Great info, Matt. I've been wanting to test out that f/2... and now I just want to buy it :). And thanks for pointing out the focus breathing problem of the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. It's so severe it really drastically changes how we work with the lens.
Watching this video reminded me of your coverage a while back of the issue with the Nikon 70-200's tele end. Before Matt even started talking about the issue his comparison shots already showed how glaring a difference there was between a true 200mm and a pseudo 200mm on the zoom. Crazy this was considered acceptable by Nikon. I wonder how many owners of that lens don't even realize this issue with their lens.
+Tony Northrup Mr. Northrup, have you tried the Canon 200 f/2? That lens is also magnificent and it's fantastic for indoor sports. I used it for wrestling and it was simply outstanding. I've used this Nikon when I was trying out the D7100 and it was so good. So, so good.
Absolutely true. The famed Tamron 70-200 f2.8 also deserves a mention for its terrible focus breathing. But hey, at least with Tamron you get what you pay for.
I rather not see it as an ''issue'' and thinking of it in a negative way, I think of it just being the difference between a prime lens with a much bigger glass, and a zoom lens that offers amazing shots from 70-200. I love my 70-200 for what it can do and the images I get. Maybe one day I buy the 200 and love it just as much even tho it is fixed focal length. If the 70-200 could get same shots at 200, it would most likely need bigger glass too? And then what would the price be? 5x more?
I have both of these lenses and the reason I spent the money on the 200mm F2.0 is for indoor sports where that extra stop is worth it. Indoor rodeos and horse shows where I can't use flash. Means the difference in a image with motion blur and without.
Oh Yes...!!! Finally you invite the 200 f2 again Matt... Hopefully we'll see some more samples and perhaps another test, it's a most because this lens is so rare and you are the man to do it. Thank you
Bought a 200mm f2 a while ago with plans for it. Haven't used it. Just sits there. So the problem is not only acquiring it, but also actually using it.
Hi Matt I’ve had my Nikon 70-200 for a while now and use it mainly for football / soccer and I find it really good even at floodlit matches but having watched a few videos on the Nikon 200 f2, and I was glad to see this comparison. My 200 f2 arrived today and, I have done a few comparison shots of wildlife in my garden and have struggled to actually see much difference but I guess it’s really going to shine when I take it along to a Football match on Saturday which will be under floodlights. I’m really looking forward to see the focus speed on continuous when tracking players, and I’m hoping for reduced grain when I’m cropping. I can’t wait till Saturday. I bought the used but Mint 200mm f2 off EBay and yes the price is still a little steep but now my 70-200 is now around £500gbp more than I paid for it at around the start of pandemic March 2020 my used 200 f2 works out just over twice the price. Thanks for doing this comparison as I wouldn’t know where to start 😂. Cheers Quinny
well done Matt... at the same, we need 14-24 2.8 zoom at 20mm vs 20 1.8 prime... samples with architecture shots, without falling-lines, so we can compare the effective distortions ;)
I love how clear you show and explain things! I'm a beginner with NIKON d5200 and 35mm f1.8, I prefer close up pictures and I'm so debating on getting 70-200....tho just seen Meg Bitton interview on youtube, she said she mostly does her portraits with that 200 one. I wanted to check the comparison...I'm still long way to call myself a professional but that 200 goes on my bucket list when i can afford it lol
Closest focus issue is called focus breathing. Also I'm not sure if you've noticed, on DXOMark, the Tamron 70-200mm is sharper than the Nikon 70-200mm. I wouldn't mind testing the sharpness of the 200mm f2 with focal software.
Focus breathing hits all the 70-200 lenses quite a bit. As far as I know the Canon 70-200/2.8 II is the one that comes closest to being a real 200mm in a portrait setting. I'm not sure about the Sony FE lens though. No one I've asked have checked it. Few people have a true 200mm prime on hand to test against.
The T number must be insane with that huge front element. No surprise the prime beats out the variable but the 70-200 did a fine job of hanging in there.
This is exactly what I was looking for, Matt, thanks so much. Your reviews are so well done -- comprehensive but succinct. May I just ask, off topic, what is that tablet in front of you and what is the brand name/ style of the holder that is tilting it up? I'm looking for something just like that for my Wacom tablet. Cheers!
Thank you for this comparison! The 200 f/2 has piqued my interest before. For the price and weight, I think I'll stick with my 70-200V2 and if I want bokeh use my 85 1.4G. But I agree 200 f/2 is a legend in its own.
