The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikon 200 2.0 - Images and Discussion

dave.gt

Well-known member
My apologies if this topic has been discussed here before. If nothing else, this thread will be a break from all the new tech mania, LOL.:grin:

Photography is popular for so many reasons and everyone is different. Lenses seem to me to be important enough to discuss as I am about to change my 5- year plan a couple of years early. Now that I am back working with Nikon gear, it is a good time to re-evaluate why I am here in the first place.

Photography is not a hobby for me. Far from it, photography is one facet of my life and it is not related to any idea of an activity now that I am wholly irrelevant to society. It is a form of expression for me to tell a story.

What story? Whose story? And more importantly, why?

The answer is any story for anyone that I value as important for various reasons. How a story is told is as varied and personal as the motif. The tools are important and for me, they must be selected carefully.

So, why am I interested in the 200/2.0? The results I have seen over the years speak for themselves. Beauty is in the motif, the story, the words, and yes in the images. As I contemplate our "business plan/journey", I thought it would be interesting to see what members on this forum are shooting with the 200/2.0 lens. :grin:
 
Last edited:

dave.gt

Well-known member
There does not seem to be many discussions on this particular lens, or I am just not finding them.

The 85/1.4 is certainly a consideration for the D850 and a comparison of that lens with the 200/2.0 would be informative for sure. :)
 

Bugleone

Well-known member
I feel forced to comment on this, sorry!

I don't have the 200/2 and I never will...it's simply 'too much' in every way and I could have all the photo gear I want for the same price with less weight....

However, curiosity made me look thru the Fred Miranda thread....I was largely dissappointed as very few posted pix look to be sharp to me (perhaps just my old screen) and 'sharpness' is big in my book, especially for serious money like that. to be fair, there is a superb pic of storks(?) taking flight in snow which I would have been well pleased to have shot and for which the wall space is waiting......

So often I look at these threads here (since I was once a photographer) and wonder 'why' about the lenses/cameras/attitudes/technology.... I have a friend who is a life long fly fisherman. He mainly uses an ancient split rod which is actually broken (many years ago) but he seems unconcerned because, as he told me; "it's really the fish that interests me"

So the 200/2 is a wonderful piece of 'want' wrapped up in 'need' and glossed with 'can' but i don't really see the photography.....
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
I feel forced to comment on this, sorry!

I don't have the 200/2 and I never will...it's simply 'too much' in every way and I could have all the photo gear I want for the same price with less weight....

However, curiosity made me look thru the Fred Miranda thread....I was largely dissappointed as very few posted pix look to be sharp to me (perhaps just my old screen) and 'sharpness' is big in my book, especially for serious money like that. to be fair, there is a superb pic of storks(?) taking flight in snow which I would have been well pleased to have shot and for which the wall space is waiting......

So often I look at these threads here (since I was once a photographer) and wonder 'why' about the lenses/cameras/attitudes/technology.... I have a friend who is a life long fly fisherman. He mainly uses an ancient split rod which is actually broken (many years ago) but he seems unconcerned because, as he told me; "it's really the fish that interests me"

So the 200/2 is a wonderful piece of 'want' wrapped up in 'need' and glossed with 'can' but i don't really see the photography.....
We all have our opinions which I understand at my age...but you are off-topic and not helpful. It is not up to any of us to argue or try to change minds. As a fly fisherman myself, I love using anything, but I happen to love the custom bamboo
fly rod the most. :)

To each his own.:thumbup:

FWIW, the 200/2 is an amazing portrait lens with outstanding bokeh. Some people do not like shallow razor thin DOF, and others like me,we thrive on those qualities like creamy bokeh.:) it is also highly prized for other uses.

That is all I have to say about the "why".

Now where is that Noctilux? :)
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
Interesting how few posts this forum receives in a day compared to others like the MF forum. Only two posts in 24 hours besides mine.

Well, hopefully folks are out shooting rather than talking. But my feeling is that few people actually post except for the latest high tech news as even the Fun with Nikon Images thread is quiet. The digital acquisition syndrome, I suppose.

Back on topic, the Nikon 200/2 has been mentioned in a couple of Otus 55 reviews. While I am delightfully stunned at the results posted with the Otus, the comparison of such radially different focal lengths which are used in quite different shooting scenarios, is curious.

