david_king11 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 <p>Tax returns are coming and I have a few bucks to spend. I see than B&H has the 200mm f2.0 VR imported version for $3,949. The 200mm f2.0 VRII USA sells for $5,995. How much different are these lenses? Are the physical differences worth the price difference? $4k is probably all I can spend, so my question really is should I get the old VR version or save my money and get the VRII later this year?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 <p>If you don't mind reading a rather long discussion, please take a look at this thread from last month: <a href="00Xz5B">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Xz5B</a></p> <p>I have never used version 2, but as far as I know, the main improvement is VR II and possibly some minor coating improvement. Given such a huge price spread, to me, this is a no brainer, but keep in mind that Nikon USA will not knowingly repair a gray-market lens. So if you buy gray and need repair some time in the future, it may be a bit of a headache.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 <p>For context, it will probably help if you mention what you shoot and under what circumstances.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_king11 Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 <p>Weddings and portraits. I own a 85 f1.4 and a 135 f2.0 - shoot with a D3.</p> <p>Shun - I am wondering how long the VR version will be available for at this price. I don't think the VRII is worth $2k, but also don't want to wait too long and miss out on the opportunity of the VR. I agree, with a lens like this, maybe a USA model is worth it. Hmmm....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 <p>I just checked B&H. They currently have 3 options available:</p> <ul> <li>Version 1 gray @ $3949</li> <li>Version 1 USA @ $4499</li> <li>Version 2 USA @ 6000</li> </ul> <p>I can only speak for myself, and I am not interested in this lens. If it were me, I would immediately rule out Version 2. I would probably take a chance and buy gray, but if you want to play it safe, version 1 USA model would be a safer choice.</p> <p>If you want Version 1, I would buy one ASAP. There can't be all that many left and once they are gone, this excellent deal is over.</p> <p>Nikon has recently updated 3 big teles from version 1 to 2: 200mm/f2, 300mm/f2.8, and 200-400mm/f4. Apparently they no longer manufacture the original VR module so that everything is now VR II, and of course all new prices are much higher. Otherwise, there is minimal difference between the two versions. (However, on the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II, the optical formula is greatly improved in addition to VR improvement.)</p> <p>I view the 200mm/f2 AF-S VR as an indoor sports and news lens. It is a big and cumbersome lens for wedding, but that is another topic that is already discussed in the thread from last month.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 <p>A used first version can be had from keh.com for under $3500 USD.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert DeCandido PhD Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 <p>Where's Dr. Ilkka Nissila? He knows this lens as well as anyone.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 <p>It would not cost $2,000 for the lens to make a round-trip to Japan, if warranty service was needed. Nikon in Japan would honor the warranty.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 <p>Not meant to offend or anything, but, a D7000 ($1200) and a 135/2.0D-AF ($1350) would give you pretty good high-ISO performance and a factored focal length of 203mm/f2.0.</p> <p>Just sayin'...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcooper Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 <p>In a practical sense, if you buy gray market from B&H, they'll warranty the lens for a year, and you can purchase an extended warranty if you want to, up to 5 years worth. I reckon they know some pretty doggone good repair folks.</p> <p>I honestly don't understand why some folks get so hung up about Nikon USA doing their out-of-warranty repair work. Nikon USA doesn't have a monopoly on repairing Nikon camera gear, and the dealer isn't always the best place in town to get your car fixed. A lot of 'factory techs' eventually "graduate" to independent shops or open their own businesses, so it's not like your neighbor's kid is doing the work.</p> <p>I've had several out-of-warranty things fixed by independent shops over the years, and most of them do an excellent job. If the gear is a little older, they'll fix things the 'official' factory folks won't touch. Once I sent a gray-market Mamiya 7II back to a seller in Hong Kong for warranty work...got the camera back in perfect working order, no problem. Had the same camera repaired and CLA in the States by an independent shop on my nickel, and they did a great job and were reasonable on cost. Sometimes buying gray market isn't cost effective, but I think $2k would buy a lot of repair work after the warranty period in this case. If you damage it, it's on your nickel regardless. If you deal with reputable people like B&H, buying gray market isn't as big a deal as some folks make it out to be.