MAN! Wowwwww, that intro was EPIC!!! Great video production from start to finish! Really enjoyed it! Love the sharpness of the 200 and its beautiful bokeh as well, but the little lens was pretty good as well, I was surprised. Great review, looking forward to the next one!
Thank you Fel. That Viltrox lens hehe. pretty cool lens if you ask me. Its small, it AF and its cheap. Might do some street photography with it and the Z50. Let's see. glad you enjoyed the review. hehe yah that intro was a rock n roll one. Theatre stage inspired intro.
Really appreciate this review Vahagn . The side by side video tests in the kitchen was. really nice as it gave me a chance to go look at he results back and forth between the videos without having to pause the video. The 200mm is KING Bro!
It was very difficult matching the frame and composition when taking those clips. I was having a hard time. That's the 200 for you. I would need to go way back to match where the 105 was shooting at. I tried my best. Glad I thought of doing a closer clip as well. That was much easier. Extending that apple out with my arm totally blurred my face. That part was interesting. I feel like I'm only scratching the surface with this lens and what this lens can really do. Next up and I will go out and shoot some high school indoor sports with it. Now that will be awesome to see. Thank you Robert. Really appreciate the comments.
Hey Vahag, a couple of things here. First, a fact correction (if not already listed in the comments below). The Nikkor 200mm f2 is ONE stop better than the 70-200mm f2.8, not TWO stops better (could you image the DOF on a 200mm f1.4, OMW). Second, and the reason I'm commenting, is I recently have a loan to purchase copy of the lens in hand to use for 30 days. What I wish reviews of this product would do is include the negatives (and how best to get around them). Example: The lens foot. Can not carry the lens with this and a deeper foot would not allow reversal of the hood for storage. 2. Focus ring location and size - If you are using this lens on a monopod or tripod with the Z9, this is less of an issue, but if you are handholding this lens to get low or for flexibility in shooting angle, your hand tends to rest and hold the lens on or close to the focus ring. Since DOF at f2 is so slight, focus may be compromised by inadvertent hand movement. (So, Vahag, when shooting with this lens, how do you normally hold it? or is it always on a monopod?) 3. AF noise - Shot in AF-S, not only is the 200mm f2 just a bit noisy, but my images jumps around a bit in teh viewfinder and the lens tries to find focus - there feels like their is vibration in the lens itself - so good lens holding technique is needed. 4. Ghosting/Flare - this lens does ghost and flare when subjects are backlit. 5. Lens cap - they are available and not that expensive, provide a link below to what you would recommend. 6. Micro contrast/Colors rendering: There is a lot of glass in this puppy. I believe 13 elements in 9 groups - if memory serves me. Glass (corrective elements) can be the enemy of light transmission. This lens straddles the line with respect to new and old lens look (IMHO). Newer lenses (i.e. Z) tend to be highly corrected for edge-to-edge sharpness, CA and flare. With all that corrected glass comes loss of micro contrast (and natural depth to the image - i.e. 3D pop). As the T-stop suggests, this is not a true f2 for light transmission, but it's close. Micro contrast suffers some, but it still maintains some 3D pop from the images I've produced in the last few days. The lens formula, of the 200mm f2, seems to lend itself more to portraits (rendering skin tones more accurately) than the 300mm f2.8 - which it is also frequently compared - which lens formula demonstrates colors with more contrast, but skin tones less accurately - not unusual for a lens used for wildlife more than portraits. I believe you will be safe from a newer Z version of this lens for many years to come. Why? 1. It's not on the current road map. 2. It's a specialty lens for a limited audience (as you know - now being the owner of the Nikkor Z 58mm f0.9 NOCT). 3. Nikon's goal is to remain profitable while building out their lens lineup, with lighter, faster zooms and primes that the general photography community would want, not a niche item (although they did produce the NOCT). 4. Canon and Sony don't have one - I'm sure you are familiar with the Canon 200mm f1.8 and the back and forth Nikon and Canon had with the 200mm f2s. Now both companies have discontinued those lenses. So we have to ask, if they developed (and released) a 200mm f1.8 VR , who is it for, what is the price and who would buy it, and how much would it weight (guess 4 lbs). All that is to say, I don't believe that any of those factors would drive people to run out and purchase one. Now, build it out combined with making the weight distribution at the rear (not front), and give it a built in TC 2.0? and you begin to make things interesting. Bottom line: I think you're safe holding onto this beauty for the foreseeable future. The IQ is never the question with this lens. Images, straight out of camera (SOOC), still elicit Ohhhhs and Ahhhs. There is simply no comparison when you but the excellent 70-200 f2.8 @200mm images, side-to-side with the 200mm f2's sharpness, subject separation, and smoothness of the bokeh. Now, the comparison with the 105mm f1.4 presents a bit more difficult assessment (price used market about 1K USD, 200mm f2 G ED VRII $3700 USD). The bokeh on both lenses can be amazing, but the 200mm is more consistent in smoothness (again, in my opinion). Both have demonstrated some cat's eye bokeh balls, but the 200mm mostly toward the corner edges. Both are amazingly sharp in the center, but to me it feels like the 200mm gets softer quicker toward the edges (again, not surprising given you will shoot this lens mostly wide open at f2). Lastly, the vignette on the Nikkor 105mm f1.4 appears more noticeable wide open, than on the 200mm - where it is almost unnoticeable. CA is well controlled on both lenses with perhaps a small edge to again to the 200mm. Congrats on your repurchase, and thanks for the video. Well done.
Beautiful review Vahag. You have convinced me, I would love to have this lens in my bag, but I’m afraid it wouldn’t be very practical. On the other hand, great touch on comparing to the 105 f1.4 and that’s the lens that most portrait photographers should have. Not required, but should have. Thanks for the review. I know it was a lot of work. Keep on rocking 🤘…
Thank you so much bro. Appreciate the words. I have a few more f mount reviews to make and then the Z reviews will start. 40mm Z 105 MC Z are on my radar to review first. Yes, you are right, as you know, making reviews is allot of work but it's a helpful resource and I'm glad to contribute the efforts in helping others decide.
I own the Nikkor 200mm f/2 G VR version (aka VR I), which I bought new and never sold. It has been my favorite portrait lens for all these years, and the one that I lug around in a dedicated camera bag (despite owning the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II lens, which sits on a shelf). Thus I completely agree with you Vahagn, the 200mm f/2 is a special lens… worth the added weight when creamy bokeh is the secret sauce in your portraiture.
It's something you appreciate with ownership of this bad boy. Are you using monopods sometimes with it. I find myself having to rest a bit after handholding it for portraits. Do you use the dedicated strap that comes with the lens? That can be a good solution when you have to shoot on location and work requires a bit of walking.
