200/2 VR too heavy?

[iwong]

I just received some gift money from my parents and I'm looking to

take this rare opportunity to buy a dream lens. The best part is, my

spouse has no say in what I plan to buy, so it can be

as "impractical" as I want it.

 

I can buy some useful lenses to add to my slowly expanding Nikon

digital collection such as the bread-and-butter 17-55/2.8 DX Nikkor,

and a zeiss 140/2.8 sonnar for my C645 system before Contax

production for the 645 system finally ceases on Dec 2005. But what

interests me the most is the 200/2VR Nikkor, "rare opportunities"

aside, which would allow me to add another dimension to my wedding

photography business. I shoot PJ style and I'd love to have a long,

fast prime to allow me to shoot tight from the back of a dimly-lit

church/banquet hall. But my concern is, I only have a D50 and it may

be too light and create an imbalance in handling.

 

Is the 200/2VR too heavy for the D50 and will the lens mount simply

be ripped apart? I checked that the 200/2VR weighs almost 3kg or

6.4lbs, roughly 4 times what my 24-120VR weighs. Also, since the

200/2 has VR, but do most people end up putting it on a tripod anyway

because of its weight? Handholding this lens for any length of time

would be quite some work indeed.

 

Or should I just go for broke and get a new D2x body instead? Now

that'll really stretch my budget.

 

Decisions, decisions...

[steve_ql]

Go get a brick roughly the same weight and tie a rope

around it. Hang it around your neck and walk around

the banquet hall for a while. See if you like it.

If it's the dream you always thought it was, go get it.

[ShunCheung]

IMO, the 200mm/f2 VR is an overkill for PJ type wedding work. It is very heavy and will slow you down. I would get the 70-200mm/f2.8 VR, which has the flexability of a zoom which is good for PJ type wedding work.

 

If all you have is a D50 and you have $4000 for the 200mm/f2, I would get the 70-200mm/f2.8 VR, 17-55mm/f2.8 DX and hopefully Nikon will soon have a good prosumer DSLR body. IMO that would be a much better way to spend your money than on just one exotic lens.

 

The 200mm/f2 happens to be a beautiful lens, but it is a highly specialized lens, intended for people who already have a great SLR/DSLR and other supporting lenses. For example, for indoor news work where no flash is allowed, the 200mm/f2 could be a great choice.

[lee hamiel]

Isaac:

 

Lucky you for the chance to go nuts with no interference!

 

Firstly: I would buy a used 140 2.8 for your Contax 645 - my son recently bought a new one unused for 710. recently;

 

Secondly: I have no background with the D50 - my only thought is that it's maybe not enough to drive the 200 f/2 to it's maximum capabilities - I could be very wrong on this one;

 

Next: I would consider a 180 2.8 to go with your D50 - one stop slower than the 200 you want but very nice lens wide open & much lighter & managable for a lot less money;

 

In Sum: so far I have spent say 1800. & you could still include a 105 DC f/2 for the low light shots but I would also consider another body as you will not want to be changing lenses constantly + you need a backup - the 105 will set you back say another 800 for import or over 900 for USA so we're up to 2700. I would consider waiting for the "new" Nikon digital coming up along with a 17-55. In the meantime you can learn the nuances of your new lenses.

 

Good luck & have fun with this most terrible conundrum you are faced with:)

 

Regards

[lee hamiel]

I also second Shun's recommendations

[edward_h]

If you're going to get a prime then you pretty much have to have a separate camera for the prime, too. You have an extra D50 lying around, don't you?

 

A zoom can be used at more than one focal length and therefore fewer cameras are needed.

[greg s]

"Is the 200/2VR too heavy for the D50 and will the lens mount simply be ripped apart?"

 

Can't say for sure, but I don't even like to have my 300mm f/4 (approx 3 lbs) hanging unsupported for very long on the mount. Definitely wouldn't have an unsupported 6.4 lb lens applying stress to a D50 lens mount, D2X, or any other body. I'm a bit conservative about those king of things.

