In my context, it means everything other than composition. Sigh... but I guess I give up trying to understand what you are trying to say or which image you are referring to since you don't seem to want to clarify what you meant and I give up trying to worry about it. I never was a big fan of the socratic method.
Maybe it's not about the f2 per se, it's the whole package - I (think) for the still shot here, the f2 bokeh is superior to what my 70-200 VRII would have produced at f2.8. I won't add blur or funny filters to my shots, I just want to work with color and tones in PP and let the equipment show what it shows.
I (know) that for the running shots, my 70-200 would have not been able to track these guys or produce nearly as many keepers if it did. Maybe my action skills are lacking but the chubster locks on with a vengeance and tracks fast and I appreciate all the help I can get.
i think 1 and 2 are relatively good. 3 looks like he's coming out of the fog. i guess i'm one of those that feels that the bokeh rage is gets a little over done. quite literally one loses the forest for the trees. i'l just leave this alone and put it down for "it's a matter of taste"
It is easy to ask questions, but much more difficult to provide answers.
How do you quantify or explain a lens quality besides the usual bullshit of IMA test and Dxo test and bricks test and all the Pay as you Talk internet bloggers.
I do not have any test but I can tell you this about the 200/2.
Shooting Fashion Runways, all photographers from Getty Images to Vogue are in the pit using Nikon and Canon top end equipment and lenses from Zooms 70/200 - 80/400 - 200/400 and Primes 200 - 300 - 400. I know because I sell my 200/2 images to Getty team.
Consistently and time after time shooting from the pit with the best camera settings and the best team of editors in the Media Centre, only one lens trumps all other lenses and wins everybody respect and it is the Nikon 200/2 VRII.
No need for test and lot of talk. It is what it is!
You send the 200/2 for a shoot and it comes back carrying the money with it.
Hardcore wrote:
Ya, I own the 70-200mm. Also own the 300mm F2.8 but have been tempted to trade for a 200mm VRII.
You should sell it for a 200VRI/VRII without thinking twice. I've used a VRII before and it blew my mind. I'm stepping away from weddings this year but I still have several couples, who booked last year so I need to finish them off. It will be tough without a 70-200VRII but I'll see how well I can handle the 200/2 without the zoom capabilities...
Elijah wrote:
You should sell it for a 200VRI/VRII without thinking twice. I've used a VRII before and it blew my mind. I'm stepping away from weddings this year but I still have several couples, who booked last year so I need to finish them off. It will be tough without a 70-200VRII but I'll see how well I can handle the 200/2 without the zoom capabilities...
Ya, the 200mm F2 is sublime but I can't see myself letting go of the 70-200mm quite yet as I use it still for sports and some events. Who knows though, maybe someone will want to trade for the 300mm
Elijah wrote:
You should sell it for a 200VRI/VRII without thinking twice. I've used a VRII before and it blew my mind. I'm stepping away from weddings this year but I still have several couples, who booked last year so I need to finish them off. It will be tough without a 70-200VRII but I'll see how well I can handle the 200/2 without the zoom capabilities...
The main problem I have with the 200 F2 is that its a beast. You have to be very deliberate in planning for lugging it around and setting up the shot. Its not nearly as throw in the bag and forget about it as the 180mm 2.8 I think its better suited to engagements/portraits than wedding day use, but some people definitely do get it out during weddings. Pretty much necessitates and assistant or 2nd shooter though, unless you want to worry about where it is all the time because you can't fit it in a shoulder bag...
Great images in this thread. I've owned a pristine 200 f2 ais for several months and now have a 200 f2 VRI on the way. I'll shoot some comparison photos and see how the older one compares to its newer counterpart.
Elijah wrote:
Man UPS is slow... Cerritos, CA, United States 02/23/2016 1:27 A.M. Departure Scan...
Ground can be up to 5 days (left to right coast) unless 2nd Day or 3 Day Select was an option.
When the "day" is at hand...take a shower. My guy ALWAYS drives up then, it's like they know.
Elijah wrote:
Man UPS is slow... Cerritos, CA, United States 02/23/2016 1:27 A.M. Departure Scan...
What level of delivery did you pay for shipping a lens as expensive and fragile as the 200/2?
2nd Day Delivery UPS is the slowest you should have chosen. The savings in UPS ground results in at least twice the handling, sometimes three times as much. Follow your tracking notices, as you seem to be doing, and you'll see that. Every stop on the way means handling in some fashion. These guys are handling the box with YOUR incredible lens in it, and they handle hundreds of boxes a day. Think about that. Overnight is air, ground is, well, ground for a much higher percentage of the total distance, which means trucks. Trucks hit bumps, trucks vibrate.
Not all shipping damage to a lens is readily apparent, on the box, or in the appearance of the lens, or even, in come cases, from the first images. If it's new, you're up against a deadline for returning it. Why add a mystery variable to your purchase?
An additional 30-60 dollars in cost to ship photography gear worth 3 grand and more is a solid investment. At five grand, shipping at anything less than overnight makes no sense. This is a percentage game: if your package arrives OK, that doesn't mean you made the right decision for shipping.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Ground can be up to 5 days (left to right coast) unless 2nd Day or 3 Day Select was an option.
When the "day" is at hand...take a shower. My guy ALWAYS drives up then, it's like they know.
Well, my concept of The Trenchmonkey legend is partially shattered. He takes showers.
Where is that darn brown truck?!?! 
