My Nikon 200mm f/2.0 VR Shots (first day)

Looks good. Is that the 3k lens?

That girl in the last pic looks disturbed you are taking a pic of her.

Which camera model did you use with that lens?


Anyway, I heard the lens was good, but I doubt it's their best lens. Best in terms of what, exactly? It'll blur the background more, but I don't know if the lens is the best combination of background blur and nice bokeh.

(it probably is though, for around $5000 USD (I think) ).

Those are amazing! Just something about a long lens!

That's a very special chunk of glass....ENJOY!

good lord that's a large lens.

Awesome pics though so that's worth it. I'd be so worried about dropping it.

Zack

Abstract said:

Anyway, I heard the lens was good, but I doubt it's their best lens.

Click to expand...

You'd be right. The 400VR has the best MTF of any Nikkor ever made as far as I can tell.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_vr_200mmf_2g_if/index.htm

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_400mmf_28g_vr/index.htm

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_vr_300mmf_28g_if/index.htm

You can clearly see the degradation in the 200 as you get away from the center, especially at 30 l/mm (resolution.) The 200 falls off pretty quickly 10mm from the center of the frame, while the 400 stays good all the way across. For comparison, you can see how the 300mm 2.8 starts to lose a bit of resolution after 15mm from the center. Contrast on the 400mm prime is basically a straight line while resolution starts well and gets better for a bit away from the center, then curves back to the start- pretty-much unreal theoretical center-to-edge sharpness.

The 200mm is a full stop faster, and that's likely one of the trade-offs in terms of optical formula. It is undoubtedly a very good lens, but it's also undoubtedly as you say, not Nikon's very best lens. We can see that the 200-400VR- which has trade-offs as well (zoom, two stops slower)- fairs better at 400mm, but has a very similar resolution fall-off at 200mm. The 200mm prime is also clearly sharper than the much older design of the 180mm f/2.8 prime.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_vr_zoom200-400mmf_4g_if/index.htm

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/telephoto/af_180mmf_28d_if/index.htm

The MTFs clearly show how crop sensors get the sweet spot over full-frame in terms of overall resolution, other than the 400VR, which is sweet no matter what you shoot it on.

Nice pics - good luck carrying that around with you.

numbersyx said:

Nice pics - good luck carrying that around with you.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Especially if you decide to get a D3....now we're talking some real heft. Consider the D700.

Nice lens, I suppose it's worth it for that extra stop if you shoot a lot of indoor highschool level sports with poorly lit gyms, but I wouldn't go as far to say that it's Nikon's best lens...

The AF-S 400mm f/2.8G ED VR is superior in edge-to-edge sharpness wide open, if I remember correctly. The 200mm, while being a full stop faster gets softer in the corners unless stopped down.

Oh, and MONOPOD.

I want that lens.

taylorwilsdon said:

When do you ever have sharp corners with a f/2 lens? Using the center as your focal point, your corners will almost always be completely out of focus (intentionally).

Click to expand...

If you're gonna get all defensive and start waffling:

When? When you use the Canon 200mm f/2 lens:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=153&modelid=16357

How you can "intentionally" make corners out of focus with a fixed focal and lens plane camera is quite a feat.

taylorwilsdon said:

Also, I'm using a DX camera so I believe that on a 1.5xcrop, they are about the same. Anyways, I'm not trying to start anything - even 200mm is too long for basketball in my experience, 400 wouldn't be the least bit usable.

Click to expand...

Your original statement wasn't "It's Nikon's best f/2 lens." You statement also wasn't "It's Nikon's best lens for shooting basketball." Your statement was "Its probably Nikon's best lens in terms of raw image quality, period." Measured by the criterion which you set, it isn't.

You do a disservice to yourself and your equipment when you try to waffle around your own statements when they're proven wrong.

For what it's worth, a DX sensor is ~23.6mm wide, so you're looking at 11.8m from the center to the edge. That fall-off in the 30 l/mm plots before 10mm- that seems to run counter to your "belief."

The Nikkor 200mm VR lens is a fantastic lens, you do it a disservice trying to turn it into something it isn't.

