The 28mm 1.4E and the 200mm f/2 are the only two lenses keeping me on an F mount and if Sony had comparable lenses I would be shooting an A1 right now.
I'm hopeful that Nikon gets their shit together, and the next released camera has improved auto focus over the current Z9 fiasco. Then they can release a firmware update for the poor Z9 fools.
Thankfully I have no interest in shooting birds, and most of my targets are larger and easy enough to track on any camera..
JadedWriter wrote:
Well this is interesting to know. I guess everything is just optical tradeoffs and optical physics really haven't improved all that much at the telephoto end.
I have a Z9. What's the current Z9 fiasco? I also really don't have that much respect for the opinions of some/most of the birders on here so I don't really let their whinging deter me from buying something. InternetGenius wrote:
The 28mm 1.4E and the 200mm f/2 are the only two lenses keeping me on an F mount and if Sony had comparable lenses I would be shooting an A1 right now.
I'm hopeful that Nikon gets their shit together, and the next released camera has improved auto focus over the current Z9 fiasco. Then they can release a firmware update for the poor Z9 fools.
Thankfully I have no interest in shooting birds, and most of my targets are larger and easy enough to track on any camera..
JadedWriter wrote:
I have a Z9. What's the current Z9 fiasco? I also really don't have that much respect for the opinions of some/most of the birders on here so I don't really let their whinging deter me from buying something.
I don't care about these people. These are the people telling people to shoot on Sony and I'm on Sony and I'm not shooting on Sony. Blakehfreeman wrote:
Some people just need attention.
JadedWriter wrote:
I have a Z9. What's the current Z9 fiasco? I also really don't have that much respect for the opinions of some/most of the birders on here so I don't really let their whinging deter me from buying something.
I am including the VR1 since the optical formula is identical, minus the small issues with the VRII that make it marginally worse than the VRI.
Blakehfreeman wrote:
I would love to know your source on the 200mm production. I have one of the last copies produced and it’s in the mid 5,000s. I’d agree with your number if you were including the VRI lens.
I far prefer the VR AF-S 200/2.8G II model over its predecessor (version I) for the following reasons (I had both):
The first model has a vibration-prone tripod mount which makes it difficult to do precise alignment and avoid issues with wind and shutter shake when photographing landscape with it, and those issues are pronounced with teleconverters. I find the II model's stiffer tripod mount a big relief for those situations where I use it on tripod (for plants, flowers, and landscape).
The II model has nano coating which improves contrast at f/2 over its predecessor and basically makes shooting wide open just as good an option as shooting at f/2.8 (apart from corner sharpness which is improved by stopping down, which affects landscape applications but not necessarily sports etc.). With the first version, I frequently wanted to shoot at f/2.8 or f/4 to get the contrast up, but I rarely do that with the II version, preferring the advantages of shooting wide open. The color of the II version is consistent across apertures and with other nano-coated Nikkors of its era. It's my favorite lens of all.
The first version also has Nikon's first VR which is not as effective as the second generation VR in the newer lens. However, my preference is for the SPORT VR mode enabled newer lenses which make it easier to use VR when following moving subjects that change direction frequently (such as the 70-200/2.8 FL, and the PF Nikkors). I usually shoot with the 200/2 without using VR because I'm used to the better stabilization and handling of the SPORT VR that new telephotos support, and at 200mm f/2, I can easily get fast shutter speeds where it's not necessary to have VR. I'd love Nikon to make an FL version of the 200/2 with lighter weight and the newer focusing motors (which jitter less) and VR SPORT.
What do I use it for? Figure skating mostly, but also some portraits and event photography. I don't use it with TCs now as I also have the 300/2.8. I think the 200/2 can give excellent TC results stopped down to f/8 and also at f/4 at longer distances with the TC-14E III, but mostly I use this lens to get to wide apertures and so I prefer the 300/2.8 over the 200/2 + 1.4X TC. I think too much of the quality of the 200/2 is lost by use of the TC wide open at short to medium distances so I don't use this approach. There is a strange kind of "halo" effect wide open with the TC which is reduced by the nano-coated II version but still not completely absent.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I far prefer the VR AF-S 200/2.8G II model over its predecessor (version I) for the following reasons (I had both):
The first model has a vibration-prone tripod mount which makes it difficult to do precise alignment and avoid issues with wind and shutter shake when photographing landscape with it, and those issues are pronounced with teleconverters. I find the II model's stiffer tripod mount a big relief for those situations where I use it on tripod (for plants, flowers, and landscape).