</p> <blockquote> <p>How much different are these lenses?</p> </blockquote> <p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/USGrey.jsp</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>I haven't used the newest version of this lens. However, Bjorn Rorslett has compared them side by side and reports some improvement in image quality wide open (the newer lens gives a more contrasty, slightly better defined image at f/2) but stopped down the differences were very small. He also said that the tripod mount is improved. While I would not mind having the Mk II, the price difference seems more substantial than the benefits of the upgrade to an owner of the earlier lens (which is excellent). However, given a chance I would like to test the new lens specifically because of the tripod mount. I use the RRS foot on my Mk I which allows the lens to be better balanced on tripod (I can slide it to different positions depending on the weight of the body) and it is less prone to vibrate. The question in my mind is whether the improvement in the tripod mount of Mk II is just a thicker foot or general improvement in the firmness of the rotating collar that would also translate to benefits for the users of the RRS foot.</p> <p>Anyway, I normally use the lens hand-held or on monopod in indoor events and the 200/2 is always something that it makes a significant positive contribution to the quality and feeling of the images of the event. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjørn rørslett Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>The Mk.2 clearly is the better lens although the improvements over the Mk.1 are not always huge. I have tested both VR versions in depth and can state this with confidence. You get lower flare, better contrast, and more even sharpness across the entire frame. However, given the excellent level of performance of the Mk.1, it is hard to justify an upgrade of an existing 200/2VR (I didn't since I already own 200/2 AIS and 200/2 VR Mk.1). If you haven't got the any of these lenses already, going the whole way to get the Mk.2 is recommended.</p> <p>Do remember, however, that you need to couple the Mk.2 with a high-resolution camera to unleash its full imaging potential. Currently, that means D3X.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I honestly don't understand why some folks get so hung up about Nikon USA doing their out-of-warranty repair work. Nikon USA doesn't have a monopoly on repairing Nikon camera gear, and the dealer isn't always the best place in town to get your car fixed.</p> </blockquote> <p>D.P. Cooper, the issue here is that we are talking about an AF-S lens with VR. While a lot of places can fix those old AI-S lenses, VR is always tricky. For example, as least as of a few years ago, B&H depended on Mack to provide warranty services on their gray-market products. Back in 2006, we checked with Mack precisely on the 200mm/f2 AF-S VR (version 1 at that time), and they admitted that Mack did not have the capability to fix VR issues; neither did Authorized Photo Services in Chicago. See this thread from 2006 for more details: <a href="00FC7l">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00FC7l</a><br> Of course that was 5 years ago and things could be different now.</p> <p>DSLR bodies fall into the same category. A lot of repair services do not have the appropriate equipment and parts to fix body problems. Stores such as B&H, etc. do not even sell gray-market DSLR bodies.</p> <p>You can always send your Nikon lenses back to Nikon Japan for repair; it is just more hassle. For the $500 price difference, I probably would buy gray, but that is an individual decision. I only attempt to provide the facts here to help people make appropriate decisions for themselves.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CvhKaar Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>Hmm, at the risk of some "responses" , and a bit "offtopic" .....<br> Although i realize the 200mm f2.0 is aan exceptional nice lens, for weddings I would not carry around such a heavy lens I guess (although VR helps a lot...) , I think would have a serious look at a 180mm F2.8 instead if i were in the need of af fast lens something around 200mm , enabling me to move around a lot easier... but then again, I'm not a pro....