Dante must already know that one must have both! :bugeyes:

Lol, it is all good!:thumbup:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Yes, the images speak for themselves, and it's a fantastic lens, but it's big and heavy... like a dinosaur. Which it is.
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
Yes, the images speak for themselves, and it's a fantastic lens, but it's big and heavy... like a dinosaur. Which it is.
Hahaha!.... a dinosaur pretty much describes me, I suppose.:salute:

Size and weight mean little to me. A tripod for landscapes; a tripod for portraits; a tripod for most things I do lately. The rest falls into the walkabout snaps that I rarely do anymore. But when I do, a fast lens like the Otus 55 would be ideal.

Reality dictates the Nikon 50/1.8, though, and it is great for everyday carry on any Nikon body that I am using.

The 200/2 is not my idea of a handshooting lens, but maybe there are folks who are doing great work with it? I am interested in seeing those results, too!
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Hahaha!.... a dinosaur pretty much describes me, I suppose.:salute:

Size and weight mean little to me. A tripod for landscapes; a tripod for portraits; a tripod for most things I do lately. The rest falls into the walkabout snaps that I rarely do anymore. But when I do, a fast lens like the Otus 55 would be ideal.

Reality dictates the Nikon 50/1.8, though, and it is great for everyday carry on any Nikon body that I am using.

The 200/2 is not my idea of a handshooting lens, but maybe there are folks who are doing great work with it? I am interested in seeing those results, too!
If I'm buying a full frame camera again, which I might, I will probably limit the number of lenses to 2-3 large aperture primes between 20 and 100 mm. For anything longer, I find that smaller sensor cameras make more sense. The problem with a lens like the 200/2 is that I would have to plan to include it in my kit and decide what I should take out to make room in the bag, like I did when I had the 200-500/5.6. With a compact kit, I always bring everything, and never need to worry if I've forgotten stuff. It's al in the bag.
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
If I'm buying a full frame camera again, which I might, I will probably limit the number of lenses to 2-3 large aperture primes between 20 and 100 mm. For anything longer, I find that smaller sensor cameras make more sense. The problem with a lens like the 200/2 is that I would have to plan to include it in my kit and decide what I should take out to make room in the bag, like I did when I had the 200-500/5.6. With a compact kit, I always bring everything, and never need to worry if I've forgotten stuff. It's al in the bag.
Ah, yes, the bag.:)

It is always quite a puzzle with gear isn't it? I now have two backpacks to simplify things where before I simply shot a Leica with a lens or two and kept it in my Billingham shoulder bag. Even when shooting my old Nikon film cameras, I still carry only one with a lens and six rolls of film and spare battery.

Now, things are complicated.

The Studio's gear is all MF and all of it fits into the Satori backpack. I love that pack and walk with it everyday to stay in some kind of shape.

But the only camera I personally have to use everyday now is the D850 having sold everything else of value. It's home is the Loka UL. I love that pack too. But I only carry the camera and two lenses, battery grip and charger; and misc accessories. Total weight = 11 pounds including the pack. I am resisting the plan to include a telephoto lens like the 200/2 in the future for the same reasons you mentioned.

But then, I can always strap another bag on somehow. Guess I need to lengthen my daily walks to get in better shape!!! Oh, wait, I have two grandsons needing something to do... Sherpa time!:thumbup:
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
It definitely delivers a unique look; paper-thin and razor-sharp focus at the 200 focal portrait distance. It's also sharper wide open than the 70-200/2.8 zoom is at f2.8, yet with an even thinner DoF. It's one optical wart is being fairly --actually, very-- flare prone... But still those two main benefits come at costs --and significant ones to my thinking-- in both dollars and weight. (Remember, this is coming from a guy who recently sold off his entire collection of excellent performing f/1.4 ART lenses because he was tired of schlepping the weight for apertures he never used.) (Sidebar note to SIGMA: Make your ART series in f2 versions!) Anyway, I digress. The real question becomes do you *need* those two main traits for the imaging you do? An ancillary question is then logically, how long will it take to pay for itself? And finally, if you plan on shooting it at anything over f3.5, the 2.8 zoom is just as good optically and a LOT more versatile. And a lot cheaper. And a lot lighter in weight. And a lot easier to sell when you're tired of it and want the lighter-weight f4 version :D ...

