 |
|
|
Paul_K
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 22, 2010
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 820
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2020
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Ultra sharp, superfast AF, superb IQ
|
|
Cons:
|
Big and heavy
|
|
|
Got mine back in 2005
Big and heavy, with the lens hood attached it becomes an even more bulky package
But that's more then compensated by the ultra fast AF, extreme sharpness and superb IQ
With a classic DSLR it's a bit of a challenge to shoot with for a longer period
But with a smaller and lighter Z6 that no longer is an issue
|
|
 Mar 5, 2020
|
|
la puffin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 19, 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 720
|
|
Review Date: Mar 15, 2017
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very fast AF, very sharp, beautiful bokeh and a stop more light than a 2.8 zoom
|
|
Cons:
|
It's heavy, but you knew that. Maybe a FL version is in the cards
|
|
|
I bought a used VR I for volleyball. I had never shot one before, but needed the f2 and wanted the shallow DoF. I love it. Color, contrast, etc... it's the real deal. It makes beautiful images but you have to be accurate with your AF tuning on your body and accuracy with the selected AF point.
I talked myself into buying it because with the Nikon 1.4x TC III, its basically a heavy 300/2.8 (OK, it's only 280mm, but close enough - two lenses in one). It works very well in that configuration, and surprisingly good with the 2x TC III. When I want to shoot something with a different look, this is the lens I go for.
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2017
|
|
ozkanozmen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 16, 2014
Location: Turkey
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open,built like a tank,excellent bokeh,vr,takes teleconverters,fast focus
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy,expensive
|
|
Hi everyone, for those who are interested:
here is a video comparing Nikon 200mm f2vr VS 85mm f1.4 G
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_kYH6RSaMQ&hd=1
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014
|
|
Taoguy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1160
|
|
Review Date: Oct 14, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $5,900.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ as good as it gets. Speed incredible.
|
|
Cons:
|
I suppose one could list weight and price as a negative, but the performance to me eliminates both. If want the best Nikon has to offer, this is it.
|
|
|
Own many of Nikon's best lens, this is without a doubt the best they have to offer. Love my 85/1.4 but the IQ produced with the D800e/D3x, and D3s I presently use is incredible.
It even prompted me to purchase the D7100 for the extended reach, while waiting for the D4x or whatever body Nikon comes out with. I know the 200/2 will be up to the newest sensor.
With the D7100 + 1.4 ext I'll have my 420/2.8, can't wait for the 7100 to get here. Tried it on my V2 and again the results were very good. A 540/2! Yes sir, going to like/use this lens a lot. Should have bought it years ago.
My comparison to my 500/4, 200-400/4, 120-300/2.8 Siggy,
70-200/2.8 II, 85/1.4, and a bunch of other Nikon glass puts the 200/2 at the top of the list.
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2013
|
|
DocsPics
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 2, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2888
|
|
Review Date: May 16, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, wallet wrecking IQ and background blur (don't try it unless you can afford to buy one). Probably best Nikon lens out there. Retains high resale value.
|
|
Cons:
|
OEM lens foot is inadequate. Plan to purchase a longer foot for better balance on a tripod and better carry. Weight is all a matter of what you are used to.
|
|
|
People wonder why go to the expense and trouble (size/weight) when you can get a good 200mm effect with the 70-200/2.8 or 70-200/4. You won't wonder anymore when you have tried this lens. I would rather carry a heavy lens giving great IQ than a lighter lens of lesser quality. I rented before buying....but bought very soon thereafter.
Calling this gem "Stubby" is demeaning. She is a beauty in my eyes.
|
|
|
May 16, 2013
|
|
dale keith
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 222
|
|
Review Date: Apr 19, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
GREAT
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, price
|
|
|
After reading the reviews of others I decided to pull out my lens. I had not shot it in a few years and suddenly realized what I had been missing - the perfect lens. I shot everything with the lens from butterflies to people to animals at the zoo. I even tried my 1.4 extender and the shots were great. I tried the lens on DX and FX bodies with an equal sense of satisfaction. What everybody says about the lens is true. If you have an application, the financial resources, and you like primes, the 200 F2.0 will not disappoint.
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2013
|
|
thumphrey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
My favorite lens! Ridiculous IQ! I have never looked back after purchasing this lens. I'm stunned on occasion by the images it produces.
Very fast AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
It is heavy with a D3x! Get a tripod!
|
|
|
I had a 300mm f/2.8, but lusted for this lens. Broke down and bought this bad boy and suddenly became a much better photographer. It produces images that make people look twice. Sharpness is like a razor. Bokeh is so creamy. This is without trying hard. It does all the heavy lifting.....photographically speaking. It is a heavy rig with my D3x. But is it so worth the effort. Get a monopod! I am a fan of RRS, so I got the RRS foot for this lens. If you can afford this lens, it will bless your photography with great images!
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2013
|
|
owsundlo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2012
Location: Norway
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
razor sharp images, fast focus
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy, expensive
|
|
|
Ive had this heavy lense for about a month, and I try to carry it with me every day. Using it with a monopod its not heavy at all. It works very fast, gives me razor fast images in both sports and weddings as well as portraits. I used in studio with my d3x and gave me fantastic images!!
