John Skinner wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why someone would opt for a 200 fixed when it's basically covered in the 70-200 area, and not just go the 300> 2.8? The half stop difference can't be the draw card here.
It's one stop and it's a big deal. REALLY big deal.
I was looking at some old photos I shot with the 70-200 VRII the other day and I was like.. umm, what happened to the bokeh? I thought I had stopped down but no.. those were wide open. I thought the backgrounds look horrendous until I realized that I just got used to the 200 f/2 rendering!
I will say this: If you own a 70-200 and are convinced that the 200/2 is basically the same as the 200mm part of the 70-200, then move on, don't look back, and live happily ever after Whatever you do, don't EVER make the mistake of trying a 200/2, because it WILL haunt you.
dgjean wrote:
First of all, it's a full stop difference, and secondly, while the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 is a very good lens, it's not on par with the 200/2G--that's the draw card!
Consider reducing caffeine intake. It was just a question for Christs sakes. And as long as I've been doing this which is probably longer than you've been a stain somewhere.. 1/2 stop, 1 stop... seriously. I could produce the same look cheaper.
It's a nice lens with a great look, whether it's tied to the aperture of this lens, I don't know. I was merely questioning the fixed vs. variable. Now how about that Sanka ?
John Skinner wrote:
Consider reducing caffeine intake. It was just a question for Christs sakes. And as long as I've been doing this which is probably longer than you've been a stain somewhere.. 1/2 stop, 1 stop... seriously. I could produce the same look cheaper.
It's a nice lens with a great look, whether it's tied to the aperture of this lens, I don't know. I was merely questioning the fixed vs. variable. Now how about that Sanka ?
Sounds like you're the stain that needs to reduce his caffeine intake...
Yeah, great, another chubby thread. I have serious chub envy.
Was telling the wife I wanted to pick one up, and that I found a used one at a good price - she doesn't know anything about photography, but I told her it was a "200/F2" and told her the price. Later that day, at an event, we were chatting with another photographer, much more experience than me, and he said "I'll tell you a little secret: if you want to get the best lifting shots, you need the 200/F2 - you have the 70-200/2.8, and that's good glass, but I'm talking a whole 'nother ballgame."
RLDubbya wrote:
Yeah, great, another chubby thread. I have serious chub envy.
Was telling the wife I wanted to pick one up, and that I found a used one at a good price - she doesn't know anything about photography, but I told her it was a "200/F2" and told her the price. Later that day, at an event, we were chatting with another photographer, much more experience than me, and he said "I'll tell you a little secret: if you want to get the best lifting shots, you need the 200/F2 - you have the 70-200/2.8, and that's good glass, but I'm talking a whole 'nother ballgame."
It weighs a tonne, looks huge and draws lots of attention. I use it infrequently, and almost sold it earlier this year. But I strapped it on the D4 and fired off some shots and then proceeded to call the guy who was buying it to say he could no longer have it.
Whatever you do, don't EVER make the mistake of trying a 200/2, because it WILL haunt you. 
itself from the 70-200 zooms. 
