I'm toying - and still very early in the thought process - with adding a 200VR to my kit. I have seen so many amazing images and reviews of it, and I really think it will fit in well for shooting indoor sports on FX - which I do a lot of.
My concern is that I already have a heavy investment in a 300/f2.8VR, which I absolutely LOVE. It's easily - easily - the nicest piece of glass I have spent any significant time with.
To those that have owned or used both, do you think there's a big enough difference in FL to justify owning both? I realize that a 1.4X TC added to the 200VR gives me very close specs - and possibly even performance - to the 300VR, but I can also add a 1.4X TC or even 1.7X TC to the 300 and use it for outdoor sports. I do not want to get rid of that lens, period... it gets WAY too much use. Instead, I'd likely sell off my 70-200VR and 300/f4 AF-S to help support my NAS addiction here.
I'm dreaming about using a 2-body combo with 200VR on FX and 300VR on DX... man that'd be the ticket.
Any help is appreciated in terms of how the two fit (or wouldn't fit) in your kit?
I'm sure I'd love the 85/f1.4's IQ. Trouble is the FL isn't a big use to me - I have the f1.8 and it rarely gets used for the majority of my shooting. 200mm would be fantastic.
I think the 200 is too long (even on FX) to be your only indoor lens. Take your 70-200 and zoom all the way out to 200, slap it on your D700 and head to the rink. That will give you an idea of what shots you will get.
I'd rather have the 135 f/2.0 as my indoor lens on FX. Then I can switch on the fly between FX and DX to get either a 12MP 135mm shot or a 5.1MP 200mm (FOV) file.
Since you already have a 200mm lens and two 300mm lens you don't know how much of a difference in focal length that is to YOU already??
Why would it matter what others thought of the difference in fl's?
I see a huge difference in 200 and 300mm to me and would never get rid of either focal length or give up such a useful zoom range to add a prime in the same max range.
I would add it, but not give up two extremely versatile and useful pieces of equipment.
I guess I look at my lenses like I do my tools, If I want to add another impact I'm not going to sell off a wrench set to get one, what happens when you need that wrench again So you save up and add the impact when it's convenient.
gman1339 wrote:
I think the 200 is too long (even on FX) to be your only indoor lens. Take your 70-200 and zoom all the way out to 200, slap it on your D700 and head to the rink. That will give you an idea of what shots you will get.
I'd rather have the 135 f/2.0 as my indoor lens on FX. Then I can switch on the fly between FX and DX to get either a 12MP 135mm shot or a 5.1MP 200mm (FOV) file.
My trouble is that I DO know I'd love 200mm on FX for indoors already. The vast majority of my shooting with the 70-200VR is done at full extension, or at least 150+, where the 70-200VR is at its worst. IQ at 200mm with the 70-200VR will not compete with the 200VR...
I pondered the 135/f2 for a bit too, although for me AF performance is critical and don't know that the 135/f2 would meet my needs there.
I don't enjoy shooting the FX bodies in DX crop. I know others have had good impressions of it... mine haven't been... especially at high ISO's where I shoot the indoor stuff.
Zachs wrote:
you already have [email protected]/3 stop difference is NOTHING. Especially when the 70-200 shines wide open. Poor investment in my opinion.
You might be right about the poor investment, but it wouldn't be my first either...
I guess I'm spoiled by the IQ on the 300VR, and just find it a TINY bit too long for hockey, where the 200VR would be ideal, and similar IQ.
I doubt I'd ever get return on that investment, but it'd be fun trying, no?
I'm now wondering how the new 70-200VRII is going to be at 200mm, because even at its price I'm going to be looking at a much less expensive investment than the 200/f2VR. If it's (1) improved on FX and (2) better at the full 200mm FL, maybe that's a better and more sensible route. Guess I'll wait for some reviews.
millsart wrote:
Why not get a 200 f2, sell the 300 2.8 and get a 400 2.8 instead ?
Then you've got 200 f2, 280 f2.8, 400 f2.8 and 550 f4 from 2 lenses and a 1.4x TC ??
Far more bang for the buck than just a 200 and a 300 because then you've got a lot of money in glass but still are going to be suffering for reach
I love the theory there that is for sure, unfortunately the 400/f2.8 is WAY beyond my means, especially after adding a 200/f2 and selling the 300/f2.8. I think you might be right in that being the ultimate long combo in the 200 and 400, but just way too expensive for me right now. If I were to come into a chunk of money, though, you might have my answers...
allstarimaging wrote:
Hi Dj,
As you may be aware I've gone through quite the lens shuffle in the last couple of years having owned and ultimately sold the 200 2.0 VR, 300 2.8 AFS II, 200-400 F4 Vr, and a 400 2.8 AFS II. Here is my take on your situation for what it's worth.
The 200 2.0 VR is probably the best lens in the Nikon lineup. It's IQ is unmatched. However, the 300 2.8 isn't far behind. For the limited extra stop you get and the low light abilities of the D700 I question the need for the extra stop the 200 2.0 VR will give you. For most of your field sports your going to find it too short especially on the FX sensor.
I would wait a few months and see what kind of performance the new 70-200 2.8 delivers. If it's anywhere in the league of the 14-24 and 24-70 then you'll be selling your current 70-200 and making the upgrade and have the 200mm focal length covered. So I'd say wait a few months for the new 70-200 and you may find a better investment for your 4k maybe a 200-400f4 VR. I just covered the PGA Deutsche Bank with one on my D700 and it's awesome. The flexibility of the 200-400 is tough to beat. Better investment if the majority of your work is outside in reasonable light. Good luck with your decision.
Jack
Here's one with the D700 +200-400 @400mm F4 ...Show more →
Jack... that is exactly the feedback I was after, and I think I will heed your advice and wait to see how the new 70-200VRII stacks up at 200mm, because it will be more financially reasonable and if it's good at 200mm on FX will give me even more flexibility in the kit.
BEAUTIFUL shot by the way... I'm gonna miss seeing your image posts on the Sports Forum and around here if you scale back mister! Thanks again.
DJ, I think I'm living in a parallel universe with you . . . at least as far as lenses is concerned. I seem to be a few months behind you in lens acquisition. I just put my 300 f2.8 AF-S II into action shooting soccer the other day, and I'm speechless/astounded with my results.
As much as I too would love to add the 200 f2 to my list of lenses, I think the 70-200 is just too good and too versatile to give up for the type of shooting you do (primarily hockey). While the 200 f2 is unrivaled at 200 mm, it ain't gonna get the job done at 150 mm or less. Are you really willing to give up the close range shots? If so, go with the f2 200.
Personally, I get too much mileage out of the 70-200 to consider replacing it with a fixed 200 mm. I agree with the advice to wait on the new 70-200 before taking the plunge either way. Also a good idea to rent the 200 f2 a few times and see for yourself whether you will miss those close range shots.
Hi DJ, I own the 200/2 VR, 300/2.8 VR and now a 400/2.8 VR. Yes, there are many outings I used the D700+200 and D300+300 or vs vs. Both 1.4x extremely well. Mostly in my kit is the 200 and 400, the 300 is just there so I can shoot 400mm+ on two bodies at airshows (me and sig other). Anyways, at one time I owned the 70-200 VR and 200-400 VR too. I've offloaded both for the primes, although both are great lenses. I want the sharpest image possible and deal with the added weight. But for versatility, a good sports kit might be a 200/2 VR and 400/2.8 VR. Likewise, a good nature kit might be a 300/2.8 VR and 500/4 VR. My problem is I shoot both categories and more! Hope this helps... best dj (another DJ)
?