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>Following CPM's comment: I'll be taking my 200 f/2 (mk 1) and D700 to a family wedding next month. I got it because there's no way I could afford a mk 2, so it was my last chance to get any new 200 f/2 - although it sounds as thought Bjørn has found more improvement in the new version than I was expecting. I'm still trying to sort out the trouble a 135 DC gave me at a friend's wedding last year (I was removing colour fringes and bemoaning missed focus only this morning - the fact that I'm still doing this has much to do with why I'm not a professional wedding photographer) so I'm hoping the 200mm will do better. I've been very happy with the 200 f/2 so far - but there's no way I'd take it if I were the official photographer: too inflexible, too heavy, too intrusive, the close focus distance is too far; a 70-200 is vastly more sensible. I'm taking it with the deliberate intent of getting candids that the pro can't, while the pro is doing posed shots and getting closer.<br /> <br /> The 200mm is a lovely bit of kit, rapidly becoming one of my most-used lenses (although since the family wedding is on a beach I might be about to discover the flare issues), but you have to be very sure you want one - and not just because of the price. I readily admit that my use of it is a bit insane (and that my irrational dislike of my 135mm puts me in the minority).<br /> <br /> For what it's worth, I've always hand-held it, so the mark 1 tripod mount hasn't mattered to me - but then I've always been able to put it down for a rest.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardsnow Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>I must agree with CPM that I would not carry the 200mm f/2 as part of my wedding kit. It's too big and cumbersome for the single focal length it gives.</p> <p>For the money and flexibility the 70-200mm f/2.8 is a much more practical solution and one of my go-to lenses for weddings.</p> <p>Just my 2 cents<br> RS</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oskar_ojala Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>I don't own the lens, but I did some test shots with the one that Dr. Ilkka has and I have to say that while it's big, heavy and the hood is the size of a bucket, the image quality is nothing short of excellent. For the best, one has to pay. Other lenses such as the 180/2.8 might be more practical, but the quality just isn't there.<br> Just decide based on how much money you have. If you have the money, you could just as well treat yourself to the newer version.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Other lenses such as the 180/2.8 might be more practical, but the quality just isn't there.</p> </blockquote> <p>Come on; that is simply not ture. While my experience with the 200mm/f2 AF-S VR is quite limited, I have no doubt at all that it is excellent and optically better than my 70-200mm/2.8 AF-S VR version 1. Back in 2005 I once tried them out side by side and the difference is obvious. However, even with a slightly soft lens such as the 70-200 version 1, I have captured many images that I am very happy with.</p> <p>A big and heavy 200mm lens such as the f2 is simply not practicle in a lot of situations. Worse yet, you must use a heavy tripod to get the most out of that lens (take a look at Bjorn Rorslett's set up in last month's thread). Otherwise, you are merely wasting its capability. To me, that kind of weight and size is a huge disadvantage and would prevent you from capturing a lot of images. I can carry one big lens and I would much rather save that capacity for a long tele, which is required for a lot of wildlife situations. That is why I am not all interested in the 200mm/f2; even though you give one to me for free, I would much rather have a 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR, which hopefully Nikon will introduce soon.</p> <p>That is why I think if the OP indeed wants a 200mm/f2 for weddings, he might as well get veraion 1 and save a bunch of money. To exploit any minute advantage in version 2, the tripod set up required is going to be a serious problem in weddings.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>Shun - while I know Bjørn is a tripod fan (with some justification, especially in the low light conditions he sees) I don't accept that a 200 f/2 is wasted without a tripod. Even if it were soft without support - and even the old version's VR is decent on a lens this heavy, so I've not noticed vibration having a major issue in my shots - the lens's ability to lose the background is exceptional.<br /> <br /> I accept that there are plenty of reasons not to use a 200 f/2 for professional wedding shots - it's huge, heavy, attention-grabbing, doesn't focus close and usually inconveniently long (all of which is solved by a 70-200) - but I don't think needing to hang a tripod off it is one of them. If it were, Nikon wouldn't have made it with VR. Whether you can only tell the difference between the two versions after tripod mounting is another matter - but it's not the case that the lens is only useful with a tripod. I use mine for candid shots, and I wouldn't be able to if I needed a tripod to do it.<br /> <br /> I agree that I'd like to see a 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR, though. With a 200 f/2 I can't justify the f/2.8 70-200, but I wouldn't turn down a little brother to it. (Although I might pick up the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D next time I'm in a country where it's sold.