The II model has nano coating which improves contrast at f/2 over its predecessor and basically makes shooting wide open just as good an option as shooting at f/2.8 (apart from corner sharpness which is improved by stopping down, which affects landscape applications but not necessarily sports etc.). With the first version, I frequently wanted to shoot at f/2.8 or f/4 to get the contrast up, but I rarely do that with the II version, preferring the advantages of shooting wide open. The color of the II version is consistent across apertures and with other nano-coated Nikkors of its era. It's my favorite lens of all.
The first version also has Nikon's first VR which is not as effective as the second generation VR in the newer lens. However, my preference is for the SPORT VR mode enabled newer lenses which make it easier to use VR when following moving subjects that change direction frequently (such as the 70-200/2.8 FL, and the PF Nikkors). I usually shoot with the 200/2 without using VR because I'm used to the better stabilization and handling of the SPORT VR that new telephotos support, and at 200mm f/2, I can easily get fast shutter speeds where it's not necessary to have VR. I'd love Nikon to make an FL version of the 200/2 with lighter weight and the newer focusing motors (which jitter less) and VR SPORT.
What do I use it for? Figure skating mostly, but also some portraits and event photography. I don't use it with TCs now as I also have the 300/2.8. I think the 200/2 can give excellent TC results stopped down to f/8 and also at f/4 at longer distances with the TC-14E III, but mostly I use this lens to get to wide apertures and so I prefer the 300/2.8 over the 200/2 + 1.4X TC. I think too much of the quality of the 200/2 is lost by use of the TC wide open at short to medium distances so I don't use this approach. There is a strange kind of "halo" effect wide open with the TC which is reduced by the nano-coated II version but still not completely absent. ...Show more →
I've owned four copies of the 200m f/2 since 2008. Two Mark Is, and two Mark IIs.
Virtually everything you said is wrong with the exception that all of Nikon's tripod collars are terrible.
You're the same kind of person who believes the 400mm FL is sharper than the G.
Nikon had produced 110,000,000 interchangeable lenses as of 2018…. of which roughly 5,000 are the venerable 200mm 2.0VRII. 0.00004545 of their production. I’ve owned two VRII and shot with the VRI. The reliability of the AF motor alone makes it a huge upgrade.
Did you sell it? Do you still have it? Are you still wanting to sell it? Which version 200mm f2 G ED VRII or VRI? Condition? Accessories still with it? Case, hood, sock, caps?
inzitee wrote:
Hi folks, how well does the 200f2 (either v1 or v2) work on z bodies via the ftz?
I have a Z9, and D5, and a v1 200mm F2 VR I. I use it with D5 in school gyms where either low light or lousy background dictates. Here is a recent photo with D5, when I get a Z9 image I'll share. This example was to blow out the lousy background but it does lend the ability to shoot high shutter speeds when that is important. Living with the very shallow depth of field is the trade off. If you are working on just one subject, like this example where I'm after the player's personality, well it's awesome...
NIKON D5200.0 mm f/2.0 lens200mmf/2.01/2000s5600 ISO0.0 EV
kreegerk wrote:
I have a Z9, and D5, and a v1 200mm F2 VR I. I use it with D5 in school gyms where either low light or lousy background dictates. Here is a recent photo with D5, when I get a Z9 image I'll share. This example was to blow out the lousy background but it does lend the ability to shoot high shutter speeds when that is important. Living with the very shallow depth of field is the trade off. If you are working on just one subject, like this example where I'm after the player's personality, well it's awesome...
Nicely done, good work.
kreegerk wrote:
I have a Z9, and D5, and a v1 200mm F2 VR I. I use it with D5 in school gyms where either low light or lousy background dictates. Here is a recent photo with D5, when I get a Z9 image I'll share. This example was to blow out the lousy background but it does lend the ability to shoot high shutter speeds when that is important. Living with the very shallow depth of field is the trade off. If you are working on just one subject, like this example where I'm after the player's personality, well it's awesome...
How does the focus speed and accuracy compare between the d5 and z9? I have a 200 f2 vr I used with my older nikon dslr bodies but I'm wondering how well it works with the z7ii and z9. Thanks!
