Nikkor 200 mm F2.0 AF-S VR lens
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 12:34 amWOW!!!
Oh, and WOW!!!
On the weekend, was waiting for a flight in Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, and in the corner of my eye, was a rack of pro glass!!!
The salesman was pleased to show me a few lenses, and I was delighted to kill some time playing with some great glass.
First, was the 135mm DC. A bit long on DX, but gave wonderful bokeh (but I think it overlaps the 85/1.4 a bit too much to get enough use of).
THen the 17-35, nice build quality, just can't imaging using this as much as my 28-70.
Then, took a deep breath, and tried to sound nonchalant, and asked, "may I check out the 200 f2 on a body please?"
Wow, this puppy is 3kg, plus 1kg for a body, 4kg. Its massive. And I mean massive!!! In the hand, its hard to wrap fingers around the barrel (unlike the amazing 70-200VR).
At f2, its great in the dark. Made the dull shop look like daylight, and sharp, oh so sharp. Beautiful F2 shots, of people shopping, sharp as, and soft backgrounds over their shoulders. VR loves it at 1/10th second, never thought I'd say that about 200mm.
Certainly not suitable for covert street candids.
I like the way you can rest itself on the front of the lens.
Value for money? dont try to justify unless you are making lots of coin from it. I think the 70-200 is so close at 25% of the price. Also, its so large, I cant imagine using for more than 30 minutes off a monopod, and that doesnt suit me.
However, for sports, I could imagine this puppy with a TC1.7 would be a very desirable 340 mm F3.3 (or 510mm on DX).
In summary, get a 70-200. However, if you fly through Amsterdam, have a play with this $6,000 lens!
Oh, and WOW!!!
On the weekend, was waiting for a flight in Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, and in the corner of my eye, was a rack of pro glass!!!
The salesman was pleased to show me a few lenses, and I was delighted to kill some time playing with some great glass.
First, was the 135mm DC. A bit long on DX, but gave wonderful bokeh (but I think it overlaps the 85/1.4 a bit too much to get enough use of).
THen the 17-35, nice build quality, just can't imaging using this as much as my 28-70.
Then, took a deep breath, and tried to sound nonchalant, and asked, "may I check out the 200 f2 on a body please?"
Wow, this puppy is 3kg, plus 1kg for a body, 4kg. Its massive. And I mean massive!!! In the hand, its hard to wrap fingers around the barrel (unlike the amazing 70-200VR).
At f2, its great in the dark. Made the dull shop look like daylight, and sharp, oh so sharp. Beautiful F2 shots, of people shopping, sharp as, and soft backgrounds over their shoulders. VR loves it at 1/10th second, never thought I'd say that about 200mm.
Certainly not suitable for covert street candids.
I like the way you can rest itself on the front of the lens.
Value for money? dont try to justify unless you are making lots of coin from it. I think the 70-200 is so close at 25% of the price. Also, its so large, I cant imagine using for more than 30 minutes off a monopod, and that doesnt suit me.
However, for sports, I could imagine this puppy with a TC1.7 would be a very desirable 340 mm F3.3 (or 510mm on DX).
In summary, get a 70-200. However, if you fly through Amsterdam, have a play with this $6,000 lens!