My .02 only and I respect YMMV...


PS: For 1/3rd less cost and 1/2 the total weight, you could own the 70-200/2.8 VR AND the 300 f4 pf. Just sayin. :D
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
It definitely delivers a unique look; paper-thin and razor-sharp focus at the 200 focal portrait distance. It's also sharper wide open than the 70-200/2.8 zoom is at f2.8, yet with an even thinner DoF. It's one optical wart is being fairly --actually, very-- flare prone... But still those two main benefits come at costs --and significant ones to my thinking-- in both dollars and weight. (Remember, this is coming from a guy who recently sold off his entire collection of excellent performing f/1.4 ART lenses because he was tired of schlepping the weight for apertures he never used.) (Sidebar note to SIGMA: Make your ART series in f2 versions!) Anyway, I digress. The real question becomes do you *need* those two main traits for the imaging you do? An ancillary question is then logically, how long will it take to pay for itself? And finally, if you plan on shooting it at anything over f3.5, the 2.8 zoom is just as good optically and a LOT more versatile. And a lot cheaper. And a lot lighter in weight. And a lot easier to sell when you're tired of it and want the lighter-weight f4 version :D ...

My .02 only and I respect YMMV...


PS: For 1/3rd less cost and 1/2 the total weight, you could own the 70-200/2.8 VR AND the 300 f4 pf. Just sayin. :D
Yeah, I had the 70-200 2.8 and it was wonderful! But, it ain't a 200/2.0... if I have one lens left to enjoy before I die, it is only the 200/2.0... I am done with the the dream lenses of Leica and pretty much everything else on my bucket list.:)

Weight and size are advantages for me for many reasons. I don't mind either.

Cost is of course difficult to address, but we shall see.

Never say never.:thumbup:
 
M

mjr

Guest
Hi Dave

I sold mine 5 years ago now, used it with a D800 and D800E, for sure it's big and bulky but I never felt it excessive, shot mainly handheld with it and had no issues with carrying it about, I was a younger man though! The bokeh is stunning, it's reasonably fast focussing if I remember correctly and I'd have no issue buying one again if I wanted to, if you want one, get it, who cares what anyone else thinks!

Some random snaps I found from it, nothing particularly interesting but all wide open. I don't remember it being anything other than razor sharp if that's a concern.







Mat
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
Images!!!

Thanks, Mat!!!:)

In the OP, I mentioned that I would like to see what others are/or have been shooting and I was hopeful more folks would post their own images from the big 200.:)

I am enamored with the portraits posted on Flickr that I have seen. However, I don't have days to while away digging through Flickr. It would be more helpful to see what members here have been enjoying... no rush, it will the rest of this year to even begin getting into another focal length if I could even come up with the resources for the lens. New lenses somehow take up a lot of time to understand and bond with them! Even for the King of Bokeh (my name for it, LOL)...

Bokeh. That's what it's all about.:thumbup:
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
This lens may seem expensive but it's in line with Phase One lens prices
Yes, it is expensive... definitely. It can be either a business decision to purchase or an emotionally based decision, or even just a "want" decision, based on many things. It can also be a decision based on a desire for value added.

In this case, it is an extraordinary lens for extraordinary uses. It is rather hard to match other lenses to do the same thing.

Perhaps, an Otus?

I don't know but it would be fun trying out to see if it is possible to get close!!!:thumbup:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
So, why am I interested in the 200/2.0? The results I have seen over the years speak for themselves. Beauty is in the motif, the story, the words, and yes in the images. As I contemplate our "business plan/journey", I thought it would be interesting to see what members on this forum are shooting with the 200/2.0 lens. :grin:
Have you tried the 58mm f/1.4? Your description above fits that lens very well. It's also a much more manageable lens than the 200mm. There's a loooong thread over at FM with tons of nice photos taken with it.
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
Have you tried the 58mm f/1.4? Your description above fits that lens very well. It's also a much more manageable lens than the 200mm. There's a loooong thread over at FM with tons of nice photos taken with it.
Cool, I will check it out. Thanks!:)

I am also looking around for a rental possibility of the 200/2.0 at some point in the summer. In the meantime, I am busy with the other end of the focal length continuum: 14mm :facesmack: Talk about a special use lens! Whoa!
 
Top