Lol, "it has led to one sale at least". That's how this stuff works isn't it? I was between the 200mm f/2 and the 300mm f/2.8 and ended up with the 300mm. As a pure portrait lens I think the 200mm is superior, but the 300mm is a good balance of fashion, sports and wildlife if you add a TC.
+Photo314159 Well, technically, the 200mm 2.0 becomes a 400mm 2.8 or 800mm 4.0, so as a sports/wildlife lens, it's technically superior in regards of potential.
+Baba Wethu 800mm f/4? Lol no, that is all incorrect. If that were true there would be no reason for the longer lenses. I assume you are talking about adding the softest teleconverter made, the 2x (TC-20E III), and then since they don't make a 4x, stacking two of them to get to 800mm. You get a 2 stop loss with a 2x converter, which would give you a 400mm f/4 lens. Then if for some insane reason you wanted to stack two 2x converters and destroy you image quality even further, you'd have an 800mm f8 lens, probably with the image quality of a pinhole camera if you shot it at f/8. You'd have to shoot it at f/16 to get any recognizable IQ. While the 200mm f/2 is the only lens I'd even try to use a 2x TC on, the image quality won't be near as good as using longer lenses to get your focal length. For instance a 500mm f/4 lens will blow away the image quality of my 300mm f/2.8 lens with a 1.7x TC mounted. At some point you don't get any more detail retrieval and you'd be better off just cropping the image. For the 300mm f/2.8 to me that's the 1.4x TC. It still has excellent image quality at 420mm f/4 and it resolves more detail than cropping. Stacking TC's for Sports is a whole other issue as it sacrifices focus speed and accuracy as well proportionately to the magnification of the TC. I think the 200mm f/2 will do well with the 1.7x TC though that Matt already owns. It'll be a nice, reasonably fast 340mm lens with good IQ. The problem with shorter lenses and TC's is that they only magnify the focal length you already have, and shorter lenses give smaller increases but all the same drawbacks. For Matt shooting mostly portraits, the 200mm f/2 was the perfect choice.
Adrian J Nyaoi Yes a crop body is just like cropping the photo. Depending on the pixel density of the Full frame vs; crop cameras you're comparing, a DX camera may be an advantage to you if you need more reach.
I'm a little late but: the stated focal length applies only at infinity focus. If you focus something closer the focal length will also change a bit. that's not an issue with nikon - it's normal for every lens. if you ever tried focus stacking with a macro lens you will know what I'm talking about
I assume that most people don't notice the breathing effect of the 70-200 because they don't have a 200mm prime. I never looked at any tests about this but at close focus the effect is bigger than I expected! Anyway, the bokeh of the 200/2 is just amazing. And it seems to be ridiculously sharp as well. But what really surprised me is that the AF is quicker! The depth of field is shallower, so your AF needs to be even more accurate. Some f/1.4 lenses are slightly slower than their f/1.8 counterparts, I expected it to be the same in this case. I suppose that is part of the reason why it's more expensive :)
Ah, that 200 F2 is the stuff dreams are made of. I don't think I could ever justify it, though. The 70-200 seems to perform about 85-90 percent as good in certain apertures, and is versatile. I found your zoom to be sharper in your tests with the product label. Reminds me of a test I did with a Sigma lens on an alcohol bottle. You could see the ink molecules on the lettering. Sharpness isn't everything, though, and I'm not fond of the Sigma bokeh.
Hi Matt Have you tried the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 VRII without the FL element? I just wonder a bit when you say the 200mm f/2 has the fastest AF speed you've ever used, since I've tried a few of those lenses on my D4 and they hunt terribly and are really slow in AF speed compared to the 400mm f/2.8 VRII AND the 24-70 (no VR) and 70-200 VRII...? Thoughts? Used the lenses primarily for sports (handball, soccer (football!!!!), gymnastics and floorball. Outdoors and indoors. cheers
Hey Matt - the old Nikon 80-200 F2.8D (push pull) is cheap now. I 'd love to see you compare one of those to newer sigmas / tamrons or even Nikons. I shoot runners and focus as been quick enough for my needs with a D7k
First of all if you're disturbed by the focus breaking on the 70-200 2.8 VR2 try picking up an original VR second hand, especially if you're shooting DX - you can get a VR second hand for the same price as the Tamron new. Secondly I know those were test shots but I think you'd be much better off shooting the model straight on instead of tilted away if you're going to shoot wide open. I was too busy being distracted by the model's far eye being so out of focus to care one bit about how creamy the background was. I was shooting at a kid's birthday party yesterday with the 2.8 vr and I found myself shooting more at f/5 as I didn't want to blur out the background completely - the party was the story. If I was using my 70-300VR I'd be shooting at f/8 to make sure the lens is at it's best (though I would use 5.6 if I had to) so there is a definite advantage. But as you move up the price range you're getting less and less benefit. In good light I'd be fine shooting most of the things I shoot with a 70-300VR or even 55-200VR on a DX body. Once you get any motion or the light goes down there's no replacing wider aperture BUT the penalty with depth of field is high. For all but the most controlled and posed portrait work I value the ability to zoom and frame much more than that extra stop
great info quick question: for a newer nikkor nikon lens, is there a big difference between made in thailand to made in japan? my impression i want the made in japan lens over the made in thailand. would appreciate your insight.
