Just how good is the 200mm f/2 VR?

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi all. I'm a relatively recent owner of a 135 f/2 DC, and I'm increasingly frustrated with the longitudinal

chromatic aberration. The bokeh is beautiful, but if the cost is spending ages trying to remove the purple rinse

from any slightly out-of-focus hair (the simplest solution I've found is to work in Lab and use the smudge tool

on the "a" channel, for what it's worth) I'm beginning to lose my fondness for the optic. Even my fiancée is

starting to sympathise.<br>

<br>

So, I'm after a (candid) portrait tool that will provide decent bokeh without distracting LoCA. We're probably

starting to talk about the exotic lenses here, and they're conspicuous in not being reviewed in detail on the

obvious web sites. However, Photozone have tried the 200mm f/2 VR, which seems promising. I'd be prepared to

stand 50% farther away from the subject than my 135, and I can live with the weight (if nothing else, I need the

exercise, and it can only be twice as bad as carrying a 150-500 Sigma around).<br>

<br>

There are rumours that this lens is about to be replaced. This could be taken to mean i) an even better one is

about to appear, or ii) the market is about to flood with cheap old ones. Hence I'd like to know a bit more about

the current model.<br>

<br>

Nikon's MTF figures for the 200 f/2 seem to drop a bit precipitously (although hardly 24-120mm bad) away from the

centre of the frame. I have a D700 - and an F5 - so I'm not going to be testing this in the way a D3x owner

would, but nor do I ascribe to the theory that nobody ever wants the corners of a photograph to be sharp. I'd

feel it was plenty sharp enough, but the ghost of the old 70-200 f/2.8 VR haunts me; Nikon had a habit, at least

prior to the launch of the D3, of optimising their lenses for the DX sensor range. This might mean that a new

200mm f/2 would have a new formula with a larger image circle, in which case being stuck with an old one would be

a mistake. Notably, the 500 f/4, 400 f/2.8 and new 300 f/2.8 are all in a different league (according to MTF) in

the corners. Of course, they're also vastly more expensive, not as fast, and have an even longer working

distance, but it still feels wrong to want to spend $4000 on a lens and have a reason to criticise its optics;

given the price, I was surprised enough that the 135 DC wasn't better. I'd buy a 400 f/2.8 as well if that was

remotely an option, but I'm strangely obliged to make food a priority instead.<br>

<br>

The other concern is with flare. I've always coped with my 14-24, but I gather the 200mm is a bit prone to it. At

least it can be hooded, unlike the 14-24. No doubt any replacement will have a nano-crystal upgrade, but it's

hard to know whether the complaints are from people who have specifically tried to test the flare resistance or

whether it's a real problem in the field.<br>

<br>

Of course, I'd hire one before buying (at least it's *possible* to hire one, which wasn't the case with the 135

DC), but I'd like some feedback on what's worth watching out for, whether my concerns are unfounded, and whether

it's not worth the money. I may be saving up for a while, even so.<br>

<br>

Anyone out there got one of these things and wasting their time on the fora instead of shooting with it?

:-)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Nikon's MTF figures for the 200 f/2 seem to drop a bit precipitously (although hardly 24-120mm bad) away from the centre of the frame.</em></p>

<p>Nikon's MTF graphs are always for the maximum aperture, in this case f/2. If you compare the graphs with other lenses that are f/2 you'll probably note that the behaviour is typical. If you want a lens that has consistently beautiful bokeh you probably have to give up corner sharpness wide open; at least I have found a strong correlation between these two characteristics. By f/2.8 the 200/2 is excellent corner to corner on 12 MP FX; I don't have a D3X but photozone's results with that camera do not surprise me one bit.</p>

<p>You can of course get it to flare a bit if you point it to the light but to be honest this kind of complaint is kind of ridiculous ... under any normal circumstances it delivers delightful results. For me, a nano-coated version with higher contrast would probably be a negative development as in high contrast lighting the current 200/2 behaves very nicely wide open, whereas the nano-coated 70-200 II displays very aggressive contrast and gives a "rugged" look to performers, whether I want it or not. The 200/2 is wonderful indoors thanks to its beautiful rendering of people. It's a pain to lug around but the images are among the finest of any lens I've seen.</p>