 

6.4 lbs is hefty. And it only gets heftier as the minutes go by. :) Have fun with your gift money! -Greg-

[bjørn rørslett]

The 200/2 has it own carrying strap. Take this as an indication of how you should carry and handle it. The camera is actually just something minor bolted on its rear. D50 would be dwarfed by the lens of course, but so is a D2X although not to the same extent :)

 

You can easily handhold the 200/2VR at speeds people wouldn't dream of trying with the 70-200, and have the luxury of an additional stop as well. 1/8 sec with VR on is easy. That is what lens mass can do for you in a positive direction. The downside is of course you will feel its heft after a while, so again put the carrying strap to good use.

 

I read many people consider the 200/2VR a "specialized" lens, but I for one disagree with that view. It is rare and expensive, but not specialised. I use 200/2VR for many aspects of my own photography and it probably is one of my most used lenses.

[john_kothanek1]

*Waiver* I only shoot landscape and buildings etc not people so I may be WAY off... I have ben married though :)

Get the D2X use the d50 as a back up body and adapt your shots to your current lenses. The D2X is in my humble opinion a phenomenal camera.

[rjm photo]

I have to agree with the suggestion to find a brick as heavy as the lens and carry it around your neck for awhile. My 400mm F3.5 EDIF is just slightly lighter than the 200 VR lens mentioned. I use it with its own strap around my neck and either on an F or F3 bolted on to the end as an accessory. I really wanted this lens and do use it for many shots....but it is very heavy and tiresome. I am in good shape and over 6' and this lens gets to be a chore after 30 minutes around my neck. I can't talk myself into something smaller with a TC because the quality of the lens is just fantastic.....so I face the discomfort every time I use this lens off tripod for a period of time.

[lee hamiel]

After reading Bjorn's comments I have to admit I have not used nor own this lens and from all reviews it sounds like a great lens. I know I would like one:)

 

My thoughts are as such: This could be a perfect combination as I know nothing of the D50 nor the 200; If the D50 is not capable of using the lens fully to it's capabilities maybe a new body is in order as well; If your primary purpose is to shoot in a discretional manner the 200 may be a bit much but perhaps you can be way out of range from the wedding party & get some great shots & not draw too much attention.

[ilkka_nissila]

I am a prime lens nerd and I haven't even dreamed of the 200 mm f/2.

 

I would suggest you go along with Shun's suggestions. The 70-200 mm VR is a fabulous lens for people photography and is more flexible for the kind of work you're talking about. The D200 should be out in a few months and will probably save you 3k over the D2X while retaining most of its functionality.

 

I have the 180 mm f/2.8D AF and it's a great lens, you can really see how crisp it is wide open in pictures but the 70-200 will most likely get you better images, and save you a bundle of money over the 200mm. After you have the D200 and if you still want a 200/2 you can then start saving :-)

[iwong]

Thanks for the suggestions so far. Overwhelmingly the 70-200VR seems to be a favorite

choice. The reason I'm not mentioning it is because f2.8 still seems too slow for dark

churches/banquet halls, without using noisy high ISOs. A 85/1.4 is on my list, but that can

come from my "normal" funds :-)

 

I'm still experimenting with digital in my business, but I'll get a second body sooner or

later. Yes that can come from my "normal" funds as well, in addition to the 17-55/2.8 DX,

if you get my drift :-) The 200/2 VR represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get

something extraordinary.

[david_h._hartman]

Gee Ilkka, you must have really boring dreams!

[ilkka_nissila]

David, that was a figure of speech, not meant literally. What I meant is that it has never crossed my mind that I would buy such a lens.

[vivek iyer]

David, I lost that link on 200/2 VR exemplary action shots from a German sports photog. Can't even remember his name. If you know who I am referring to, please repost his web address. TIA.

[tomweis]

Personally, I'd recommend the 135mm f2 AF DC Nikkor, and then save the difference for a

"D200", or get the 17-55. At weddings I use the 135 f2, 85 f2, 50 f1.4, 35 f2, & 28 f2 for

the most part.