@@Vahagraphy About 15 years ago I bought new a Gitzo G1588 (MKII?) Carbon Fiber Monopod, which weighs ~2 lbs but is capable of carrying a load of 26.5 lbs. It was Gitzo’s largest monopod (by leg dismeter) at the time, part of their Mountaineer line of tripods. It is meant to be able to easily hold a 400mm f2.8 lens on a pro DSLR… and it makes a good thick walking stick too. I have a RRS tilt only head on it that takes the RRS foot w/plate that I keep on the lens, making it easy to switch between my tripod, monopod and handholding. I am so used to having it on the monopod that it has become second nature, and the camera and lens combo can be balanced over a shoulder while walking. In fact, I plan on using the same setup for the new 400mm f/2.8 Z lens when it arrives. These lenses are just too heavy to lug around handheld all day, and I would not take my 200mm f/2 lens out without that monopod.
Been brewing on getting this lens for a while now. I have a very good 180 F/2.8 I use a lot for sports. I have had this for the best part of 20 years and really enjoyed and used it extensively . But this 200 F2 thing would probably blow that poor 180 away. I would use the 200 F2 on a Wimberley arca setup and monopod obviously.
ahh no way, hehe. That's cool. So your lens is a bit newer than mine, lol This is probably the only lens this and the 400 that I unpack look at. clean the dust off and appreciate having hehe.
i just looked up the serial number range for this lens and it looks like your lens is almost one of the last ones made . according to photosynthesis the reported production serial number ends at 205527. crazy hehe
I think I'd put the SIGMA ART 135mmm 1.8 second to the 200mm f2 as the king of portraits. The thing with these lenses is they compress and blur the background so much even if the subject is in close proximity with it (backgrounds like wall, gate etc) this is something that you can't do with an 85mm 1.4
Beautiful lens, beautiful daughter, wonderful content. Glad you got a 200 back. Outside my budget, but may look around for a version 1 later in the year.
Thank You Charles. I felt terrible selling the lens back a decade ago but I had to due to a financial issue. but now glad I found one at a discount. Good luck on the hunt for a VR1. Be patient and you might see one pop up for a very good price.
Very nice playful review. I can see you really like this stuff! The viltrox was surprisingly good if you didn't see the other footage. Both the Nikon's are quite long for indoor use. You have a 40 foot room you can put the camera in? Btw what do you use for audio? Thanks.
The 105mm is my "if I could keep only one". I see this guy hit the used pages every once in a blue moon and am always tempted but the 105mm is so much easier to pack in a travel kit. Maybe one day.
105 1.4E. first of it's kind in the industry. On a Z camera its magic. Ftz adapter and this lens, great balance. Use the adapter with the foot. ftz 1. the foot helps you grip the camera/lens better.
There is no argument on which lens is more portable. I would argue the 105mm f1.4 is more versatile (i.e. indoor portraiture). Now, which images SOOC, are more likely to produce that "wow" factor? Edge to the 200mm f2 especially for the consistent bokeh it produces at f2. I've used the 105mm f1.4 an enormous amount (and love it). When I take out the 200mm f2, if there are a sea of people, it parts down the middle (like royalty is passing) - and surprisingly, people respect the distance between you and subject and go around. One strange fact I've noticed, but may be a small sample size. With the 600mm f4, people always say "nice camera". With the 200mm f2, they typically say "Wow, nice lens". Funny how that happens.
I started saving for this lens as soon as it was announced that Nikon was taking them out of production. You teased this review about 24 hours after I was able to purchase one through Best Buy--which seems to be the only major retailer in the United States who still have them available. Maybe someday there will be a native Z-mount version, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
@@Vahagraphy I love it. Yes, it is worth it. For certain types of photography where you need to isolate a very large subject from the background (such as equine photography) there really is no substitute.
Kyle, in my comment (above or below - where ever it will be placed) I go through the many reasons you are correct, and the Z version is not likely to be produced any time soon, if at all.
Very nice review, Vahagan. It is a gorgeous piece of glass and the sharpness and bokeh quality at F2 is beyond words! I also loved the look and the bokeh of the 105mm but still I do like the look of this one better in terms of rendering details. As for the bokeh, I wonder if the the price difference between this and the 105mm is worth that heavy premium, but the sharpness definitely is. The rendering, contrast, and definition is on a completely different level.
That and it just looks nice. Its a very sexy lens. I know that doesn't mean much to some but it adds to the value. The focus speed which I really didn't touch on in this review much is so fast. The AF is lighting fast. Really smokes the 105 when it comes to that. No comparison. No contest.
@@Vahagraphy Ooh, I'm all for the look and feel man! I literally change bodies and lenses sometimes just for the feel because they inspire me differently and add to the enjoyment of shooting. SO, it's definitely part of the formula :)
I've had the VR1 for almost 9 years and I would never give it up. But such a nice and lightest 105mm f1.4 also moved in with me at some point :-) For the 200f2, a Really Right Stuff LCF-15 Foot is definitely worth it.
Exactly. You shoot the same thing with a different lens but it has this look to it that just something else. Also you a further away from the subject and being further away means the element effects are different. It's hard to explain but you see what I'm saying.
Got the original VR version of this with broken squeaky AF about ten years ago for $1000. Took it to Nikon Ginza to get serviced the next day, $500 ish later and I have a perfect copy. Still use it today.
the 200 is definitely the best but my 105mm does give it a close 2nd. That Viltrox doesn't come close although it's not bad. This is a great Video Vahagan.. Love to see quality lens comparisons
Thank you Paul. That little viltrox is really something. hehe. The 180 2.8 D would be a good video to make vs the 200 F2 as well. I'm planning that video in the future.
@@Vahagraphy i would definitely Wanna see that. I've heard about that 180 F2.8. As great as that 200mm is you gotta admit that 105 1.4 comes pretty close. I'm glad it's in my bag 😊
@@Vahagraphy Now that's one I'd like to see. Issue would be, Vahag, that the 180mm f2.8 - which I own - would loose AF on the Z bodies, yes? I've wanted to go side to side comparison myself, but haven't had the time. I love the 180mm f2.8, but my recall of it's sharpness and bokeh were not in the same league (current purchase price used $400).
Love my 105e with the z9 but could never justify the size and cost of the 200 , always a dream though. How much do you use it for wedding/portrait shoots compared to your other lenses?
Agree this is one of the top nikon lenses. Hopefully they eventually make a Z Mount version. Excellent video Vahagan! It's not just f2.0, it's the compression, contrast, and look of the lens that really matters..
Manny Ortiz in today's Vahagraphy Talk inspired me to take mine out and shoot with it. He is right when he says , the 200 F2 makes the images look different, different in a good way. His tattoo of the 200mm is awesome.