I was really surprised that I prefer the overall rendition of the 70-200 over the 200. A lovely combination of sharp subject, background separation and attractive bokeh. Unless you're shooting exclusively at 2 I don't see any real reason to purchase the 200. I'd much rather the 70-200, Zeiss APO sonar 135f2, 85 1.4 as a set which could all be purchased for roughly the same amount to of money as the 200 alone.
Hey Matt, would you mind reviewing the Nikon 200mm f/4 AF-D Macro lens? I have not found any good, in depth video review of this lens with tests, results and comparisons. I am interested in it for macro work, while having some portrait capabilities would be nice and may come in handy at times.
It'd also be interesting to see a comparison with the Sigma and Tamron versions of these fast telephoto lenses. Given their big price difference and great reviews, it would seem they have their own advantages.
I bought the Canon EF 200mm F2.0 in 2011. Back then, 90 % of my photos shot with the 70-200mm had 200mm focal length, so I decided to upgrade. I always read people praising the "fast" AF of the EF 70-200mm (any version), but the large ring USM of the 200mm f2.0 makes the prime so much faster. In comparison, the 70-200mm feels like using live-view focus. Does anyone know if you can re-assign the function of the lens buttons on the Nikon one? I don't find the memory function usefull. I usually set my lens buttons to directly jump to a specific (stored) AF point. I often shoot moving subjects running towards the camera. If you want your subject near the left or right border of the frame while running/looking towards the center, you have to access the outer AF points on both sides directly, or your subject runs "out of the frame". If I were a Nikon shooter, this is the first lens I would buy. People saying it is only one stop better than the 70-200mm f2.8 usually have never worked with the prime. If it is just one stop, than why buy the 70-200mm f2.8 instead of the f4.0? If you use the prime for a few weeks, you can tell if a photo has been shot with the prime or the zoom without having a look at the EXIF data.
would the image appear closer/larger with any other prime lens as apposed to a zoom lens set at the same focal length? I have also recently bought the D5 (oh wow, what a beast :) ) and I also own the D7100. I am thinking of getting another camera, but don't know if i should get the D500 or another full frame rather. If full frame, which camera would u suggest?
Apart from filters that want to be rotated like CPL, is there any other inherent disadvantage to drop-in filters at the rear of the lens? Do certain filters behave differently when they're not at the front element?
All I have to say is that...size matters... but yeah I think the Canon 70-200 is pretty much the only lens thats essentially a true 200 at its longest length. That breathing sucks, but what can ya do.
+Eric Rossi What can you do? Buy the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 instead of Nikon and save yourself 1000 in whatever your currency is. Same focus breathing from what I have heard. :o)
+Eric Rossi I am an MFT shooter, but I have looked at all the 70-200 F2.8 lenses in the event I start needing them. When I go to DXOmark, the Tamron is sharper than the Nikon on the D810. Now I don't like splitting hairs on lenses that have comparable sharpness, but if they have the same focus breathing problems it just isn't worth the "Nikkor" discount of paying 1000$ more. It is funny because the 70-200mm lens is basically my deciding factor if I get a camera with a 35mm size sensor. Guess I am lucky that I don't have money or the need right now. :o)
Hey it's whatever works for the artist. You can only trust or take dxo so much. I've used all and have seen the results. Just comes down to the users budget and use.
+Eric Rossi I think none of the problems really matter that much for shooting potraits cus we aren't chasing anyone nor there is ever a client coming back and complaining that the lens has so and so issues and it's visible in the pics .. I use a tamron 70-200 f2.8 non IS version but I'm happy that I bought cus its just only 660 usd much cheaper than any of these.. and it works perfectly fine.. yes every lens has its own problems by default practically none of the problems really matter that much
8 років тому
Hey Matt! you use such expensive gear, why is middleformat not a option for you ?