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2012
|
|
Pieria
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 2, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 32
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast autofocus , sharp wide open , Build like a tank.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
What a lens !!. I just bought this lens about a month ago, for action and portrait photography. In one simple word:AMAZING. I took some head shots of my 6 month old daughter, the lens is so sharp wide open , i don t even PP on the computer. I was just amazed at the quality of the color, sharpness, and bokeh of this lens. I own also the 400 2.8 vr , which was the lens i mostly shot with, but now the 200 took it s place. Owning the 400, weight is not an issue for me since i am used to heavy lenses. If you can afford this lens just go for it , don t even think about it, it can not get any better than this. Update. 01/04/2014. Just bought the newer version vr2 and the lens is as spectacular as the first version. It has become my all time favorite glass and I have owned a lot of pro glass . On my d4 it is just amazing.
|
|
|
May 31, 2012
|
|
zesto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 25, 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 329
|
|
Review Date: Dec 23, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Razor sharp, beautiful, creamy bokeh, fast focusing.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy.
|
|
|
I bought the 200 f/2 VR II about six months ago. It's incredibly sharp wide open. At f/4 it'll cut your eyeballs.
The depth of field is extremely shallow at f/2 and it's easy to have one eye in focus and the other not in a frontal portrait.
It's heavy and slightly awkward to use because of it's wide body. It's not the sort of lens that you take for a leisurely stroll. A monopod is a big help.
For those who think that their 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is sharp and why would anyone want to pay a few grand more for one f stop etc. etc. All I can say is, "you don't know what you're missing".
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2011
|
|
ilnonno
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 14, 2011
Location: Italy
Posts: 178
|
|
Review Date: Jul 14, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Impressive sharpness wide open.
Contrast.
Colours.
Autofocus speed is very, very fast.
It is "long" (a lot longer at short distances than the VR II)
I'm a cheap skate but... it's no body, no resale value lost! :-)
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, of course.
"Difficult" to use: when it's not focused, it has such a blur in the viewfinder you really have no clue *what* you are pointing it at...
|
|
|
This is an impressive lens... and it eats my 70-200 VR II for breakfast.
Autofocus in incredible, sharpness is something to be seen to be believed (and I'm talking wide open, on a D700), and colours, contrast, bokeh are just amazing. Plus, near or far subjects are rendered all with impressive sharpness and definition.
It weighs... so what? I hand hold it easily, and never feel like it is too heavy. If you carry it with you it always rewards you with extraordinary pictures.
Lenses I own/owned include 24-70, 80-200AFS, 70-200VR II, 85 1.4D, and many others. None can get nowhere near the optical properties of the 200F2. No exaggeration...
Am a little underwhelmed by TCs. Tried the TC2-III on it, but didn't really like it. Will have to try a TC-14!
I gave it all 10s. Even price.
I am not crazy, I know it *is* expensive, but, comparing its optical magic, build, and autofocus with the new 1.4G line of primes makes you be a little suspicious of Nikon's mark up on those lenses...
None of them share the incredible optical properties of the 200F2, and their build and AF is miles ahead that of the exotic teles.
I'm fine with this (and... plan to purchase the 35 1.4, poor me!), but I just do not see how can a monster like the 200F2 with its breathtaking image taking capabilities can just cost slightly more than twice what a 24 1.4 costs...
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2011
|
|
Chestnut
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 818
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,999.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, Bokeh, AF Speed & Accuracy, Build, Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight.
|
|
|
This is a wonderful gem of a lens. I've been using it for portraits and some sports, and it's fantastic. The only other lens that matches the AF speed from this guy is my 400/2.8VR... it beats the 24-70, 70-200 VR easily. The images it produces for me are stunning, and I just love using this lens. It also takes TC's very well... I've used a TC-14EII, a TC-20EII and a TC-20EIII on it, and you can barely tell there's any image degradation at all.
I was deciding whether to get the 300/2.8VR or this lens, and I'm pretty confident I made the right choice.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2010
|
|
anhminh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 21, 2010
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Aug 21, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,200.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Super sharp, decent bokeh, very fast AF, nice color rendering!
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy
|
|
I am very happy to shoot with this lens! AF is amazing fast, Very high in contrast and incredible sharpness.
Combined with D3 body is pefect for shooting fashion show!
HERE is some my fashion shot with the lens. Thanks!
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2010
|
|
mariomonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 10, 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 10, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Un obiettivo fantastico-nitidezza esemplare-velocità autofocus-bokeh eccezionale-qualità costruttiva solidissima
|
|
Cons:
|
costo e peso eccessivi-ma poi ti abitui grazie ai risultati che ti da
|
|
|
E' pesante ma tenerlo in mano è una gioia.
Ha una qualità risolutiva eccezionale e una nitidezza insuperabile.
Velocissimo nell'autofocus(con D3 e d700)
L'unico problema è la sua pesantezza. Ti stanchi dopo un pò ma quando vedi quello che ti offre dimentichi tutto, compreso il suo costo.
Un obiettivo da raccomandare.
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010
|
|
allstarimaging
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2049
|
|
Review Date: Dec 3, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality from this lens is perhaps the best from any lens in the Nikon line up. Color, contrast, and sharpness are fantastic. Wide open provides incredible subject isolation, Very fast to focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
On the FX sensor the lens is a bit of a "tweener". Short for field sports. Ideal for indoor sports. Big to carry around compared to the 70-200 but worth the effort when you see the images it produces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3, 2009
|
|
Fstr.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 17, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 2196
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
What everyone else is saying and then some.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, and costs a chunk of change.
|
|
|
Totally professional piece of glass. I tried for two years not to buy this lens, finally gave in to my NAS and wow. I like it, SHARP, fast focusing, FAST and has a look that my other lenses can't quite match. This is a lens that you more than likely will buy if you make the mistake of trying it. Did I say that I really like it?
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
29
|
91755
|
Mar 5, 2020
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
97% of reviewers
|
$4,140.90
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.96
|
9.00
|
10.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