Michael, for reasons outlined in my comment above yours, I do not believe a Z version of this lens will be made for the foreseeable future. I outline the many reasons why. In addition, you are correct that it's the compression combined with many things, including items like the 9 rounded aperture blades, give this a look of something blessed with Nikon Magic Dust. The contrast is another matter as there is a ton of glass in "them thar hills". This reduces the T-stop and micro contrast - and perceived 3D depth of an image. Don't get me wrong, this lens renders magical images if you use it correctly, but I don't believe any of the features needed to make it more palatable on a Z body (i.e. lighter, better weight distribution, lower price, built in TC 2.0) are going to put it up there on the "Must Have" for most photographers. Nikon needs to focus their attention on things that will sell as they broaden their Z lens lineup. That might change if Canon comes out with a less expensive, lighter (3-4 lbs.) 200mm f1.8, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
It would have been surprising to compare the bokeh of the 200mm f/2 with the 180mm f/2.8 AF-D. Especially considering the focal length is so close together and the price so far apart. Best regards, Wim Bals Artist
That is next. 200 f2 vs 180 2.8 D. coming soon. I want to plan an interesting shoot for that. maybe something on location with allot for dimension and colors.
Love the 180 f2.8, but to be honest, the IQ (as I'm sure Vahag will demonstrate) is much better on the 200mm. The 180mm f2.8 is a far better choice for "general" portability and usage.
Hi, only just seen this video, sorry for that. I’m 73, bought my 200mm f2 vr , about 2 years before the ver 2 came out. Used it loads. It is mint even though. You are right, it is very heavy and I use a mono or tripod for when I use it. My Z9 loves it, and all my other bodies perform better when it’s attached🤔great videos, different with life in the content. Thank you
I had the 200 2.0 VR II, the optics are awesome but unfortunately extremely heavy on a Nikon D4s or Nikon D3x. Now I also have the Nikon 105 1.4E and I would say it is in no way inferior to the Nikon 200 2.0. Sharpness picture impression etc ..... Regards Reinhold
Thank you Lou. When I get my Z9 the first thing Im going to shoot is wildlife with the 400 G. can't wait. the 105 is fantastic. and I think the Z9 and 105 will make a very nice portrait setup. Ahhh can't wait.
Wonderful lens, just repurchased one as well. Looks like you got a Nikon USA refurb (pin marks next to your serial number). Beautiful lens and happy shooting. Your hour long talk with the portrait photog Daniel Venter, who shoots with this lens, was a fascinating watch.
Small correction: I believe Daniel shoots with the Nikon 200mm f2 AI-S manual focus lens version, not the G ED VRII version. I'll ask you the same question I asked Vahag, did you purchase a lens cap, ND or polarizing filter, or replacement foot?
@@dance2jam if you watch the full video, Daniel owns both lenses, the 200mm 2.0G VRII and the AIS, and he mentions he also owned the VRI at one point. I purchased the replacement RRS foot, which I find is mandatory. I purchased the circular polarizer, as they’re discontinued and will be impossible to find in a few years. No replacement hood or cap for me, don’t see a need. Best luck
@@blakehfreeman Yes, appreciate your comment and I did see in other and at the end of this video that Daniel not only owns the Nikon versions, but the Canon 200mm f1.8 as well. Thanks for the recommendations on Polarizer (availability) and RRS (Arca Swiss) foot replacement. I had to make a decision today on keeping or returning the lens. As an Amateur photographer (mostly wildlife) I'm not sure that really makes much sense, but I shot random portrait photos (unfortunately) this weekend at a state park in the kind of light Daniel likes (shaded, under trees, well lit sky) and the results were as expected - Lots of ooooohs and aaaaahs. If you have the time, I'd love to hear your comment on whether this lens is a "one trick pony" in that it has niche shooing requirements and a given "look". Clearly, I'll be keeping it at this point, but I am always interested in what others find and use - and I am open to their suggestions. Thanks again, Blake. Much appreciated.
Yooooooo !!!! man you know what I found one also on the used market for a price very interesting. Right now it has a strange noise in the AF so it went back for repair under warranty and I'll put my hands on it in few weeks... I'm so happy like you are to have been able to find one ! Also, same for he 105 E1,4 on second hand... blowing me out of the water !!! These 2 lenses are those which made me come back to Nikon. i sold a leica lens and was able to buy the 2 magic lenses + the 58mm 1,4 !!! Too funny.
As a result of this review, the one thing I've taken away from it is that anybody on UA-cam who goes excessive in their criticism of Viltrox's current lenses should have an eye exam right away, or else risk being unfollowed by their followers for being dishonest in their criticism. The value for money you get with Viltrox's glass may very well be the finest available on the market at this moment, particularly if you're a hobbyist looking for a good deal.
Good point. I've always liked these little viltrox lenses. I really like the character of these lenses. Sure, its not as sharp or less pop but hey it's a fraction of what others cost and they AF well.
I think it doesn’t make much sense to compare the 105mm 1.4E ED at 2.0, when it’s also ultra sharp at 1.4. That’s how it should be compared to the 200mm 2.0G VR at 2.0. I’m trying my Sigma 135mm 1.8 Art this days, and still thinking if to pull the trigger on the generation one 200mm 2.0G ED IF VR. Could upgrade to a D850 and another very nice lens for the price. Or perhaps get a 400mm 2.8G VR, instead of the 200mm 2.0G VR. Though, one big advantage of the 200mm VR is that with a TC-14e III, one gets 280mm 2.8 lens with VR that is sharp and contrasty in center and still auto focuses fast.
Nice, but I would rarely use it. My old 80 - 200 is a good lens for colour production and contrast, but its not fast. The majoe downside is it is only able to resolve up to 24mp. I long term loan it to a buddy that has a D780.
V Great review! If you were using it at a wedding wouldn't you make the 2nd shooter carry it like a Sherpa all day and grab it when you needed it? Also at sports events like baseball and football wouldn't you use a mono pod instead of carrying it all day? I was impressed with it but the viltrox wasn't that far off from it and for the non professional shooter like most of us are, the price point made it look really good! The comparison on your daughters eye really pushed it far ahead for me but if you shoot raw you can do some processing to help bring that back too. With your 400mm 2.8 I don't see you using it for wildlife at all. Some of the stills were so sweet I know you'll use it every chance you get! When you shot that art museum and grounds it would have handled the low light indoors like a champ but it was raining that day if I remember right and I would not want it out in the elements at all. I'm very over protective on my gear. If some kid was trying to kick it around like a soccer ball well- death penalty! Side note I like how you point out what equipment your videoing with on the intros, that with the lighting is extra informative. I like the 3 different shots that we could see for our selves. Again great segment!!!!!
Thank you Mike. You are very observant. Good job and great memory on the Viltrox review. Sports monopod yes. Sidelines at basketball. humm a bit tough because you would have to basically hand hold it behind the backboard while sitting on the hard floor. wildlife, yes, 400 for sure instead of this. AS far as trusting an assistant with this lens. lol I love this so much, i would be over protective and not wanting anything to happen to it. j/k but yes, assistants are great but I would not take this lens to a wedding.
It is for certain situations and a certain look you are after. Def need an assistant for this lens. The thing is. never use the body to hold up the lens when shooting. It will brake the mount right off. to heavy.