+Esteban Avila well i am not just a canon guy i have canon,nikon fuji and sony but every formal test on the net see the canon sharper and then their is the focus breathing which makes the Nikon only 135mm at close range but many lenses do this ..like the sigma 300mm f2.8 is about the same at close focus but the Nikon is an excellent lense www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D610__408_795_406_915 or www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=621&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Dont forget. You also get a 400 F/4 with insane optical quality. There's virtually no difference between shooting 200mm F2 or 400mm F4. Maybe 5% reduction in sharpness.
+ciaoceo I had both 70-200VR1 and VR2 but not at the same time. My understanding is that VR2 has the well know focus breathing problem iand is more like 70-135 at close distances. VR1 is full 200mm. However VR2 is sharper in the corners at 200mm than VR1.
It's easy. Less elements don't pancake the picture as much. The 180mm 2.8 D series has a lower element count than both of these and is 90% or that 200 f2 at 10% of the price.
Focal length is only one of the factors that make the angle of view of a lens. Front element (and maybe other elements too) is a much bigger factor. You can verify this your self by looking at the specs of sigma 10-20mm and sigma 10mm fisheye. If I remember correctly 10-20mm has maximum of 110 deg and fisheye has 180 deg. And that is why I think it is kind of stupid to talk about focal lengths instead of angle of views.
Yeah, focus breathing problems. Thats the only point that canons 70-200 is better than any other in that category. I still think that Tamrons is the best option for the price. Anyway, I wish there were more sample shots, this lens is amazing. Great buy :D
+david appleton Oh, Im sorry. Its really tough to compare Canon to Nikkor lenses, since their sensors are so different nowadays, but I believe on what you are saying,
+david appleton Impossible to tell these days since we can't test both lenses on the same body nor mp count. That being said being a true 190+mm(not parfocal 200mm but close) means it will shallower depth of field and tighter portraitss. So i think general opinion agrees that the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 LII is the best in class. Just as the Tamron 70-200mm VC is the best bang for buck 70-200mm
Luckily Canon also has a very good 200mm f/2.8 L. Nikon only has the 200mm f/2 and the far less performing 180mm f/2.8. I had the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS for some years but substituted it with the 200/2.8L. It's very lightweight and performs really good. It also focusses quicker than the zooms. It only lacks IS...
david appleton I never compared those, but what I can find, is that the 80-200 isn't better than the 70-200 f/2.8L. The 200/2.8 has more contrast wide open than the 70-200 f/2.8.
The 200mm prime is an attractive lens, but expensive. I suppose if I just had "crazy-endless" monies, I'd own this lens. The proof was in the comparison pictures, very nice.
Your friend the Angry Photographer says the 70-200 Nikon VR2 'SUCKS' and it's the worst 70-200 on the market. I disagree with him, like to now your comments.
Damn. Really wish I hadn't watched this. I've had my eye on the 200 f2 for a while now. More from a 'I wish' point of view up until now. I'm going to have to find one somewhere to test....or not, because I'm pretty sure I'll want one at that point. But I suppose I can use the excuse that it'll pay for itself in just a few months. I'll just have to purchase the wife something nice to alleviate the arse kicking I suspect I'm going get. Thanks Matt!
legendary 70 200? legendary for what? being 160 mm actually or that its just mediocre performance compared to other 70 200s? im sorry i just dont like when people throw around phrases like legendary or exceptional or excellent.
Pffft, no way, just get the 200 F/2 AF-S VR I for about $2600 Used and you'll get almost the same identical lens to the VR II for less than half the price. That's what I did!
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
Great info, Matt. I've been wanting to test out that f/2... and now I just want to buy it :).
And thanks for pointing out the focus breathing problem of the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. It's so severe it really drastically changes how we work with the lens.
Watching this video reminded me of your coverage a while back of the issue with the Nikon 70-200's tele end. Before Matt even started talking about the issue his comparison shots already showed how glaring a difference there was between a true 200mm and a pseudo 200mm on the zoom. Crazy this was considered acceptable by Nikon. I wonder how many owners of that lens don't even realize this issue with their lens.
+Tony Northrup
Mr. Northrup, have you tried the Canon 200 f/2? That lens is also magnificent and it's fantastic for indoor sports. I used it for wrestling and it was simply outstanding.
I've used this Nikon when I was trying out the D7100 and it was so good. So, so good.
Absolutely true. The famed Tamron 70-200 f2.8 also deserves a mention for its terrible focus breathing. But hey, at least with Tamron you get what you pay for.
I rather not see it as an ''issue'' and thinking of it in a negative way, I think of it just being the difference between a prime lens with a much bigger glass, and a zoom lens that offers amazing shots from 70-200. I love my 70-200 for what it can do and the images I get. Maybe one day I buy the 200 and love it just as much even tho it is fixed focal length. If the 70-200 could get same shots at 200, it would most likely need bigger glass too? And then what would the price be? 5x more?