<p>I recommend getting the Really Right Stuff tripod foot for this lens. The original Nikon one is terrible. It's only virtue is that it's small. It's flexible and doesn't allow proper balancing of the lens on tripod or monopod, leading to vibration issues. Which largely disappear with the longer RRS foot thanks to being able to mount the rig in a balanced way.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Ilkka. Of course, it would be nice to see the MTF at f/2.8, but it's a shame these don't tend to get published; chances are I'd be erring on the wide side anyway just for the bokeh, but it depends on the scene. Good to know that flare isn't a major issue. (Given the amount of glass, I guess a bit of contrast drop should be expected; the 70-200 would get me back to LoCA issues.) Good to know there's at least one happy camper!<br>

<br>

I've also heard about the tripod foot issues. I'm surprised Nikon haven't picked up on it by now - the feet on a lot of recent supertelephotos have been criticised. I've tended to hand-hold my 150-500; I'd hope to do the same most of the time with the 200, and avoid the shutter speed range where vibration is an issue, but I may be tempted into better technique by a better (and heavier) lens. I suspect my recently-purchased 055 CX Pro B might be a bit under-specified. Oh well; Wimberley, here I come...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Good to know there's at least one happy camper!</em></p>

<p>I am very happy with the performance of the lens, just that I don't use it as often as it deserves because of the size and weight; it's quite a project to use it actually. But the images are a wonder.</p>

<p><br /> <em>I've also heard about the tripod foot issues. I'm surprised Nikon haven't picked up on it by now</em></p>

<p>The tripod foot is flexible in order to reduce impact damage to the lens when it gets bumped around on a monopod. The 200/2 is commonly used on monopod and due to its weight, when you move the camera and rest the pod on the ground, it's quite hard to avoid impacts. The flexible tripod foot takes some of that impact, especially the higher frequencies. The (presumably) few photographers who would use this lens at slow shutter speeds are less of a concern I guess (too bad for us). Note that the RRS foot can't completely remove the flexibility since it's partly in the ring that goes around the barrel, but by allowing a more correct balance, the lens tends to vibrate much less, so it is in my experience, effective. It makes the lens easier to operate. The Nikon foot is tiny and I think portability and hand-holding have been in mind when they put it there. It's a curious thing but thankfully most Nikon foots can be replaced with something that works. ;-)</p>

<p>Note that the 70-200 II's tripod collar is quite rigid. This is a lens that Nikon does expect people will use for landscape photography and general photography even at slow speeds, whereas they probably think the monster teles are used only for action and people photography where the slow speeds would not normally come into play.</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>I second Ilkka's recommendation of the RRS foot, especially if you plan to mount it on a Wimberley. The Kirk foot is too short to balance this lens, at least with a heavier camera such as a D700 + battery pack. The RRS foot is considerably longer and balances just fine.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka - I sympathise. I'd only wheel it out when I was at an occasion that justified it (wedding, sporting event) - but the same is true of my 135 f/2. For walking around, the 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 G will do, and won't get my camera stolen; its only problem is that I get insults from store owners who try to sell me a 24-120 VR. Still, when I want big glass, I really want the best photos I can take - so image quality is everything.<br>

<br>

Good theory about the foot. I doubt I'd monopod it much - I either need more mobility than a monopod affords or no mobility at all, in which case a tripod is better; the exception would be Wimbledon, and they won't let me in with a long pointy stick. (Having checked, I'm now less worried about my tripod - Gitzo shopping would be overkill - but my cheapo head will probably need company.) I'll budget to give RRS some money - Kent, thanks for the confirmation.</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>I guess the proof is in the pudding</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/summer_darkness_20100815</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/summer_darkness_20100814</p>