I have the VR for about five years and now days is also hard to find in good shape. I just saw one today in Ebay for almost 4,000 dollars. They're the same lens only thing is the upgrade on the VR.
Yes the 105 is an amazing lens. They are both killer. The 200 gives a totally different look to the images. It's tough to compare and shoot the same thing with the two lenses given the 200 is almost double in focal length. I will be doing a 180mm 2.8 D vs 200 f2 video soon. the 200 has it's purpose and the 105 has as well. For everyday portraits I would take the 105 E.
You have to be careful here when comparing (i.e. 105mm f1.4 stopped down to f2 vs 200mm f2). That said, the 105mm has very similar sharpness (DXO Mark if you're into that on a D800 body) to the 200mm f2 in the center. The bokeh is pretty close under the right circumstances, but the 200mm is generally better and more consistent in the "buttery" results.
I love fast glass - A very sexy lens. It was on my list of lenses that I wanted before I went mirrorless. And all tele lenses should have slip in filters...
Dear Vahagan, I use a formula for sensor diameter, focal length and aperture, to compare and generate the Bokeh Value (BV): Sensor diameter x focal length, divided by aperture: Viltrox 56mm, diameter 28, aperture 1,4 = BV 1120 NIKON 105mm, aperture1,4 and Full Frame 44mm = BV 3300 NIKON 200mm. aperture 2,0 on Full Frame 44mm = BV 4400 NOCT NIKKOR 0,95, 58mm, on Full Frame 44mm = BV 2686 NIKON 50mm, aperture 1,4 on Full Frame 44mm = BV 1571 NIKON 50mm, aperture 1,8 on Full Frame 44mm = BV 1222
The lens is a beauty but it’s outdated, Canon’s 400/2.8 weights less than the Nikon 200mm/2.0. I hope Nikon’s new 400/2.8 starts to bring down the weight of their super telephotos.
@@scottscrufari Yes I have that lens. however I will be honest. I haven't really dove deep into the lens. Had som much going on, I bought it last year . i actually have a review up. check it out. search that exact lens on youtube. I will be doing a side by side with that and this lens soon.
21:30 Even though the 200 f2 is a better lens in every way, the 105mm is better in this comparison because of the focal length. The 200mm lens is adding like 40 pounds to you (in this comparison).
Exactly. The weight effects picture taking. That's something I didn't mention but it effects the effort. Now monopods are an option but with that, it limits flexibility.
This lens never getting old this lens still the same price when they announced and quite expensive it's not for everyone. Almost 13 years past the price still the same
All I can say is if you lose too much weight you won't be able to pick it up :). The bokeh on this and the 105 are great and surprisingly the low cost option wasn't too bad in the video but lacked contrast and punch vs the high end lenses but that is to be expected. I would be afraid I would get mugged carrying this lens around in todays world but agree it is one of a kind. Take care and use it on the Z9 in the future.
Z9 and 200 F2 can you image the possibilities. Can't wait. Stay safe out there. Safety first. Great. now we have to worry about lowlifes coming up from behind. If they follow photographers home and rob them in driveways who knows what they can do out in the field. This is why I will be considering taking someone with me when shooting. Going alone to a remote location with these cameras is dangerous now.
the 180 is a great lens. I have that one. Actually made a review on it last year. I have that on my radar to compare it with this lens hopefully soon. Planning to do a quick comparison video soon.
I think you could probably count the number of dropped 200mm f2s worldwide on both of your hands and maybe both of your feet. When you say to look for a good copy you should be pointing out that this lens is typically used by pro sports photographers, so they are used in very demanding and rough environments. Don't look for major damage like a drop would cause, that's easy to avoid. Look out for lenses that have been abused as part of regular use.
Nice review Vahagn. I have the VR1 version and love the lens. As I've told other you look for a reason to shoot with the 200 f2. Keep Rockin brother.
Thank you Chuck. Had fun watching your live with John. He's a great dude and you are doing a great job. Love the phone line.
I don't need a reason (lol), but a location and subject. If anything, I might say I'd look for a reason to carry it with me somewhere.
MAN! Wowwwww, that intro was EPIC!!! Great video production from start to finish! Really enjoyed it! Love the sharpness of the 200 and its beautiful bokeh as well, but the little lens was pretty good as well, I was surprised. Great review, looking forward to the next one!
Thank you Fel. That Viltrox lens hehe. pretty cool lens if you ask me. Its small, it AF and its cheap. Might do some street photography with it and the Z50. Let's see. glad you enjoyed the review. hehe yah that intro was a rock n roll one. Theatre stage inspired intro.
Really appreciate this review Vahagn . The side by side video tests in the kitchen was. really nice as it gave me a chance to go look at he results back and forth between the videos without having to pause the video. The 200mm is KING Bro!
It was very difficult matching the frame and composition when taking those clips. I was having a hard time. That's the 200 for you. I would need to go way back to match where the 105 was shooting at. I tried my best. Glad I thought of doing a closer clip as well. That was much easier. Extending that apple out with my arm totally blurred my face. That part was interesting. I feel like I'm only scratching the surface with this lens and what this lens can really do. Next up and I will go out and shoot some high school indoor sports with it. Now that will be awesome to see. Thank you Robert. Really appreciate the comments.
What a fun review!! I loved the comparisons!