Garth Nosworthy how can you not see it as an issue? It is not a 200mm lens at anywhere but infinity... that is definitely an issue
Jesus! When a lens makes a ~77mm wide front element look tiny, that is something
I have both of these lenses and the reason I spent the money on the 200mm F2.0 is for indoor sports where that extra stop is worth it. Indoor rodeos and horse shows where I can't use flash. Means the difference in a image with motion blur and without.
Oh Yes...!!! Finally you invite the 200 f2 again Matt... Hopefully we'll see some more samples and perhaps another test, it's a most because this lens is so rare and you are the man to do it.
Thank you
Bought a 200mm f2 a while ago with plans for it. Haven't used it. Just sits there. So the problem is not only acquiring it, but also actually using it.
Hi Matt I’ve had my Nikon 70-200 for a while now and use it mainly for football / soccer and I find it really good even at floodlit matches but having watched a few videos on the Nikon 200 f2, and I was glad to see this comparison. My 200 f2 arrived today and, I have done a few comparison shots of wildlife in my garden and have struggled to actually see much difference but I guess it’s really going to shine when I take it along to a Football match on Saturday which will be under floodlights.
I’m really looking forward to see the focus speed on continuous when tracking players, and I’m hoping for reduced grain when I’m cropping. I can’t wait till Saturday. I bought the used but Mint 200mm f2 off EBay and yes the price is still a little steep but now my 70-200 is now around £500gbp more than I paid for it at around the start of pandemic March 2020 my used 200 f2 works out just over twice the price. Thanks for doing this comparison as I wouldn’t know where to start 😂. Cheers Quinny
well done Matt... at the same, we need 14-24 2.8 zoom at 20mm vs 20 1.8 prime... samples with architecture shots, without falling-lines, so we can compare the effective distortions ;)
Great video content. It's 2022. Still very useful info!
I love how clear you show and explain things! I'm a beginner with NIKON d5200 and 35mm f1.8, I prefer close up pictures and I'm so debating on getting 70-200....tho just seen Meg Bitton interview on youtube, she said she mostly does her portraits with that 200 one. I wanted to check the comparison...I'm still long way to call myself a professional but that 200 goes on my bucket list when i can
afford it lol
Closest focus issue is called focus breathing. Also I'm not sure if you've noticed, on DXOMark, the Tamron 70-200mm is sharper than the Nikon 70-200mm. I wouldn't mind testing the sharpness of the 200mm f2 with focal software.
Focus breathing hits all the 70-200 lenses quite a bit. As far as I know the Canon 70-200/2.8 II is the one that comes closest to being a real 200mm in a portrait setting. I'm not sure about the Sony FE lens though. No one I've asked have checked it. Few people have a true 200mm prime on hand to test against.
The T number must be insane with that huge front element. No surprise the prime beats out the variable but the 70-200 did a fine job of hanging in there.
This is exactly what I was looking for, Matt, thanks so much. Your reviews are so well done -- comprehensive but succinct. May I just ask, off topic, what is that tablet in front of you and what is the brand name/ style of the holder that is tilting it up? I'm looking for something just like that for my Wacom tablet. Cheers!
I have the 200mm f2 and the 70-200mm f2.8 love them both.
Thank you for this comparison! The 200 f/2 has piqued my interest before. For the price and weight, I think I'll stick with my 70-200V2 and if I want bokeh use my 85 1.4G. But I agree 200 f/2 is a legend in its own.
Lol, "it has led to one sale at least". That's how this stuff works isn't it? I was between the 200mm f/2 and the 300mm f/2.8 and ended up with the 300mm. As a pure portrait lens I think the 200mm is superior, but the 300mm is a good balance of fashion, sports and wildlife if you add a TC.
+Photo314159 Well, technically, the 200mm 2.0 becomes a 400mm 2.8 or 800mm 4.0, so as a sports/wildlife lens, it's technically superior in regards of potential.
