So it's the 200 2.0 that is under performing by 1/3 stop, not that the 200 1.8 is faster than 1.8? That does make more sense as I am aware that the long end of zoom focal lengths are frequently less than stated. Still, where are the measurements that document this difference?
One factor that may have affected light transmission in the new lens is that it has IS. At any rate, if you try both lenses wide open and change your shutter speed so that the histograms match exactly, you will find that the used shutter speeds differ by 2/3rds of a stop, not 1/3rd, as the spec suggests. This is the main reason why I am hanging on to my f1.8. If I wanted an f2.3 lens, then I would probably settle for the massively cheaper, lighter, and more convenient f2.8 version. This is not a lens that a photographer carries in order to stop down. Its whole raison d'être is to try to freeze people in very low light. Whether those people are laughing during a candle-lit wedding dinner, or leaping over a hurdle matters little. That extra 2/3rds of a stop is crucial.
All I know is that I've got my original Mikey 7 years ago for $2500 (the one with the indents rubbed off after that many years of busy service - and still going). It's going to be a while before anybody can something like that about the 200/2.
Yet, as Ariel points out, I have no doubt that there are improvements and justified quality in the newer lens. Personally, I just couldn't justify those differences for 50% higher price tag when I bought a second copy this summer from WTLloyd.
I am happy with my F2.0! 5 Stop IS lets me shoot night scenics at 1/5 sec (typically, 3 out of 5 frames of burst are in critical focus), fast dancers at 1/125 and candids at 1/30 or 1/60 (as long as I shoot enough to get a static moment). I use the lens almost exclusively hand held with the, chunky, Kirk carry handle at F2.0.
I have a Nikon D3 and could have bought the Nikkor for $1300 less. But, I reasoned, the latest IS would be important and the IQ would be equal or better than the Nikkor or the 1.8. Sure I would be glad to have a 1.8 for standby but F2.0 and 3200/6400 ISO is really very powerful.
Hammy wrote:
All I know is that I've got my original Mikey 7 years ago for $2500 (the one with the indents rubbed off after that many years of busy service - and still going.
Hammy, the problem doesn't sound like a difficult one to fix for a pro shop. My first guess would be that the spring under the detent bearing ball is broken or jammed compressed. A simple remedy might be just in cleaning the ball holder. One might be able to access it by removing the mount ring foot. I say "might" because I've never tried to do that myself nor have I seen anyone do it.
It does make sense for our friendly south-of-the border neighbours to wait because the 200 f/2 IS price in US $ is likely to decline some more.
However, for us Canadians, in light of our tanking $, waiting has not made the lens any cheaper, in fact quite the contrary.
SoundHound wrote:
I am happy with my F2.0! 5 Stop IS lets me shoot night scenics at 1/5 sec (typically, 3 out of 5 frames of burst are in critical focus), fast dancers at 1/125 and candids at 1/30 or 1/60 (as long as I shoot enough to get a static moment). I use the lens almost exclusively hand held with the, chunky, Kirk carry handle at F2.0.
I am surprised that you can stop the motion of a fast dancer with 1/125. I can't. This isn't an IS thing. This is all about shutter speed. This is where the extra light hitting the sensor would help.
Nice.
This is my next lens. Planning on getting it within 2-4 weeks time.
I would buy from B&H except I live in NYC and that would mean $400+ in taxes!
No thanks!!!
Just drooling over the prospect of owning this baby! CMOS wrote:
FYI, B&H price for the 200/2 is now 4,999 for the USA version. Was $5,150 or so recently. Other retailers still have it for $5300.
I can't recall the last time I saw prices drop on a lens....
PetKal wrote:
My first guess would be that the spring under the detent bearing ball is broken or jammed compressed. A simple remedy might be just in cleaning the ball holder.
PetKal - I guess I really haven't noticed the lack of detents - because I handhold it all day - as I find a monopod is more to get in the way (and more to lift) for what we shoot.
Go for it, Nick! I got my copy two days ago. I've been too slammed to do more than take a dozen quick pics since then, but I can already see that this is one phenomenal piece of glass. Either my 85/1.2II or 35/1.4 is usually mounted to my 5D (mostly the 85) so I've seen what fast quality glass can do, but the 200 f/2 is clearly in another league altogether.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
Nice.
This is my next lens. Planning on getting it within 2-4 weeks time.
I would buy from B&H except I live in NYC and that would mean $400+ in taxes!
No thanks!!!
Just drooling over the prospect of owning this baby!
CMOS wrote:
I've seen what fast quality glass can do, but the 200 f/2 is clearly in another league altogether.
I don't think we're going to be seeing too many complaints about the optical quality of either of these lenses. If you press the button and the results aren't optically spectacular there is only one culprit.
The 200 f/2 lens is so sharp at f/2 that it's just hilarious. Then you've got the watercolor-painted background bokeh behind the plane of focus to just send it over the edge.
brainiac wrote:
One factor that may have affected light transmission in the new lens is that it has IS. At any rate, if you try both lenses wide open and change your shutter speed so that the histograms match exactly, you will find that the used shutter speeds differ by 2/3rds of a stop, not 1/3rd, as the spec suggests. This is the main reason why I am hanging on to my f1.8. If I wanted an f2.3 lens, then I would probably settle for the massively cheaper, lighter, and more convenient f2.8 version. This is not a lens that a photographer carries in order to stop down. Its whole raison d'être is to try to freeze people in very low light. Whether those people are laughing during a candle-lit wedding dinner, or leaping over a hurdle matters little. That extra 2/3rds of a stop is crucial....Show more →
Oh come on. I can't see it. "Damn this 200 f2. I could have gotten that shot with the 1.8".
On a more serious note, it doesn't appear that new technologies can completely replace the wonderful poisons and radioactive material used to enhance diffraction in old great glass. Some of these lenses really are irreplaceable. The 200/1.8 will probably be unique in performance for many years.
CMOS wrote:
The 200 f/2 lens is so sharp at f/2 that it's just hilarious. Then you've got the watercolor-painted background bokeh behind the plane of focus to just send it over the edge.