Hey Vahag, a couple of things here. First, a fact correction (if not already listed in the comments below). The Nikkor 200mm f2 is ONE stop better than the 70-200mm f2.8, not TWO stops better (could you image the DOF on a 200mm f1.4, OMW). Second, and the reason I'm commenting, is I recently have a loan to purchase copy of the lens in hand to use for 30 days. What I wish reviews of this product would do is include the negatives (and how best to get around them). Example: The lens foot. Can not carry the lens with this and a deeper foot would not allow reversal of the hood for storage. 2. Focus ring location and size - If you are using this lens on a monopod or tripod with the Z9, this is less of an issue, but if you are handholding this lens to get low or for flexibility in shooting angle, your hand tends to rest and hold the lens on or close to the focus ring. Since DOF at f2 is so slight, focus may be compromised by inadvertent hand movement. (So, Vahag, when shooting with this lens, how do you normally hold it? or is it always on a monopod?) 3. AF noise - Shot in AF-S, not only is the 200mm f2 just a bit noisy, but my images jumps around a bit in teh viewfinder and the lens tries to find focus - there feels like their is vibration in the lens itself - so good lens holding technique is needed. 4. Ghosting/Flare - this lens does ghost and flare when subjects are backlit. 5. Lens cap - they are available and not that expensive, provide a link below to what you would recommend. 6. Micro contrast/Colors rendering: There is a lot of glass in this puppy. I believe 13 elements in 9 groups - if memory serves me. Glass (corrective elements) can be the enemy of light transmission. This lens straddles the line with respect to new and old lens look (IMHO). Newer lenses (i.e. Z) tend to be highly corrected for edge-to-edge sharpness, CA and flare. With all that corrected glass comes loss of micro contrast (and natural depth to the image - i.e. 3D pop). As the T-stop suggests, this is not a true f2 for light transmission, but it's close. Micro contrast suffers some, but it still maintains some 3D pop from the images I've produced in the last few days. The lens formula, of the 200mm f2, seems to lend itself more to portraits (rendering skin tones more accurately) than the 300mm f2.8 - which it is also frequently compared - which lens formula demonstrates colors with more contrast, but skin tones less accurately - not unusual for a lens used for wildlife more than portraits. I believe you will be safe from a newer Z version of this lens for many years to come. Why? 1. It's not on the current road map. 2. It's a specialty lens for a limited audience (as you know - now being the owner of the Nikkor Z 58mm f0.9 NOCT). 3. Nikon's goal is to remain profitable while building out their lens lineup, with lighter, faster zooms and primes that the general photography community would want, not a niche item (although they did produce the NOCT). 4. Canon and Sony don't have one - I'm sure you are familiar with the Canon 200mm f1.8 and the back and forth Nikon and Canon had with the 200mm f2s. Now both companies have discontinued those lenses. So we have to ask, if they developed (and released) a 200mm f1.8 VR , who is it for, what is the price and who would buy it, and how much would it weight (guess 4 lbs). All that is to say, I don't believe that any of those factors would drive people to run out and purchase one. Now, build it out combined with making the weight distribution at the rear (not front), and give it a built in TC 2.0? and you begin to make things interesting. Bottom line: I think you're safe holding onto this beauty for the foreseeable future. The IQ is never the question with this lens. Images, straight out of camera (SOOC), still elicit Ohhhhs and Ahhhs. There is simply no comparison when you but the excellent 70-200 f2.8 @200mm images, side-to-side with the 200mm f2's sharpness, subject separation, and smoothness of the bokeh. Now, the comparison with the 105mm f1.4 presents a bit more difficult assessment (price used market about 1K USD, 200mm f2 G ED VRII $3700 USD). The bokeh on both lenses can be amazing, but the 200mm is more consistent in smoothness (again, in my opinion). Both have demonstrated some cat's eye bokeh balls, but the 200mm mostly toward the corner edges. Both are amazingly sharp in the center, but to me it feels like the 200mm gets softer quicker toward the edges (again, not surprising given you will shoot this lens mostly wide open at f2). Lastly, the vignette on the Nikkor 105mm f1.4 appears more noticeable wide open, than on the 200mm - where it is almost unnoticeable. CA is well controlled on both lenses with perhaps a small edge to again to the 200mm. Congrats on your repurchase, and thanks for the video. Well done.
Beautiful review Vahag. You have convinced me, I would love to have this lens in my bag, but I’m afraid it wouldn’t be very practical.
On the other hand, great touch on comparing to the 105 f1.4 and that’s the lens that most portrait photographers should have. Not required, but should have.
Thanks for the review. I know it was a lot of work. Keep on rocking 🤘…
Thank you so much bro. Appreciate the words. I have a few more f mount reviews to make and then the Z reviews will start. 40mm Z 105 MC Z are on my radar to review first. Yes, you are right, as you know, making reviews is allot of work but it's a helpful resource and I'm glad to contribute the efforts in helping others decide.
I own the Nikkor 200mm f/2 G VR version (aka VR I), which I bought new and never sold. It has been my favorite portrait lens for all these years, and the one that I lug around in a dedicated camera bag (despite owning the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II lens, which sits on a shelf).
Thus I completely agree with you Vahagn, the 200mm f/2 is a special lens… worth the added weight when creamy bokeh is the secret sauce in your portraiture.
It's something you appreciate with ownership of this bad boy. Are you using monopods sometimes with it. I find myself having to rest a bit after handholding it for portraits. Do you use the dedicated strap that comes with the lens? That can be a good solution when you have to shoot on location and work requires a bit of walking.
@@Vahagraphy About 15 years ago I bought new a Gitzo G1588 (MKII?) Carbon Fiber Monopod, which weighs ~2 lbs but is capable of carrying a load of 26.5 lbs. It was Gitzo’s largest monopod (by leg dismeter) at the time, part of their Mountaineer line of tripods. It is meant to be able to easily hold a 400mm f2.8 lens on a pro DSLR… and it makes a good thick walking stick too.
I have a RRS tilt only head on it that takes the RRS foot w/plate that I keep on the lens, making it easy to switch between my tripod, monopod and handholding. I am so used to having it on the monopod that it has become second nature, and the camera and lens combo can be balanced over a shoulder while walking. In fact, I plan on using the same setup for the new 400mm f/2.8 Z lens when it arrives.
These lenses are just too heavy to lug around handheld all day, and I would not take my 200mm f/2 lens out without that monopod.
Been brewing on getting this lens for a while now. I have a very good 180 F/2.8 I use a lot for sports. I have had this for the best part of 20 years and really enjoyed and used it extensively . But this 200 F2 thing would probably blow that poor 180 away. I would use the 200 F2 on a Wimberley arca setup and monopod obviously.
this lens is on a whole different level my friend. Best in class. Nothing like it.
Our serial numbers are exactly 400 apart; you're 205098; I'm 205498. I'm hugging mine every more dearly after this excellent video.
ahh no way, hehe. That's cool. So your lens is a bit newer than mine, lol This is probably the only lens this and the 400 that I unpack look at. clean the dust off and appreciate having hehe.
i just looked up the serial number range for this lens and it looks like your lens is almost one of the last ones made . according to photosynthesis the reported production serial
number ends at 205527. crazy hehe
This is great to learn. I went for it to be sure I had the classic while still available, so mission accomplished!
Awesome review. The 200mm f/2 is an epic lens. The lens takes beautiful images. Always good to hear from you.
Thank you GW. I'm still far from really taking advantage of what this lens can deliver.
I think I'd put the SIGMA ART 135mmm 1.8 second to the 200mm f2 as the king of portraits. The thing with these lenses is they compress and blur the background so much even if the subject is in close proximity with it (backgrounds like wall, gate etc) this is something that you can't do with an 85mm 1.4
Beautiful lens, beautiful daughter, wonderful content. Glad you got a 200 back. Outside my budget, but may look around for a version 1 later in the year.
Thank You Charles. I felt terrible selling the lens back a decade ago but I had to due to a financial issue. but now glad I found one at a discount. Good luck on the hunt for a VR1. Be patient and you might see one pop up for a very good price.
Very nice playful review. I can see you really like this stuff! The viltrox was surprisingly good if you didn't see the other footage. Both the Nikon's are quite long for indoor use. You have a 40 foot room you can put the camera in? Btw what do you use for audio? Thanks.
The 105mm is my "if I could keep only one". I see this guy hit the used pages every once in a blue moon and am always tempted but the 105mm is so much easier to pack in a travel kit. Maybe one day.
