snapsy wrote:
Keep in mind the score is based on the resolving power with the highest MP camera available for the mount, in this case the D800/E. This means the results aren't directly comparable to the Canon tele-exotics.
Perhaps someone who is smarter than I am can explain the finer points of lens sharpness But from what I read, the Nikkor 85mm lenses, both the f1.4 and f1.8 tested a hair higher than the 200. But I was also intrigued by snapsy's comment. I don't fully understand why the camera's megapixels affects lens sharpness. But keeping that in mind, I looked at the ratings only comparing the D600 and the 5D MK III since they are closer than the D800/5D MK III and there are 4 Nikon lenses, 2 Sigma lenses, 2 Samyang lenses and 1 Zeiss lens that rate higher on the D600 than the highest rated Canon manufactured lens on the 5D MK III. Of course a lot of people don't seem to put any faith in DxO's ratings. But it is interesting to me. I just wish I understood it better.
Gregstx wrote:
Perhaps someone who is smarter than I am can explain the finer points of lens sharpness But from what I read, the Nikkor 85mm lenses, both the f1.4 and f1.8 tested a hair higher than the 200.
DxO says the 85mm f/1.4 tests at 19P-Mpix, and the 200mm f/2 tests at 22P-Mpix. I'm not sure where the confusion is?
But I was also intrigued by snapsy's comment. I don't fully understand why the camera's megapixels affects lens sharpness.
If the lens is outresolving a camera sensor by any significant margin, then a higher megapixel sensor will give better sharpness values, since it's providing more data about the resolving power of the lens. Just like if you had a half megapixel camera, you wouldn't need a very sharp lens because the sensor isn't providing a lot of data or very tiny photosites.
I have got my 2nd hand Nikon 200f2 vr1 quite a while ago.
I love everything about this lens and the instant background I am getting.
However, in the event of a strong backlight, the photo gets quite washed out. Even after post processing, I cannot recover much of the colors. A 5 steps shift to left or right to avoid the direct light does help a little. I am not a fan of instagram photos.
I think my 70-200mm vr2 and 24mm f1.4 gives a much better contrast against a strong backlight. I assume that it is due to the nano coating of the new lenses. Is Nano coating the real reason? I remembered reading about this issue in some articles. but I am more interested to know how do you all get around it.
I have thought of 2 ways to combat this, but I wonder if it works.
1) I have ordered a B+W nano coat MRC filter from Amazon to provide nano coating that VR1 does not have.
2) Use a speedlight to fill up the person, thus providing a better contrast.
I wonder if you have this issue, and how you do it.
Looking forward to your inputs. Sorry if it has been discussed before.
The B&W filter isn't going to work. The nano coating reduces internal reflections - you can't just add one filter/element to soak up all the stray light. Once light has hit the filter, it will already have done a lot of reflecting since none of the outside elements are coated.
The reason the coating works is because most/all of the elements are coated. The B&W filters are coated so they don't make the internal reflection problem worse, but it won't make it better either.
Veiling or haze from heavy backlighting is about the ONLY knock on the 200 f2. The Nano VRII improves on this slightly but it's still there. I have no problems working around it, just know your gear...bring other lenses.
binary visions wrote:
The B&W filter isn't going to work. The nano coating reduces internal reflections - you can't just add one filter/element to soak up all the stray light. Once light has hit the filter, it will already have done a lot of reflecting since none of the outside elements are coated.
The reason the coating works is because most/all of the elements are coated. The B&W filters are coated so they don't make the internal reflection problem worse, but it won't make it better either.
Thanks for the pointers.
Since I already ordered the nano filter, I will still put in and try.
Will a polariser help a bit in extreme backlight cases?
trenchmonkey wrote:
Veiling or haze from heavy backlighting is about the ONLY knock on the 200 f2. The Nano VRII improves on this slightly but it's still there. I have no problems working around it, just know your gear...bring other lenses.
Thanks for the tips.
Recently we tend to have some playtime with the kids at the park during the sunset time period. We will leave the park for dinner before it gets dark. By natural instinct, my wife and kid will choose to back-face the sun while feeding the fishes and playing at the grass. 3 days ago, I took the chance to photograph them with the 200f2 and this backlight problem makes 1/2 of my shots "instagram" and unrecoverable even I had shot in RAW. I have tried to move some steps left or right and it did improve.
To be fair, the sun is already very low at the time, I expected some veiling or haze in such a situation. Just hope to reduce it as much as possible. I had used the 70-200vr2 and the 85f1.4g on other days with good results, however none of these lenses are in the level of 200mmf2. The instant wallpaper background from 200f2 is simply amazing and cannot be duplicated with other lenses.
I wonder if the 200f2 vr2 can handle the strong backlight like the 70-200vr2. If it can, it may justify an upgrade. We will still be going to the park at this timing very often.
3 weeks without any posts? Say it's not so - Bump!
Couple from this past weekend at Saratoga - wished I'd packed the TC, but people did get out of the way for the lens and you can crop like hell on a D800
I am the "official" photographer of the band program at the local university, and this past week had the opportunity to break in my new 200/2. It has been on my "to buy" list for years, and I am here to tell you it has been worth the wait. The bokeh alone is worth the cost of admission.
Krubin wrote:
I am the "official" photographer of the band program at the local university, and this past week had the opportunity to break in my new 200/2. It has been on my "to buy" list for years, and I am here to tell you it has been worth the wait. The bokeh alone is worth the cost of admission.
There are some outstanding images in this thread. Having said that, however, the other day a guy handed me his D4 with the 200 f2 attached and any desire I'd ever had to own that lens evaporated faster than spit in the Sahara.
Heavy and unwieldy, like having a boat anchor attached to your camera. No thanks. Still, I enjoy seeing the shots from those who know how to use it.
Ho1972 wrote:
There are some outstanding images in this thread. Having said that, however, the other day a guy handed me his D4 with the 200 f2 attached and any desire I'd ever had to own that lens evaporated faster than spit in the Sahara.
Heavy and unwieldy, like having a boat anchor attached to your camera. No thanks. Still, I enjoy seeing the shots from those who know how to use it.
for guys w/o guns...they make this thing called a MONOPOD
for guys w/o guns...they make this thing called a MONOPOD 