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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by taylorwilsdon, Jan 9, 2009.

  1. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #1
    Thought I'd share a few with you guys. I'll edit it as I finish importing my shots.

    I've been shooting with the 200mm f/2.0 VR for the last few hours and I'm loving it. I'm a big lens noob and have only used it for a few hours, so be gentle :) I handheld it for about 4 hours straight and my 80-200mm felt like a 50mm prime in comparison (which was actually sort of nice when I switched lenses).

    All shots are shot wide open at f/2. Please view in Safari or set color management to on in Firefox possible because the images are color managed and lose saturation and vibrancy when viewed in an unmanaged browser.

    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.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. CarlsonCustoms macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    #2
    Looks good. Is that the 3k lens?

    That girl in the last pic looks disturbed you are taking a pic of her.
     
  3. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #3
    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) ;)).
     
  4. iBallz macrumors 6502

    iBallz

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Location:
    So. Utah
    #4
    Those are amazing! Just something about a long lens!:D
     
  5. taylorwilsdon thread starter macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #5
    The 200f/2 is about 4k.

    The Nikon D300.

    Hah, Margo was just mad that she couldn't shoot with it very well.

    She handled it about as well as Thai [​IMG]

    Everyone wants to play with the big lens, but nobody can hold it :D
     
  6. jaduffy108 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #6
    That's a very special chunk of glass....ENJOY!
     
  7. CarlsonCustoms macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    #7
    good lord that's a large lens.

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

    Zack
     
  8. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #8
    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.
     
  9. numbersyx macrumors 65816

    numbersyx

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    #9
    Nice pics - good luck carrying that around with you.
     
  10. Hmac macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    #10

    Yes indeed. Especially if you decide to get a D3....now we're talking some real heft. Consider the D700.
     
  11. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #11
    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. ;)
     
  12. taylorwilsdon thread starter macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #12
    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).

    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.
     
  13. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
  14. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #14
    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.
     
  15. taylorwilsdon thread starter macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
  16. chiefroastbeef macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas/ Hong Kong
    #16
    You can probably take out the entire Israeli army with that lens, man that is huge.
     
  17. Zieg3rman macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Oregon
    #17
    I think you win.
     
  18. dllavaneras macrumors 68000

    dllavaneras

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    Caracas, Venezuela
    #18
    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.
     
  19. jaduffy108 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #19
    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).
     
  20. jaduffy108 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #20
    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". ;)
     
  21. bobt macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Location:
    Bozeman, Montana
    #21
    Wow, what a beast! I can't imagine dealing with the size and weight but the picture quality is phenomenal! Enjoy!
     
  22. wheezy macrumors 65816

    wheezy

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Alpine, UT
    #22
    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?
     
  23. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #23
    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.
     
  24. shady825 macrumors 68000

    shady825

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Area 51
    #24
    I was wondering that too.. What a BIG difference when viewing in Safari compared to FireFox!!
     
  25. CarlsonCustoms macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page