I have been considering the Nikon 200mm f2 VR. Used on a D300 I have read that it has a good reputation for sharpness. I know that 500 and 600 are good for the long range but i find myself shooting closer and would really like a faster lens for lower light condition , better bokeh and the pricing is more in my budget with VR then the 300mm and 400mm f2.8. Then go up with a teleconverter 1.4 & 1.7 for more range on the lens without losing a lot of stops. Would like thoughts and opinions if this has been tried and success of these combinations.
Cannot justify at this time spending 8000.00+ for VR lens but can do 4000.00 for a 200mm+ teles
Currently have Sigma 170-500mm which has served well but gets a little soft without good light and far range. Wish I would have gotten the 50-500mm Bigma still might. Nikon 75-300mm f 4 does well but I find the boken it creates is very distracting. Friend gave me a 400mm f5.6 Sigma which is great but not fast enough in both light and AF.
We have a 200 f2 which my wife uses for portraits and (mostly) weddings. The above article seems to be right on the money. That lens is the only reason my wife has stayed with Nikon. Canon's 200 f1.8 seems to have a slight edge over the Nikon in sharpness and contrast but nothing significant; but 4-5K for a discontinued lens didn't seem like a smart thing to do so she stuck with Nikon. Many people complain about the weight (what's new) but other than that I've not heard or seen much about limitations. It's not one of Nikons most popular lenses - too short for wildlife and too long for conventional wedding/portrait shooters - but if you get it, I don't think you'll be disappointed. It produces some incredibly sharp images.
Would like opinions on Lens Nikon 200 f2 VR
Reply With Quote