[ilkka_nissila]

Yeah, the DC Nikkors are really nice. Excemplary build and my 105 mm f/2 DC is my best lens in terms of overall optical quality (subjectively). It is quite a bit smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 200 mm. I have not used the 135 mm but I imagine it's nice.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>The 200/2 VR represents a once-in-a-lifetime

opportunity to get something extraordinary. --Isaac Wong<br>

</em><br>

Then by all means, go for it!<br>

<br>

Id probably buy a 200~400/4.0G ED-IF VR AF-S but when

others were saying, Why would anyone want a 200/2.0?

I was thinking it gives the reach of a 300/2.0 on a DX body and

with a TC-14E that of a 425/2.8 and it comes with VR! Whats

not to like about this (except the price)?<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>David, I lost that link on 200/2 VR exemplary action

shots from a German sports photog. --Vivek Iyer<br>

</em><br>

Those shots where memorable. I cant believe I found it. I

remembered the shot of the photographer Michael Weber on his

equipment page and the color scheme. Somehow I put it all

together. I have so many links saved I might have been looking

all night.<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.imagepower.de/gal_gymnastics2.htm"

target="_new"><u>http://www.imagepower.de/gal_gymnastics2.htm</u></a><u><br>

</u><br>

<a href="http://www.imagepower.de/equipm.htm" target="_new"><u>http://www.imagepower.de/equipm.htm</u></a><u><br>

</u><br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ilkka_nissila]

David, I am afraid it takes more than a big lens to take shots like that.

[gaius1]

Ah yes, Weber has been featured in NikonPro magazine too, he certainly knows his stuff!

[vivek iyer]

Thanks, David. Yes, Michael Weber is the one.

 

Ilkka, Guy- in Weber's site you will find that Nikon used a shot he made from a Canon fisheye after carefully omitting the technical details.

[ivan_verschoote1]

I should opt for the 70-200 VR and 85/1.4. Then you've best of both worlds: VR and speed. And invest in a better DSLR than the D50.

[iwong]

After I had a little time to settle down and clear my head, maybe I should go for more sensible choices :-) yes I could blow the entire thing on a 200/2VR or a D2x body, but if a "D200" is on its way maybe I'll wait a little longer before I make my move. I'm looking for a digital equivalent of the film F100, where it uses the pro body's AF module, and the same CMOS 12MP sensor as the D2x, maybe with the continuous frame rate tuned down a bit to 3 or 4fps. If that becomes reality I will go for that instead.

 

I'm currently still experimenting with digital in my business (I primarily still shoot film, and only use prime lenses at that.) So if I get a "D200" and use the D50 as a backup, I still have some funds left over for fast teles for PJ work. The 135/2 DC sounds like a good candidate, but it may not be long enough for unintrusive shots.

 

I have played with my Panasonic FZ1 digicam in a lot of similar situations (e.g. shoot from the back of dimly-lit churches), and often I find myself zooming all the way in (420mm equivalent!) and boosting the ISO to 400 (extremely noisy for that cam), and still end up with f2.8 and 1/15s shutter. If you have shot that kind of lighting situations before you know what I'm talking about. If I get the 70-200VR, I would mostly use it at its longest tele end 90% of the time, and I don't get any speed advantage. Ok I can boost the ISO to 800 on my D50, but still 1/30s doesn't really freeze subject motion. That's why the fantasy for the 200/2 VR and that's why I said the 70-200VR may not be fast enough for me.

 

I have Photoshop and I use Neat Image, but there is only so much software noise reduction can do when high ISO noise destroys important details. Garbage in garbage out you know. It sounds like I have convinced myself to get the 200/2VR anyway, but like I said, if a "D200" is coming I'm willing to wait to see what it has to offer. Hey, if the "D200" has 12MP maybe I only need the 135/2 or even the 105/2 and crop :-) that's roughly equivalent to the D50's 6MP and 200/2, without all that weight! (Think HSC mode on the D2x.)

 

hmm... tough decisions :-)

[steve_muntz]

You're shooting weddings - do you have a backup body? For me, this would absolutely be priority #1. Hold out for a little bit to see if the D200 rumors actually produce a camera. That should leave you enough money to get the 70-200VR and an SB800 flash or two.

 

Sure, it's a "one time" opportunity to get a single really expensive piece of gear, but it doesn't sound like a good idea. A D2X would be really tempting for me in this case, but I think my other ideas are better.