I've been considering getting a Nikon 200 f2 (used) for a long time now. I'm curious how you guys anticipate the lens will perform and what the price will be. According to NikonrumorsAccording to NikonRumors.com the lens will be cheaper than the Sigma 200 f2 (which goes for $3,300 new).
How much less, I wonder?
Could it be be closer to $2,500?
How do you think it will perform? Better than the Nikkor 200 f2? Worse? About the same?
I don't think the lack of VR is as overblown as everyone is letting on, given the excellent IBIS in the Z cameras you'd mount this on.
I'd sure hope it's cheaper than $2500 (think Viltrox's 35/1.2 being 1/3rd a native Nikon). Does Laowa have the cache to pull a high price? I don't think so, personally.
Matt Granger has released an initial comparison video featuring a 200 mm F2.0 Shootout – Sigma VS Laowa VS Nikon
The price of the Laowa will definitely undercut that of the Sigma, according to Granger, without him being able to name the exact price, but that was to be expected.
However, the Laowa is still a pre-production unit, presumably without the final firmware.
The video also does not go into much detail about the actual differences in image quality, although according to Matt Granger, the Laowa does not quite reach the level of the other two 200/2 solutions.
The biggest problem is likely to be the AF, which is nowhere near as consistent on the adapted Sigma 200/2 or the pre-production Laowa 200/2 as it is on the 15-year-old Nikon 200/2 via FTZ.
A modern version of the 200/2 in Z-mount, with AF motors like the Z 400/2.8 TC VR S, Z 600/4 TC VR S, or Z 24-70/2.8 S II, should perform even better there.
I think the review, even though you have to keep in mind that the Laowa was a pre-production lens and probably doesn't had the final firmware yet, once again impressively shows that in this lens category, maximum AF performance can only be expected with native Nikkor lenses.
Both the adapted Sigma, which is at least final, and the pre-production unit of the Laowa 200/2 have to struggle much more here and produce correspondingly significant more missed shots.
And that's in comparison to a 15-year-old F-mount lens adapted via FTZ, mind you, and not a current Z-mount version.
With the Laowa, we will have to wait for the final product, but as things stand at present, there will be significant compromises in terms of AF consistency, at least when movement is involved.
The error rate, including significant lag, in a relatively simple task (model running toward the camera at a moderate speed) was definitely much higher than with the Nikon 200/2.
Even the Sigma, although it is the final version, is not on par in this regard and delivers visibly more rejects and misfocuses.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
The Sigma has optical stabilization, while the Laowa does not. For my uses, that rules it out. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Yes, and also Sigma is a legit company that has been around quite a while at a decent size. Venus is a much smaller company with less certain future and compatibility. I suppose a substantially cheaper lens with no IS/OS/VR will have some appeal.
This will sell in huge quantities in China, no doubt.
And that will fund the development of a V2 in no time that will be very close to Sigma levels, probably closer in price too. The additional volume Laowa will be able to sell thanks to Z mount support will probably be the difference between break even and making significant money from the lens.
I still don't understand why Sigma isn't doing what is needed to release Z mount versions of their FF lenses. Such a short sighted policy.
bernardl wrote:
I still don't understand why Sigma isn't doing what is needed to release Z mount versions of their FF lenses. Such a short sighted policy.
Nikon controls the mount, not Sigma. They’ve been allowed to make some DX primes, but nothing else to date.
I agree, Nikon locking Sigma out is shortsighted.
(Of course I, nor most anyone else, really knows if it is Nikon, Sigma, or a mixture of both who are holding back FF Sigma Z lenses. Just making the opposite equally valid point here!)
EB-1 wrote:
I doubt any 200/2 (or faster) lens ever sold in huge quantities, anywhere.
EBH
Well yes, huge is probably overstated, but at that price point and with a weight of 1.6 kg, it will change radically the perception of that type of lenses.
Older folks like you and I will forever keep this feeling that 200mm f2.0 are big/heavy/expensive, but new entrants into photography will just consider them as a normal part of any kit.
It's similar to a 70-200mm f2.8 that pretty much every serious shooter owns.
kwalsh wrote:
Nikon controls the mount, not Sigma. They’ve been allowed to make some DX primes, but nothing else to date.
I agree, Nikon locking Sigma out is shortsighted.
(Of course I, nor most anyone else, really knows if it is Nikon, Sigma, or a mixture of both who are holding back FF Sigma Z lenses. Just making the opposite equally valid point here!)
Well, what we know is that the Sigma CEO himself commented less than 2 years ago that it was not Nikon blocking.
bernardl wrote:
Well, what we know is that the Sigma CEO himself commented less than 2 years ago that it was not Nikon blocking.
Cheers,
Bernard
Most of the people I read who track the industry highlighted how ambiguous his statement was and indicate it is not at all clear what the relationship between Nikon and Sigma is.
At this point all we actually know is that Nikon did license Sigma for some APS-C glass. Similarly, Canon has only licensed them for some APS-C glass (more than on the Nikon end). Where the restriction is on which lenses are being licensed (i.e. what Sigma asked for or what Nikon allowed) is not at all clear.
What we can definitely agree on is that the losers here are us the users!
bernardl wrote:
The only positive thing is that as Z mount users, we can at least adapt sigma glass with pretty good AF. No such options for RF mount shooters.
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed! Really, Z-mount is the "most universal" mount out there. The only thing that doesn't adapt to it is Canon RF.
Also, while this is absolutely an opinion that will vary from user to user, I've felt that in general the Nikon Z lens line really punches above its "count". Which is to say, it has more lenses that are useful and interesting to me than the other OEM lineups do, even if those lineups might be larger. So I feel less of a pull to third parties than I might otherwise. Still, things would just be better for all involved if we had FF Z-mount Sigma options (the I series for the Zf would be great).