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>Andrew, read what I wrote again:</p> <blockquote> <p>That is why I think if the OP indeed wants a 200mm/f2 for weddings, he might as well get veraion 1 and save a bunch of money. To exploit any minute advantage in version 2, the tripod set up required is going to be a serious problem in weddings.</p> </blockquote> <p>I said getting Version 2 of the 200mm/f2 AF-S VR over Version 1 but then not use a tripod is simply a complete waste of money.</p> <p>Again, the primary purpose for the 200mm/f2 is news and indoor sports. Most sports and news photographers use their big lenses on monopods. That is why VR comes in handy.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>Sorry, Shun - I'd clearly panicked when I read the word "tripod". I don't think I'd registered from Bjørn's comparison that the differences are only visible with a tripod - although the improved tripod mount is clearly useful to some, I'd expect the flare resistance and potentially the f/2 sharpness to be visible even hand-held, especially with the updated VR (all of which matters more to me than the tripod mount, but not enough to make me pay double the price). Maybe I missed a review stating that they're similar enough to need a tripod to split them. I've never tried a mark 2, and don't dare in case it makes me spend a lot of money I don't have...<br /> <br /> I'm not 100% sure that my mk1 images would be any sharper (at the shutter speeds I use) with a tripod - but I don't have a D3x, and I'm sure Bjørn is more demanding than I am. Maybe they're softer than I think, and I'm hiding some softness that a mark 2 would fix; it's way sharper than most of my lenses, anyway. For the look the f/2 gives me, I'll not lose sleep over it even if another lens is slightly sharper! I just wanted to reassure David that hand-holding the 200 f/2 in semi-reasonable light is possible, if not necessarily enjoyable.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_king11 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>Hey guys, thank you for all the good info. I still don't think I am ready to pull the trigger just yet. It is a big purchase and I need a few nights to sleep on it before I make the final decision.</p> <p>I already have a 70-200VR and to tell you the truth, I don't like it too much. I think it is soft and even at f2.8, it doesnt always bring in enough light. I may end up selling the 70-200VR depending on what I go for here.</p> <p>When it comes to the 85 f1.4 vs. the 135 f2.0, I tend to want to pull out the 135 more often. The only time I shoot with the 85 is if I dont have as much space. I have tried three different 85 f1.4s and every single one of them front focused considerably when the red auto focus box was placed in the middle of the view. The front focus goes away the more I move the red box to either end which is usually what I go for anyway.</p> <p>The 200 f2 would probably be used more for portraits than weddings. I agree it would be a really tough lens to lug around. My hope is to buy the 200 f2 and love it enough that I can get rid of the 85 f1.4 which I dont like tooo much and possibly the 70-200VR. I am really looking for a lens that performs so well that I never really have to make the decision of what lens to use.</p> <p>Given what I have mentioned above, I still think I am leaning towards a 200 VR at $4k and possibly making some of that money back by selling other gear.</p> <p>Opinions?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_king11 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>Also, I don't think I would ever pull out a tripod for the 200 f2. There is a chance I may use a monopod during an indoor or night time sporting event, but I don't do as many of those anymore. I plan to hand hold this lens 95% of the time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>You are not going to handhold this lens 95% of the time. You need the monopod (or tripod) just to relax your body so that you can concentrate on what you are photographing. Even hanholding an xx-200/2.8 for an extended event is not comfortable.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>David, which version of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR do you have?</p> <p>And as long as you are hand holding a telephoto indoors, I wouldn't even worry about sharpness. The 200mm/f2 is a big lens; if you hand hold it under dim light, you'll likely get a lot of slightly unsharp images due to camera shake and subject motion; I don't care whether you have VR 1 or 2.</p> <p>I seriously doubt that there are very many new 200mm/f2 AF-S VR version 1 left. Prices are almost back to the level they were 5 years ago when the yen was much lower. So if you want the deal, I would get it while it lasts. Otherwise, you can always buy used in the future.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now