<p>please don't be shocked by the look of some of the subjects, it was a Goth festival (though very friendly and good humoured) and people dressed accordingly</p>

<p>biggest problem was getting the focus right, as I was shooting hand held, and at a high fps, but when that succeeded the rewards was well worth it</p>

<p>processing was done with Capture (only) and nearly all shots are uncropped, exif data are shown with the pictures if you scroll down</p>

<p>you can also look at the catwalk shots of the shows in Maastricht, also shot with the 200mm</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>:-) Thanks, Paul. (I'm not shocked - *I* normally wear black, although not so much with make-up and fangs.) I can see the focus missed a couple of times (depending on where you were aiming), but that does a nice job of confirming that LoCA isn't an issue with this lens. For what it's worth, I've not yet adjusted my D700 to compensate for my 135 f/2 DC front-focussing, which isn't helping my LoCA problems with it. Nice and convincing about the edge of frame being contrasty. I notice a lot of shots at f/2.2 - is that coincidence, or is there a big difference from f/2?<br>

<br>

Thanks for sharing. I don't normally have quite such distinctive subjects - although, to be fair, I've yet to hear what my fiancée's niece plans to wear to her wedding next year.</p>

[walterh]

<p>F 2.2 might be the result of shooting the lens set to f2.0 at close distance.</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>Hi Andrew</p>

<p>the aperture was set intentionally on 2.2, not the result of the lens doing something funny or on its own initiative.</p>

<p>IQ is set to be even better at 2.2, and since there was enough light I thought 'Why not?'</p>

<p>I must admit though that when having to choose between perfect technique or 'perfect' picture, I go for the latter. That was the reason that in the good old film days I preferred 35mm pushed Tri-x over the Hasselblad I used to have lying th the closet.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ah, thanks Paul! Just curious - and I'm in no position to cause anyone else to doubt their technique; my biggest failing (as a photographer) is that, although I've probably read what I should do, I don't slow down enough to do it. Part of learning, I hope. Still, thank you for resolving my confusion.</p>

[samuel_lipoff]

<p>Just how good is the 200mm f/2 VR?</p>

<p>It is amazing. Incredible. Words cannot describe. Wow. Legendary. I don't know what else there is to say.</p>

<p>Usually I think people get too worked up over legendary lenses. Sure, the 28mm f/1.4 is my favorite lens, but there is no way it is even close to being sharp all over at f/1.4. </p>

<p>But the 200mm f/2 has basically no optical shortcomings. With the hood on, it's very difficult to make flare. Without the hood, it can flare. It is, however, not only expensive, but very heavy and very bulky. I rent it on occasion, but it's too big and heavy for me to use comfortably, let alone carry around, unless I can support it on a monopod, which my circumstances don't often allow.</p>

<p>If chromatic aberrations are bothering you with the 135 f/2 DC lens, maybe try the Voigtlander SL 180mm f/4 APO-Lanthar. It is much smaller, lighter and less expensive than the 200/2 (and also much slower and MF only) and has no chromatic aberration that I have ever been able to see.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Samuel: Thanks. :-) I'll certainly hire one before buying; the weight doesn't scare me in theory - it's a third more than the D700 + 150-500 combination, though shorter - but I may change my mind after pulling some muscles on it. Good to have a comment on the flare issue.<br>

<br>

As for the Voigtlander... I'll take it into consideration! I honestly expect that the aberrations on my 135 f/2 would go away if I stopped it down and avoided the defocus control (I have a manual focus 135 f/2.8 which is fine in this respect). Unfortunately, I got it because I shoot where I have no control over backgrounds, and bokeh is my friend. The best way I can think of improving on the 135 f/2 are the 200 f/2, 400 f/2.8 and manual focus 300 f/2. The 200 is the most affordable (not that it's saying much), lightest, and only one that would let me stay in the same room as a subject. I might get a 400 f/3.5 AI some day, though.<br>

<br>

I'm sure I'll find a way to pixel-peep myself into needing the Voigtlander as well, though! Then I just need to make my fortune...</p>