+Baba Wethu 800mm f/4? Lol no, that is all incorrect. If that were true there would be no reason for the longer lenses. I assume you are talking about adding the softest teleconverter made, the 2x (TC-20E III), and then since they don't make a 4x, stacking two of them to get to 800mm. You get a 2 stop loss with a 2x converter, which would give you a 400mm f/4 lens. Then if for some insane reason you wanted to stack two 2x converters and destroy you image quality even further, you'd have an 800mm f8 lens, probably with the image quality of a pinhole camera if you shot it at f/8. You'd have to shoot it at f/16 to get any recognizable IQ. While the 200mm f/2 is the only lens I'd even try to use a 2x TC on, the image quality won't be near as good as using longer lenses to get your focal length. For instance a 500mm f/4 lens will blow away the image quality of my 300mm f/2.8 lens with a 1.7x TC mounted. At some point you don't get any more detail retrieval and you'd be better off just cropping the image. For the 300mm f/2.8 to me that's the 1.4x TC. It still has excellent image quality at 420mm f/4 and it resolves more detail than cropping. Stacking TC's for Sports is a whole other issue as it sacrifices focus speed and accuracy as well proportionately to the magnification of the TC. I think the 200mm f/2 will do well with the 1.7x TC though that Matt already owns. It'll be a nice, reasonably fast 340mm lens with good IQ. The problem with shorter lenses and TC's is that they only magnify the focal length you already have, and shorter lenses give smaller increases but all the same drawbacks. For Matt shooting mostly portraits, the 200mm f/2 was the perfect choice.
Photo314159 I forgot that zooming has a squared light deficit as well. Was thinking 2x, would give half the light instead of a fourth of the light.
+Baba Wethu a cropped body and a 2x converter would reach out to 600mm equivalent
Adrian J Nyaoi Yes a crop body is just like cropping the photo. Depending on the pixel density of the Full frame vs; crop cameras you're comparing, a DX camera may be an advantage to you if you need more reach.
I'm a little late but: the stated focal length applies only at infinity focus. If you focus something closer the focal length will also change a bit. that's not an issue with nikon - it's normal for every lens. if you ever tried focus stacking with a macro lens you will know what I'm talking about
Not exactly, no
@@mattgranger yes, exactly yes ;) (if it's not a parfocal lens)
Great info Matt, just a quick suggestion, can you also do some shots in studio when doing lens comparison.
Surprised no one's caught it but - front element is only 122mm rather than the 160mm of a 400/2.8 or 600/4
I assume that most people don't notice the breathing effect of the 70-200 because they don't have a 200mm prime. I never looked at any tests about this but at close focus the effect is bigger than I expected!
Anyway, the bokeh of the 200/2 is just amazing. And it seems to be ridiculously sharp as well. But what really surprised me is that the AF is quicker! The depth of field is shallower, so your AF needs to be even more accurate. Some f/1.4 lenses are slightly slower than their f/1.8 counterparts, I expected it to be the same in this case. I suppose that is part of the reason why it's more expensive :)
Ah, that 200 F2 is the stuff dreams are made of. I don't think I could ever justify it, though. The 70-200 seems to perform about 85-90 percent as good in certain apertures, and is versatile. I found your zoom to be sharper in your tests with the product label. Reminds me of a test I did with a Sigma lens on an alcohol bottle. You could see the ink molecules on the lettering. Sharpness isn't everything, though, and I'm not fond of the Sigma bokeh.
Hi Matt
Have you tried the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 VRII without the FL element? I just wonder a bit when you say the 200mm f/2 has the fastest AF speed you've ever used, since I've tried a few of those lenses on my D4 and they hunt terribly and are really slow in AF speed compared to the 400mm f/2.8 VRII AND the 24-70 (no VR) and 70-200 VRII...? Thoughts? Used the lenses primarily for sports (handball, soccer (football!!!!), gymnastics and floorball. Outdoors and indoors.
cheers
canon used to have a 200 mm f 1.8 L lens it's not made now replaced with f 2 and IS
Hey Matt - the old Nikon 80-200 F2.8D (push pull) is cheap now. I 'd love to see you compare one of those to newer sigmas / tamrons or even Nikons. I shoot runners and focus as been quick enough for my needs with a D7k
Do you think Nikon will address the focus breathing issues on the 70-200 in the next 70-200? When do you think Nikon will release a new 70-200?
I'd go the extra mile for the 400 f/2.8 and just keep the 70-200
600 f4 is better for portraits :D
Why are large aperture lenses often referred to as "fast"?
Just in terms of Bokeh - have you compared the 200mm with the 85mm 1.4?