105 1.4E. first of it's kind in the industry. On a Z camera its magic. Ftz adapter and this lens, great balance. Use the adapter with the foot. ftz 1. the foot helps you grip the camera/lens better.
There is no argument on which lens is more portable. I would argue the 105mm f1.4 is more versatile (i.e. indoor portraiture). Now, which images SOOC, are more likely to produce that "wow" factor? Edge to the 200mm f2 especially for the consistent bokeh it produces at f2. I've used the 105mm f1.4 an enormous amount (and love it). When I take out the 200mm f2, if there are a sea of people, it parts down the middle (like royalty is passing) - and surprisingly, people respect the distance between you and subject and go around. One strange fact I've noticed, but may be a small sample size. With the 600mm f4, people always say "nice camera". With the 200mm f2, they typically say "Wow, nice lens". Funny how that happens.
I started saving for this lens as soon as it was announced that Nikon was taking them out of production. You teased this review about 24 hours after I was able to purchase one through Best Buy--which seems to be the only major retailer in the United States who still have them available.
Maybe someday there will be a native Z-mount version, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Congrats. Best buy huh. wow. hehe interesting source. How are you liking it so far? Is it worth the big bucks?
@@Vahagraphy I love it. Yes, it is worth it. For certain types of photography where you need to isolate a very large subject from the background (such as equine photography) there really is no substitute.
Kyle, in my comment (above or below - where ever it will be placed) I go through the many reasons you are correct, and the Z version is not likely to be produced any time soon, if at all.
Very nice review, Vahagan. It is a gorgeous piece of glass and the sharpness and bokeh quality at F2 is beyond words! I also loved the look and the bokeh of the 105mm but still I do like the look of this one better in terms of rendering details. As for the bokeh, I wonder if the the price difference between this and the 105mm is worth that heavy premium, but the sharpness definitely is. The rendering, contrast, and definition is on a completely different level.
That and it just looks nice. Its a very sexy lens. I know that doesn't mean much to some but it adds to the value. The focus speed which I really didn't touch on in this review much is so fast. The AF is lighting fast. Really smokes the 105 when it comes to that. No comparison. No contest.
@@Vahagraphy Ooh, I'm all for the look and feel man! I literally change bodies and lenses sometimes just for the feel because they inspire me differently and add to the enjoyment of shooting. SO, it's definitely part of the formula :)
I've had the VR1 for almost 9 years and I would never give it up. But such a nice and lightest 105mm f1.4 also moved in with me at some point :-)
For the 200f2, a Really Right Stuff LCF-15 Foot is definitely worth it.
200mm has some kind of large format pop, absolutely amazing...
Exactly. You shoot the same thing with a different lens but it has this look to it that just something else. Also you a further away from the subject and being further away means the element effects are different. It's hard to explain but you see what I'm saying.
Got the original VR version of this with broken squeaky AF about ten years ago for $1000. Took it to Nikon Ginza to get serviced the next day, $500 ish later and I have a perfect copy. Still use it today.
the 200 is definitely the best but my 105mm does give it a close 2nd. That Viltrox doesn't come close although it's not bad. This is a great Video Vahagan.. Love to see quality lens comparisons
Thank you Paul. That little viltrox is really something. hehe. The 180 2.8 D would be a good video to make vs the 200 F2 as well. I'm planning that video in the future.
@@Vahagraphy i would definitely Wanna see that. I've heard about that 180 F2.8. As great as that 200mm is you gotta admit that 105 1.4 comes pretty close. I'm glad it's in my bag 😊
@@PQPhotography Great lens. That 105 is a keeper for ever.
@@Vahagraphy Now that's one I'd like to see. Issue would be, Vahag, that the 180mm f2.8 - which I own - would loose AF on the Z bodies, yes? I've wanted to go side to side comparison myself, but haven't had the time. I love the 180mm f2.8, but my recall of it's sharpness and bokeh were not in the same league (current purchase price used $400).
Love my 105e with the z9 but could never justify the size and cost of the 200 , always a dream though. How much do you use it for wedding/portrait shoots compared to your other lenses?
That is a really good lens, the bokeh is really good as is the color and sharpness of the lens.
It's a stellar lens. I want to shoot indoor sports with it so bad. I might hit up a local high school and do some basketball or something with it.
How are they compress and blur compared to 300mm F2.8 VR-II?
Nice studio setup.
Thank you Jas. Trying out new and different things.
Agree this is one of the top nikon lenses. Hopefully they eventually make a Z Mount version. Excellent video Vahagan! It's not just f2.0, it's the compression, contrast, and look of the lens that really matters..
Manny Ortiz in today's Vahagraphy Talk inspired me to take mine out and shoot with it. He is right when he says , the 200 F2 makes the images look different, different in a good way. His tattoo of the 200mm is awesome.
Michael, for reasons outlined in my comment above yours, I do not believe a Z version of this lens will be made for the foreseeable future. I outline the many reasons why. In addition, you are correct that it's the compression combined with many things, including items like the 9 rounded aperture blades, give this a look of something blessed with Nikon Magic Dust. The contrast is another matter as there is a ton of glass in "them thar hills". This reduces the T-stop and micro contrast - and perceived 3D depth of an image. Don't get me wrong, this lens renders magical images if you use it correctly, but I don't believe any of the features needed to make it more palatable on a Z body (i.e. lighter, better weight distribution, lower price, built in TC 2.0) are going to put it up there on the "Must Have" for most photographers. Nikon needs to focus their attention on things that will sell as they broaden their Z lens lineup. That might change if Canon comes out with a less expensive, lighter (3-4 lbs.) 200mm f1.8, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
AWESOME ❤🙌
🤘🏼🤘🏼 thank you Hope it was fun and helpful.
It would have been surprising to compare the bokeh of the 200mm f/2 with the 180mm f/2.8 AF-D.
Especially considering the focal length is so close together and the price so far apart.
Best regards, Wim Bals Artist
That is next. 200 f2 vs 180 2.8 D. coming soon. I want to plan an interesting shoot for that. maybe something on location with allot for dimension and colors.
@@Vahagraphy Do you have a secret af-d to z adapter?
Dear Vahagn, thank you for sharing these images, I have never seen such photos made with 200 f2
The 180mm f/2.8D is a great lens also!
Don't tell the young viewers about one of the best secrets in photography. LOL
Yes if you can find one used. Buy it. Best kept nikon secret. hehe
Albert lol. true.
Love the 180 f2.8, but to be honest, the IQ (as I'm sure Vahag will demonstrate) is much better on the 200mm. The 180mm f2.8 is a far better choice for "general" portability and usage.