You can probably take out the entire Israeli army with that lens, man that is huge.

compuwar said:

If you're gonna get all defensive and start waffling:

When? When you use the Canon 200mm f/2 lens:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=153&modelid=16357

How you can "intentionally" make corners out of focus with a fixed focal and lens plane camera is quite a feat.



Your original statement wasn't "It's Nikon's best f/2 lens." You statement also wasn't "It's Nikon's best lens for shooting basketball." Your statement was "Its probably Nikon's best lens in terms of raw image quality, period." Measured by the criterion which you set, it isn't.

You do a disservice to yourself and your equipment when you try to waffle around your own statements when they're proven wrong.

For what it's worth, a DX sensor is ~23.6mm wide, so you're looking at 11.8m from the center to the edge. That fall-off in the 30 l/mm plots before 10mm- that seems to run counter to your "belief."

The Nikkor 200mm VR lens is a fantastic lens, you do it a disservice trying to turn it into something it isn't.

Click to expand...

I think you win.

taylorwilsdon said:

Thought I'd share a few with you guys. I'll edit it as I finish importing my shots.

All shots are shot wide open at f/2. Please view in Safari or set color management to on in Firefox

First 2 and last are ISO200, next two are ISO3200. The lens is meant for shooting high school basketball in a very dark gym. All bokeh is completely natural.

Click to expand...

Very nice! I love the bokeh on that lens =)

BTW, the EXIF on the third pic says ISO 1800, not 3200. Would you mind checking it? If it's 3200, then it's pristine! Very good IQ for such a high sensitivity.

One last thing, how do you set color management to on in firefox? Looked in preferences but I can't find it.

Ya know...this is just silly (and disturbing). MTF, blah, blah blah and throw in a yada yada yada....Frikkin' gear heads vs photographers....turning the thread into a pissing contest based on MTF charts. Yowsa.

There is NO SUCH THING as the best lens. Get over it. I just picked up a Nikkor 50mm 1.8D....for a pro gig I have on Tuesday. Yep. It's the right tool for the job. $100. Made of pure, authentic 100% plastic.

The 200 f2 kicks some SERIOUS booty. Taylor is excited about the lens...and HE SHOULD BE. Those feeling a *need* to challenge whether it's the "best" ever made with their charts and graphs...and declaring a "winner" of the argument... please just ...(bites tongue).

taylorwilsdon said:

Chill out.

Click to expand...

Taylor...you're a nice guy. *I* on the other hand, would have used a different two word phrase. First word rhymes with "duck"...second word rhymes with "scoff".

Wow, what a beast! I can't imagine dealing with the size and weight but the picture quality is phenomenal! Enjoy!

I have Canon's 135 F2L and there is something pretty impressive about a telephoto @ F2. Great quality of pics man, can't wait to see your show-stoppers. The pics are great, the subject matter is okay - Let's see what you can do

I have no idea how to read an MTF chart - does that make me a crappy photographer who can't have an opinion on things?

compuwar said:

You can clearly see the degradation in the 200 as you get away from the center, especially at 30 l/mm (resolution.) The 200 falls off pretty quickly 10mm from the center of the frame, while the 400 stays good all the way across.

Click to expand...

You are right. But you know what? In a real photo taken at f/2.0 the edges are going to be out of focus. We don't care how sharp the out of focus parts of the image are.

I always way that any lens on a crop body longer than 135mm is a "specialty lens". Not something you'd use for general photography and the 200 f/2 real is a specialty lens if there ever was one. I've heard of wedding photographers using these for parts of the ceromony where they can't use flash or walk up close. Kind of a specialty. But you have to be at the high of of the wedding photog food chain to justify the cost, But this guy was charging $6K per wedding.

dllavaneras said:

One last thing, how do you set color management to on in firefox? Looked in preferences but I can't find it.

Click to expand...

I was wondering that too.. What a BIG difference when viewing in Safari compared to FireFox!!

So yeah, how do you do the color management in firefox? I just opened this post in firefox and safari side by side and firefox looks alot more washed out. I use firefox though so I should fix this.

Thanks
zack