First of all if you're disturbed by the focus breaking on the 70-200 2.8 VR2 try picking up an original VR second hand, especially if you're shooting DX - you can get a VR second hand for the same price as the Tamron new. Secondly I know those were test shots but I think you'd be much better off shooting the model straight on instead of tilted away if you're going to shoot wide open. I was too busy being distracted by the model's far eye being so out of focus to care one bit about how creamy the background was. I was shooting at a kid's birthday party yesterday with the 2.8 vr and I found myself shooting more at f/5 as I didn't want to blur out the background completely - the party was the story. If I was using my 70-300VR I'd be shooting at f/8 to make sure the lens is at it's best (though I would use 5.6 if I had to) so there is a definite advantage. But as you move up the price range you're getting less and less benefit. In good light I'd be fine shooting most of the things I shoot with a 70-300VR or even 55-200VR on a DX body. Once you get any motion or the light goes down there's no replacing wider aperture BUT the penalty with depth of field is high. For all but the most controlled and posed portrait work I value the ability to zoom and frame much more than that extra stop
great info
quick question: for a newer nikkor nikon lens, is there a big difference between made in thailand to made in japan? my impression i want the made in japan lens over the made in thailand.
would appreciate your insight.
Excellent comparison Matt. Could u also compare the 200 f2 to 300 f2.8?
I was really surprised that I prefer the overall rendition of the 70-200 over the 200. A lovely combination of sharp subject, background separation and attractive bokeh.
Unless you're shooting exclusively at 2 I don't see any real reason to purchase the 200.
I'd much rather the 70-200, Zeiss APO sonar 135f2, 85 1.4 as a set which could all be purchased for roughly the same amount to of money as the 200 alone.
Hey Matt, would you mind reviewing the Nikon 200mm f/4 AF-D Macro lens? I have not found any good, in depth video review of this lens with tests, results and comparisons. I am interested in it for macro work, while having some portrait capabilities would be nice and may come in handy at times.
It'd also be interesting to see a comparison with the Sigma and Tamron versions of these fast telephoto lenses. Given their big price difference and great reviews, it would seem they have their own advantages.
Hey Matt there are some out there casting aspersions on some of the Nikon kit. Any views?
I bought the Canon EF 200mm F2.0 in 2011. Back then, 90 % of my photos shot with the 70-200mm had 200mm focal length, so I decided to upgrade. I always read people praising the "fast" AF of the EF 70-200mm (any version), but the large ring USM of the 200mm f2.0 makes the prime so much faster. In comparison, the 70-200mm feels like using live-view focus.
Does anyone know if you can re-assign the function of the lens buttons on the Nikon one? I don't find the memory function usefull. I usually set my lens buttons to directly jump to a specific (stored) AF point. I often shoot moving subjects running towards the camera. If you want your subject near the left or right border of the frame while running/looking towards the center, you have to access the outer AF points on both sides directly, or your subject runs "out of the frame".
If I were a Nikon shooter, this is the first lens I would buy. People saying it is only one stop better than the 70-200mm f2.8 usually have never worked with the prime. If it is just one stop, than why buy the 70-200mm f2.8 instead of the f4.0? If you use the prime for a few weeks, you can tell if a photo has been shot with the prime or the zoom without having a look at the EXIF data.
would the image appear closer/larger with any other prime lens as apposed to a zoom lens set at the same focal length? I have also recently bought the D5 (oh wow, what a beast :) ) and I also own the D7100. I am thinking of getting another camera, but don't know if i should get the D500 or another full frame rather. If full frame, which camera would u suggest?
I really don't think the differences between the products justifies the price difference, at least not a 3x difference.
That's the question I would hope he would answer. Is it 20% better? 100% better? 200% better?
What about the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D?
The difference is noticeble in almost every way. Modern lens, even zoom, still better.
UA-cam must have done a number on the images, those from the 70-200 looked sharper and had more contrast on my end.
Matt, time to do this same test with the FL version. Maybe don't shoot at mfd so we can compare it without any focus breathing issues.
Apart from filters that want to be rotated like CPL, is there any other inherent disadvantage to drop-in filters at the rear of the lens? Do certain filters behave differently when they're not at the front element?
Greetings in how much is the 70 - 200mm 2.8 NIKON g greetings hope your answer
The 200mm F2 images seem a lot tighter
Is that the focus breathing of the 70-200mm F2.8 or did you really move closer with the 200mm F2 matt?
+1barnet1
never mind you adressed it later in the video
All I have to say is that...size matters... but yeah I think the Canon 70-200 is pretty much the only lens thats essentially a true 200 at its longest length. That breathing sucks, but what can ya do.
+Eric Rossi What can you do? Buy the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 instead of Nikon and save yourself 1000 in whatever your currency is. Same focus breathing from what I have heard. :o)
+Peter John ehh you want to buy quality lol. Just starting out, I totally agree but the Sigma isnt a bad option in all honestly.