Hi, only just seen this video, sorry for that. I’m 73, bought my 200mm f2 vr , about 2 years before the ver 2 came out. Used it loads. It is mint even though. You are right, it is very heavy and I use a mono or tripod for when I use it. My Z9 loves it, and all my other bodies perform better when it’s attached🤔great videos, different with life in the content. Thank you
Thank you for that video about the incredible 200mm
My pleasure! amazing lens, amazing worth the high price tag. Very unique lens.
Great review. I love my 105mm f/1.4E. I’ll probably never buy the 200mm f/2. I’m patiently waiting for a Z9 so I can try the 105mm on it.
I had the 200 2.0 VR II, the optics are awesome but unfortunately extremely heavy on a Nikon D4s or Nikon D3x. Now I also have the Nikon 105 1.4E and I would say it is in no way inferior to the Nikon 200 2.0. Sharpness picture impression etc ..... Regards Reinhold
Thank you Lou. When I get my Z9 the first thing Im going to shoot is wildlife with the 400 G. can't wait. the 105 is fantastic. and I think the Z9 and 105 will make a very nice portrait setup. Ahhh can't wait.
RT heavy it is but so enjoyable. Next time I will use a monopod. The weight takes away from the shooting enjoyment sometimes.
Wonderful lens, just repurchased one as well. Looks like you got a Nikon USA refurb (pin marks next to your serial number). Beautiful lens and happy shooting. Your hour long talk with the portrait photog Daniel Venter, who shoots with this lens, was a fascinating watch.
Small correction: I believe Daniel shoots with the Nikon 200mm f2 AI-S manual focus lens version, not the G ED VRII version. I'll ask you the same question I asked Vahag, did you purchase a lens cap, ND or polarizing filter, or replacement foot?
@@dance2jam if you watch the full video, Daniel owns both lenses, the 200mm 2.0G VRII and the AIS, and he mentions he also owned the VRI at one point.
I purchased the replacement RRS foot, which I find is mandatory. I purchased the circular polarizer, as they’re discontinued and will be impossible to find in a few years. No replacement hood or cap for me, don’t see a need. Best luck
@@blakehfreeman Yes, appreciate your comment and I did see in other and at the end of this video that Daniel not only owns the Nikon versions, but the Canon 200mm f1.8 as well. Thanks for the recommendations on Polarizer (availability) and RRS (Arca Swiss) foot replacement. I had to make a decision today on keeping or returning the lens. As an Amateur photographer (mostly wildlife) I'm not sure that really makes much sense, but I shot random portrait photos (unfortunately) this weekend at a state park in the kind of light Daniel likes (shaded, under trees, well lit sky) and the results were as expected - Lots of ooooohs and aaaaahs. If you have the time, I'd love to hear your comment on whether this lens is a "one trick pony" in that it has niche shooing requirements and a given "look". Clearly, I'll be keeping it at this point, but I am always interested in what others find and use - and I am open to their suggestions. Thanks again, Blake. Much appreciated.
Yooooooo !!!! man you know what I found one also on the used market for a price very interesting. Right now it has a strange noise in the AF so it went back for repair under warranty and I'll put my hands on it in few weeks... I'm so happy like you are to have been able to find one !
Also, same for he 105 E1,4 on second hand... blowing me out of the water !!!
These 2 lenses are those which made me come back to Nikon.
i sold a leica lens and was able to buy the 2 magic lenses + the 58mm 1,4 !!! Too funny.
Great Video Vahagan!!
Thank you Hank. 🤘🏼🤘🏼
As a result of this review, the one thing I've taken away from it is that anybody on UA-cam who goes excessive in their criticism of Viltrox's current lenses should have an eye exam right away, or else risk being unfollowed by their followers for being dishonest in their criticism.
The value for money you get with Viltrox's glass may very well be the finest available on the market at this moment, particularly if you're a hobbyist looking for a good deal.
Good point. I've always liked these little viltrox lenses. I really like the character of these lenses. Sure, its not as sharp or less pop but hey it's a fraction of what others cost and they AF well.
@@Vahagraphy great bargain
I think it doesn’t make much sense to compare the 105mm 1.4E ED at 2.0, when it’s also ultra sharp at 1.4. That’s how it should be compared to the 200mm 2.0G VR at 2.0.
I’m trying my Sigma 135mm 1.8 Art this days, and still thinking if to pull the trigger on the generation one 200mm 2.0G ED IF VR.
Could upgrade to a D850 and another very nice lens for the price. Or perhaps get a 400mm 2.8G VR, instead of the 200mm 2.0G VR.
Though, one big advantage of the 200mm VR is that with a TC-14e III, one gets 280mm 2.8 lens with VR that is sharp and contrasty in center and still auto focuses fast.
Great lens regardless. hehe. One of my fav of all time lenses.
Nice, but I would rarely use it. My old 80 - 200 is a good lens for colour production and contrast, but its not fast. The majoe downside is it is only able to resolve up to 24mp.
I long term loan it to a buddy that has a D780.
That 80-200 is super sharp and built like a tank.
@@Vahagraphy you bet it is. It's a shame it's no longer usable on my current camera.
V Great review! If you were using it at a wedding wouldn't you make the 2nd shooter carry it like a Sherpa all day and grab it when you needed it? Also at sports events like baseball and football wouldn't you use a mono pod instead of carrying it all day? I was impressed with it but the viltrox wasn't that far off from it and for the non professional shooter like most of us are, the price point made it look really good! The comparison on your daughters eye really pushed it far ahead for me but if you shoot raw you can do some processing to help bring that back too. With your 400mm 2.8 I don't see you using it for wildlife at all. Some of the stills were so sweet I know you'll use it every chance you get! When you shot that art museum and grounds it would have handled the low light indoors like a champ but it was raining that day if I remember right and I would not want it out in the elements at all. I'm very over protective on my gear. If some kid was trying to kick it around like a soccer ball well- death penalty! Side note I like how you point out what equipment your videoing with on the intros, that with the lighting is extra informative. I like the 3 different shots that we could see for our selves. Again great segment!!!!!
Thank you Mike. You are very observant. Good job and great memory on the Viltrox review. Sports monopod yes. Sidelines at basketball. humm a bit tough because you would have to basically hand hold it behind the backboard while sitting on the hard floor. wildlife, yes, 400 for sure instead of this. AS far as trusting an assistant with this lens. lol I love this so much, i would be over protective and not wanting anything to happen to it. j/k but yes, assistants are great but I would not take this lens to a wedding.
Fabulous review
THank you.glad you enjoyed it
On top of the 2 autofocus 200mm f2 nikons are another 2 ais 200mm f2's :-) Beautiful manual focus versions that are just awesome to use.
Yes they are and you really have mastered this lens. Good job Daniel.
Vahagn: Although I've never used this lens, from what I know about it, it seems to me to be the ideal and penultimate portrait lens.
It is for certain situations and a certain look you are after. Def need an assistant for this lens. The thing is. never use the body to hold up the lens when shooting. It will brake the mount right off. to heavy.
@@Vahagraphy Yikes!
