Finally after 7 years of viewing threads like this i pulled the trigger yesterday, gives a whole new meaning to love as already i bought Her a new bag She was secondhand but to me she's new and beautifully preserved by her previous owner who mounted her no less than 10 times.
aerie wrote:
I get hooked into buying a used 200mm F2 VR after looking at all these beautiful shots. I have access to a 300mm F2.8 VR and upon recieving the 200 the autofocus seemed to make more noise then the 300 so I took to APS for a CLA and was informed it would need a new autofocus motor and flexible circuit board at a cost of $850. The manual focus and VR seem fine and the lens has very low usage, no visible impact damage and was babied by it`s original owner. Any advice or input of past experience with this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks...Show more →
If it is working properly other than the noise, I'd keep using it until it isn't working properly (unless you have to shoot in very quiet environments).
John Skinner wrote:
I had to haul one of these around for a few days and at the time. I just wasn't impressed in the least with it.. I had made a comment earlier back. But after seeing some of the work in here, it deserves a second look... I'm liking the images on here.
It's 4 parts photographer to 1 part lens; I've seen some extremely ordinary shots posted in 200 f2 threads. Exotic equipment is no cure for pedestrian vision.
I honestly can't see why one would do this instead of the equally good 180/2.8. You can carry them, handhold them etc and they're far cheaper and I doubt anyone of us could tell the difference in a shot.
Ian Boys wrote:
I honestly can't see why one would do this instead of the equally good 180/2.8. You can carry them, handhold them etc and they're far cheaper and I doubt anyone of us could tell the difference in a shot.
Have you used the F2? The focus speed is light years ahead of any other Nikon lens on the market.
Ian Boys wrote:
I honestly can't see why one would do this instead of the equally good 180/2.8. You can carry them, handhold them etc and they're far cheaper and I doubt anyone of us could tell the difference in a shot.
The 180/2.8 is an excellent lens. But 200/2 VR is a much better lens in terms of sharpness, color rendition, and focus speed/accuracy, not to mention that it can be hand hold at a much lower shutter speed because of VR. I've used 180/2.8 ED-IF-D, 70-200/2.8 VR1, VR2 and 200/2 VR1. The 200/2 VR is in a class by itself. If you have an opportunity to try one, you will know the difference all around.
Ian Boys wrote:
I honestly can't see why one would do this instead of the equally good 180/2.8. You can carry them, handhold them etc and they're far cheaper and I doubt anyone of us could tell the difference in a shot.
It's very easy to tell the difference in a shot. I sold my 180/2.8 about three years ago. It was a very good lens for the money but it's no 200 f/2.
I noticed that you have posted several 200mm + TC. What's your opinion of 200mm + TC v. 300mm 2.8?
I enjoy your posts and photos.
Thanks,
Mark
Thanks, Mark. I used to shot both the 200 & 300 so know a bit about the IQ of the 200/TC-14E II...
it's right there with the 300. Many events I found the 300 too long for my access. Nice thing about
the 200, you can take off the TC. It plays well with them all, but my favorite is the TC-17EII which
(to me) has the best combination of "reach" to IQ @ f4-f5. 1.2 crop on my D800 gives me 408mm FOV
which is just perfect for stalkin' Sandies.
I just walked in from doing the same thing, except not with a 200 f2
I actually was thinking that with little ones the 200 would probably not get used, with them moving around so much I think the 700-200 would be best (talking myself out of it :P )
^ Nothing I've ever used tracks motion like the chubby, makes the 70-200 seem sluggish. It just locks on instantly as if to say, "finally! - I been sitting here WAITING for you to pick a freakin' subject, so I mapped them all out ahead of time"