of course its a great lens that renders the oof areas very very nicely, but so does the 70-200. Just trying save the man his marriage! hahaha
Zachs wrote:
You and I both know that that is not a fair comparison! I use to shoot with a 1D + 200 1.8 and I preferred the 70-200 over that any/every day. The fact is, is that it is just and awkward lens to shoot with, same with the 200 f2. Of course its a great lens that renders the oof areas very very nicely, but so does the 70-200. Just trying save the man his marriage! hahaha
I rather agree with you. I had the 200 1.8 and Canon 1D as well and always found it a pretty awkward focal length combo as well.
On the full frame D3 the 200 f2 proves a little easier for indoor sports such as volleyball, but having had mine 2 weeks so far, I still am finding it a bit too long or too short for a lot of stuff.
Verdict is still out for me really. I think I'll mainly be using mine with a TC for a 280mm f2.8.
I could of got a 300 2.8 for the same money of course, but figured the 200 adds some versatility in that it can also serve as the rather unique 200 f2 for those times when thats needed (even though its a little rare)
300 2.8 would make more sense for most as you could add a TC and have a 420 f4, and I personally think most people need MORE reach rather than less, but I have a 200-400 and a 400 2.8 as well right now, so the added reach of the 300 plus TC would be quite redundant for me.
In shooting football last week with the 200 w/ TC I did find it felt a bit short as I'm used to a 400 2.8.
Perhaps if I had a crop body with the 200 it might fare a bit better......
dj dunzie wrote:
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.
You do realize your logic is a bit flawed because you say you don't want to get rid of your 300 2.8 because it gets used way too much, but did you consider that its only because you didn't have other options that could actually lead to the 300 seeing far less use ?
If you had a 200 f2 perhaps that lens and then switching the 300 to a 400 2.8 or a 200-400 would result in the 300 2.8 hardly seeing any use as you'd perhaps always prefer the extra speed of the 200 or reach of the 400. To each his own but I've had both 300's and 400's and never touched the 300's because hands down the 400 was always better. Seldom you can have too much reach after all
Additionally, I really think you'd have a hard time getting rid of a 70-200 and using just a 200. What are you going to shoot basketball or hockey with for example ?
I've got a 200 and as I had said in a recent thread, I find it very seldom used for sports, which is what I make my living doing.
For example, if your the shooting from one of the first few spots on the baseline in a basketball game 200 is going to be so tight. Or if your shooting hockey from the corners, not only can't the 200 fit through the photo hole, but its too tight for action inside the blue line.
200 F2 and 400 2.8 just make tons more sense to me than a 200 and 300.
All your going to end up doing with your 300 is using it with a TC all the time, and if your always using a lens with a TC, then it makes more sense to just buy a longer lens as it will perform better, and give you option for even more reach when needed
200 gives you 200 obviously, then 280 f2.8 if you do need that focal length, then you've got 400 f2.8 and can get 560 f4 with a tc as well. Add in the ability to use the DX body and your set for all reach I'd say
Basically every FX shooter I know is using at least a 400 these days, and I see lots of people also getting 600's because 400mm on FX really isn't a ton of reach.
A 300, while certainly great optically, just became a rather wanting lens when the D3 came out. Its just too short for football or soccer on its own, and sure you can add a TC but then thats just getting you back to where everyone else is starting
Millsart, yeah I do understand what you're getting at here. If it were financially reasonable for me to go with a 200/400 combination I would definitely do it, however the cost of "upgrading" the 300 to a 400 is just absolutely prohibitive for me at this point. Plus, I use the 300 indoors where it is acceptable as a FL - just barely - for hockey. The 400 would be too long, making the 200 my only lens, which might not be bad, except that the 400 would not justify its price tag for my shooting I don't think just based on outdoor stuff. For me I think shooting the 300 at f4 with the TC is a decent compromise really, even though I do understand and agree that the 400 might be way more useful for field sports I shoot. Maybe if I hadn't already invested in the 300 I'd be looking at just that option now.
So what I DID decide on is a pre-order of the new 70-200VR2. From what I've heard so far from early reports, it looks like they have absolutely addressed the performance at 150-200mm with this lens, and at the price point it gives me a lot more flexibility. Now I will have the 24-70, 70-200, and 300 options covered, and mix in the 1.4x here and there too. When the D3s arrives I also like the option of being able to shoot at a 1.2x crop at 8.5MP, which gives me yet another dimension, and makes the 70-200VR2 a little more useful IMHO for indoor sports, where on the D700 I found it always a little short - especially considering I was shooting at 200mm 90% of the time, where I found my copy a little weaker.
Hopefully that gets it sorted out. I'm still waiting on a rental for the 200/f2VR, although it may end up being a bad idea.
DJ, wait for the new 70-200. I don't think I'd ever give up that focal length range. Then, once you have that lens and have tried it, go ahead and rent the 200/2 and do a side-by-side comparison for your needs. Then you can decide. But the promise of a much-improved 70-200 (and the current one is no slouch already) is too important to ignore, especially given the FL range you'd lose and the price difference.
dj dunzie wrote:
[...] the prime 200/300/400/500/600's are really at a completely new playing level, and once you get a taste for that, it's tough to let go.
If you can live with f/4, which specifically to you is a major compromise, then consider the 200-400. The 500 and 600 are f/4 anyway, but you lose a stop to the 300 and two stops to the 200.
Then again, the IQ/AF are right up there, and you gain 201-299mm and 301-399mm as well. Plus, you save a boatload of money.
epuja wrote:
why don't u just get a 180mm f/2.8 and call it a day
good compromise
I have owned the 180/f2.8 and while it is a great bang for the buck lens, the AF is just not up to the standards I need for sports shooting. May grab another one someday for fun though if I find a great deal...
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.
Go figure!