I have the VR for about five years and now days is also hard to find in good shape. I just saw one today in Ebay for almost 4,000 dollars. They're the same lens only thing is the upgrade on the VR.
the value of this lens hardly goes down. the supply and demand factor and what this lens can deliver.
wow nice keep going mate :) 180 f2.8 D coming my way
Very cool review👍👍👍👍
Thank you ABC. Appreciate it.
Great demo of 200 f2 but in reality I liked 105 f1.4E coz images were highly sharp and lively. 😆👍
Yes the 105 is an amazing lens. They are both killer. The 200 gives a totally different look to the images. It's tough to compare and shoot the same thing with the two lenses given the 200 is almost double in focal length. I will be doing a 180mm 2.8 D vs 200 f2 video soon. the 200 has it's purpose and the 105 has as well. For everyday portraits I would take the 105 E.
You have to be careful here when comparing (i.e. 105mm f1.4 stopped down to f2 vs 200mm f2). That said, the 105mm has very similar sharpness (DXO Mark if you're into that on a D800 body) to the 200mm f2 in the center. The bokeh is pretty close under the right circumstances, but the 200mm is generally better and more consistent in the "buttery" results.
Will Nikon make a 180mm f2:8 for the Z eries
THat would be cool
I would be thankful. as it would be lighter. always loved the images it produced
I love fast glass - A very sexy lens.
It was on my list of lenses that I wanted before I went mirrorless.
And all tele lenses should have slip in filters...
Cant wait to buy a few ND's for this lens. I might have some somewhere. 52mm Fast glass is where it's at.
i need this lens ASAP!!!!!! SHEEEEEEEESH
Thanks for this
My pleasure! It was a fun video but I learned allot from this review. Hopefully I can improve on the things I need to improve on.
Thanks pal fun video
Glad you enjoyed it 🤘🏼🤘🏼
Dear Vahagan, I use a formula for sensor diameter, focal length and aperture, to compare and generate the Bokeh Value (BV):
Sensor diameter x focal length, divided by aperture:
Viltrox 56mm, diameter 28, aperture 1,4 = BV 1120
NIKON 105mm, aperture1,4 and Full Frame 44mm = BV 3300
NIKON 200mm. aperture 2,0 on Full Frame 44mm = BV 4400
NOCT NIKKOR 0,95, 58mm, on Full Frame 44mm = BV 2686
NIKON 50mm, aperture 1,4 on Full Frame 44mm = BV 1571
NIKON 50mm, aperture 1,8 on Full Frame 44mm = BV 1222
Great review.
Thank you Kris. Glad you enjoyed it.
super
The lens is a beauty but it’s outdated, Canon’s 400/2.8 weights less than the Nikon 200mm/2.0. I hope Nikon’s new 400/2.8 starts to bring down the weight of their super telephotos.
Yes they have. The Z 400 weighs as much as the 200 F2. actually it weighs the same.
The micro contrast on the 105mm is better. The 200mm flattens the subject a bit more.
Interesting observation. The 105 has brighter pop to it but the 200 has a different level of pop. It's 3D ish.
@@Vahagraphy Have you tried the 180mm 2.8?
@@scottscrufari Yes I have that lens. however I will be honest. I haven't really dove deep into the lens. Had som much going on, I bought it last year . i actually have a review up. check it out. search that exact lens on youtube. I will be doing a side by side with that and this lens soon.
👍🏾
🤘🏼🤘🏼🤘🏼 Thank you Eugene.
I can’t believe how fast the focus is on my D3S
yup, this lens is fast. fast glass. on a d3S its awesome. you get what you pay for.
🤓 nerd alarm, 11:06, two stops? 2.8 ➡️ 2.0 is one. Or are you talking of the 70-200 f4?
F/4 hehe lol
21:30 Even though the 200 f2 is a better lens in every way, the 105mm is better in this comparison because of the focal length. The 200mm lens is adding like 40 pounds to you (in this comparison).
Exactly. The weight effects picture taking. That's something I didn't mention but it effects the effort. Now monopods are an option but with that, it limits flexibility.
This lens never getting old this lens still the same price when they announced and quite expensive it's not for everyone. Almost 13 years past the price still the same
I think you hit diminishing returns fast.
I think i hit a sore arm fast. the weight of the 200 haha
WOW! I paid less for my used HD Road King, which was in good shape.
not a 2 stop difference in light but ONE. F/2 next stop is f/2.8
why my eyes are showing me better color rendering on the 105?
All I can say is if you lose too much weight you won't be able to pick it up :). The bokeh on this and the 105 are great and surprisingly the low cost option wasn't too bad in the video but lacked contrast and punch vs the high end lenses but that is to be expected. I would be afraid I would get mugged carrying this lens around in todays world but agree it is one of a kind. Take care and use it on the Z9 in the future.
Z9 and 200 F2 can you image the possibilities. Can't wait. Stay safe out there. Safety first. Great. now we have to worry about lowlifes coming up from behind. If they follow photographers home and rob them in driveways who knows what they can do out in the field. This is why I will be considering taking someone with me when shooting. Going alone to a remote location with these cameras is dangerous now.
You are looking thinner, already, my friend.
thank you Thomas. Working hard at it. 6 month challenge , hehe just getting started. We will cross the finish line in July hopefully victorious. :)
Hey brotha, is this a Z lens? No right?
no its a F mount lens.
@@JaspreetSinghArtist right. Thank you
Yup it's f mount but works well with the ftz and Z cameras. AF is fast and a joy to use. Love looking at the bokeh in the EVF before shooting. hehe
@@Vahagraphy nice seems like an amazing lens.
now do a portrait comparison to your 600 f/4.
lol. Maybe if Nikon sends me a 600 TC for review. 🤘🏼🤘🏼
f2 - f2.8 is 1 stop difference
Yup. Caught the mistake after the fact. hehe 🤘🏼🤘🏼
The Angry Photographer on UA-cam, begs to differ. He says the Nikon 180mm F2.8 renders better images.
the 180 is a great lens. I have that one. Actually made a review on it last year. I have that on my radar to compare it with this lens hopefully soon. Planning to do a quick comparison video soon.
To me it seems like he dislikes this lens because it costs too much. If it was cheaper it would be a better performer! 😄
Cuánto te paga Nikon para hacer este tipo de videos?....
$0.00
además, los lentes nikon son mis lentes personales
One stop diff. Not two
Yah V Dan thanks, I noticed that mistake after it was uploaded and played for a week. lol
@@Vahagraphy all good. V good vid. Like your intro
Yelling "get on with it" at the start of the video.
I think you could probably count the number of dropped 200mm f2s worldwide on both of your hands and maybe both of your feet. When you say to look for a good copy you should be pointing out that this lens is typically used by pro sports photographers, so they are used in very demanding and rough environments. Don't look for major damage like a drop would cause, that's easy to avoid. Look out for lenses that have been abused as part of regular use.