Yeaaahhhh buddy!! very nice, would love to see a 200/2 shot of the last one.
Glad ur finally enjoying this lens. Do you still use your 70-200? lol I sold mine right after getting the 200/2. It just didn't compare with the fast prime.
Joseph. wrote:
Yeaaahhhh buddy!! very nice, would love to see a 200/2 shot of the last one.
Glad ur finally enjoying this lens. Do you still use your 70-200? lol I sold mine right after getting the 200/2. It just didn't compare with the fast prime.
Here you go, a few from different angles with the 200/2. The last one is from a 24-70mm, just to give you an idea how much different the 200/2 is.
I sold the 70-200, yes. But I miss it. It's a bread an butter lens for weddings...
This thread, on reviewing it a third time, totally got my attention. And right about then I found a used copy of the lens. I'm very happy I went for it - thanks guys!
I have always kept an eye on this thread but unfortunately was never able to take part.
Today, that changed though!
Unpacked a new to me Nikkor 200mm f/2 AIS this afternoon: This thing is nuts!
Dragged my girlfriend out as soon as she got back home from work (she wasn't very happy with the new purchase and said "you need to sell it immediately! that is ridiculous!" )
Both at f/2 and hand-held on Sony A6300. Really need to get my technique going for this lens! Neither got 100% perfect focus.
nampramos wrote:
I have always kept an eye on this thread but unfortunately was never able to take part.
Today, that changed though!
Unpacked a new to me Nikkor 200mm f/2 AIS this afternoon: This thing is nuts!
Dragged my girlfriend out as soon as she got back home from work (she wasn't very happy with the new purchase and said "you need to sell it immediately! that is ridiculous!" )
Both at f/2 and hand-held on Sony A6300. Really need to get my technique going for this lens! Neither got 100% perfect focus.
Congrats on the purchase, nice pics and don't worry about slightly missing focus the first fer days using it. Once you get used to dialing focus in manually it really is quite easy. I shoot with the 200 f2 ai-s and the 200 f2 vr and reach for the manual focus ai-s more often when I shoot I am finding.
I'm now confused and I found this thread and registered to ask for input.
I shot for a long time (military) using film. I worked the digital transition and used whatever gear my unit had, and I never bothered to move to digital for myself. (I was too busy really)
I moved to digital a few years ago, using D90 and legacy lenses. I floated to a few other brands too.
I now have 810s and a D500 with the basic Gs and the high-value 200-500 5.6.
I always wanted a 300 f2.8, back in the day I shot sports and did some side work with the old 300 f4D.
Now that I'm able to actually buy the 300 f2.8 VRII, I happened across the 200 f2.
Similar price. Similar weight. OK. Less reach. OK. TCs work like gangbusters (I'm not selling any of my wildlife goofing around).
So any reason why I should still want a 300 f2.8 vrII?
I can get to 300 mm or 400mm on the 810 with TCs.
I can get further on the D500 with the TCs
I am priced out of the higher end super telephotos for at least a good long while. (I assume every want-to-bee birder or nature duffer 'tog wants a 600 F4 with FL magic. Right?)
I just need someone to flat out explain how a 300 f2.8 has the edge, knowing I have the D500 cropper and the 810s.
I also do portriats for work, and the kicker is I often use my gear rather than office gear. To me that seals it for the 200, if I ever need some real pop for work.
I'm now confused and I found this thread and registered to ask for input.
I shot for a long time (military) using film. I worked the digital transition and used whatever gear my unit had, and I never bothered to move to digital for myself. (I was too busy really)
I moved to digital a few years ago, using D90 and legacy lenses. I floated to a few other brands too.
I now have 810s and a D500 with the basic Gs and the high-value 200-500 5.6.
I always wanted a 300 f2.8, back in the day I shot sports and did some side work with the old 300 f4D.
Now that I'm able to actually buy the 300 f2.8 VRII, I happened across the 200 f2.
Similar price. Similar weight. OK. Less reach. OK. TCs work like gangbusters (I'm not selling any of my wildlife goofing around).
So any reason why I should still want a 300 f2.8 vrII?
I can get to 300 mm or 400mm on the 810 with TCs.
I can get further on the D500 with the TCs
I am priced out of the higher end super telephotos for at least a good long while. (I assume every want-to-bee birder or nature duffer 'tog wants a 600 F4 with FL magic. Right?)
I just need someone to flat out explain how a 300 f2.8 has the edge, knowing I have the D500 cropper and the 810s.
I also do portriats for work, and the kicker is I often use my gear rather than office gear. To me that seals it for the 200, if I ever need some real pop for work.
You got everything pretty much covered yourself;
1) D810's have enough pixels to crop, even if you don't use TC's.
2) If you DO use a TC, you will STILL get an f/2.8 aperture, though at 280mm, not 300mm (super marginal difference)
3) You don't have to back up so much with a 200mm when shooting portraits, as opposed to a 300mm.
4) You will have a faster lens in general (f/2.0) when you need it, as opposed to a limited f/2.8
Ask Corey, He actually sold his 300 for a 200 recently (not 100% about this though)
