Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
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.
You know what's funny? There was a craigslist posting for one of those the day after I pre-ordered the 70-200VR2 and it really got me thinking. Thankfully the lens was sold very quickly to take the temptation away...
I will give the new 70-200VR2 a go. With the money I had to invest into the D3s unfortunately my decision making was made easier. The 70-200VR2 should be a great fit regardless, and I imagine it will come in very handy on the new machine - as I said especially with the 1.2x crop mode on the new body...
Oct 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
If I could get two of the big lenses (in addition to the 70-200), it'd be the 200-400 and the non-existent 800/5.6 AF-S VR. I absolutely covet Canon's new 800... a fantastic optic, lighter and better balanced than the 600/4. And the extra reach is what would complement the 200-400 perfectly.
Zachs wrote:
you already have [email protected]/3 stop difference is NOTHING. Especially when the 70-200 shines wide open. Poor investment in my opinion.
I would have to disagree here.
(I know you know that 2.8 -> 2.0 is 1-stop)
But on FX, I'm not so sure the 70-200 VR really "shines" that well at 200, esp when compared to the 200f2. I have both, and love them both for what they are. If you're talking IQ, the 200 f/2 is better in any and every way than the 70-200 at 200, anywhere, anytime, any place, and not just by a margin.
Of course, the 70-200 will give good results, and is more versatile. But if ultimate IQ is what the OP is after, the 200f2 cannot be beat at 200mm. Moreover, the 200f2 seems to LOVE TC's. I've used 1.4x and 2.0x on mine, and have not noticed much degradation at all (marginal, but IQ is still jaw dropping). I have not compared the 200f2+2.0x to the 400f2.8 at f/4, and I'm sure the 400 will win in every aspect other than weight and dimension, but I would not be surprised to find differences that make or break a shot (like it could between the 70-200 and the 200f2).
The 200 f/2 is a great lens for basketball, indoor track, swimming and sometimes volleyball. If you add the 1.4x and now you have a 280mm 2.8 lens with no loss of IQ and equally as fast and sharp as the 300 lens. IMO, the 200 is a more versatile lens over the 300 because you can always go a lower mm for indoor sports where the 300 would just be too close/tight. I personally have the 400 2.8 VR and feel the 200 is a great compliament to the 400. In a perfedt world where money is no object, then go for this setup, but it will definitely set you back in a major way.
Dan Bellyk wrote:
Sell your D300, 300 f/4, 70-200 and get the new 70-200 II and add the D3s with the 1.2 crop mode and still gives you 8mp
Done, done, done and done and done.
Yeah this is an older thread and in fact that's exactly what I did. You must be a mind-reader, or you read the rest of the thread first!
The D3s and 70-200VRII are on pre-order and I'll likely get them in late 2015 but hey, that's another story. Hopefully Nikon delivers fairly quickly on them.
Why not buy a used one? Try it, and if you don't like it, you can probably get your money back out of it. When it comes to this stuff, I learned a long time ago that I can analyze it to death, ask opinions of everyone I know, or just get one and try it.
The last option has ALWAYS been the right one for me. Don't know till ya try