+Eric Rossi I am an MFT shooter, but I have looked at all the 70-200 F2.8 lenses in the event I start needing them. When I go to DXOmark, the Tamron is sharper than the Nikon on the D810. Now I don't like splitting hairs on lenses that have comparable sharpness, but if they have the same focus breathing problems it just isn't worth the "Nikkor" discount of paying 1000$ more. It is funny because the 70-200mm lens is basically my deciding factor if I get a camera with a 35mm size sensor. Guess I am lucky that I don't have money or the need right now. :o)
Hey it's whatever works for the artist. You can only trust or take dxo so much. I've used all and have seen the results. Just comes down to the users budget and use.
+Eric Rossi I think none of the problems really matter that much for shooting potraits cus we aren't chasing anyone nor there is ever a client coming back and complaining that the lens has so and so issues and it's visible in the pics .. I use a tamron 70-200 f2.8 non IS version but I'm happy that I bought cus its just only 660 usd much cheaper than any of these.. and it works perfectly fine.. yes every lens has its own problems by default practically none of the problems really matter that much
Hey Matt! you use such expensive gear, why is middleformat not a option for you ?
Would be great to compare 200 wit 105 f1.4 too mate. Cheers
a really interesting video , thanks matt
I love this lens as much as my kids, at 9lbs its heavy but soooo worth it
Have you ever tested the Nikor 180mm F2.8?
Might be a bargan at @300 used?
+William Berger owned that lens several times and it is very good, but AF is very slow, as it is one of the earlier Nikon autofocus lenses
When you say it out performs all the 70-200 in the market ..i assume you mean Nikon fit?
Nope
+Matt Granger so the canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM mkii is not as good (optically)?
canon guys just can't believe anything is better then canon L lenses and they think Nikon is so inferior
+Esteban Avila well i am not just a canon guy i have canon,nikon fuji and sony but every formal test on the net see the canon sharper and then their is the focus breathing which makes the Nikon only 135mm at close range but many lenses do this ..like the sigma 300mm f2.8 is about the same at close focus
but the Nikon is an excellent lense
www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D610__408_795_406_915
or
www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=621&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
+david appleton anyone who puts an e on the end of 'lens' knows jack shit about lenses.
Pretty sure that front element isn't '160mm' Matt XD I looks smaller than my 400 (which is should be) and mines 122mm
8:29 Hendrick's in the UK is only 41.4% alcohol per volume. This makes me jealous.
The Nikon 200f2 lens is next on my wish list..
When Matt brougt his lenses to the table, I feel like he's about to review anti-tank rocket. Lol
That 200mm f2 is a piece of magic. Really good lens.
i want more info on that vintage lens!
I've heard that there is a company.. I think samyang that made a 135 f 1.4 lens it costs around 4000 usd
+samuel p isnt that manual focus?
+Stephan Eilert as far as I know samyang Is making only manual focus lenses I think it is a manual focus lense for sure....
Dont forget. You also get a 400 F/4 with insane optical quality. There's virtually no difference between shooting 200mm F2 or 400mm F4. Maybe 5% reduction in sharpness.
Could you not use a extention tube to add more close focus?
I'd be happy to have either one of those lenses :(
Hi Matt! Could you make a comparison between the 70-200 VR I and VR II? I know that the VR I is a real "70-200" :-) cheers bye
+ciaoceo I had both 70-200VR1 and VR2 but not at the same time. My understanding is that VR2 has the well know focus breathing problem iand is more like 70-135 at close distances. VR1 is full 200mm. However VR2 is sharper in the corners at 200mm than VR1.
+Dmitry Brodsky Thank you so very much Dmitry 👍🏻
It's easy. Less elements don't pancake the picture as much. The 180mm 2.8 D series has a lower element count than both of these and is 90% or that 200 f2 at 10% of the price.
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is the "most 200"
canon 200 f2
IS the most 200
Yes, but in comparison of zooms canon 70-200 has most tele end.
And if you want, most 200 is vintage ef canon 200 1.8 ;)
Focal length is only one of the factors that make the angle of view of a lens. Front element (and maybe other elements too) is a much bigger factor. You can verify this your self by looking at the specs of sigma 10-20mm and sigma 10mm fisheye. If I remember correctly 10-20mm has maximum of 110 deg and fisheye has 180 deg. And that is why I think it is kind of stupid to talk about focal lengths instead of angle of views.
+92OnTV Yes, if you are using close focus, if not, all of them are 200 :)
Yeah, focus breathing problems. Thats the only point that canons 70-200 is better than any other in that category. I still think that Tamrons is the best option for the price. Anyway, I wish there were more sample shots, this lens is amazing. Great buy :D
+Stephan Eilert and being sharper at F2.8 200mm
+david appleton Yeah, but you wont buy a 5k lens because its F2 to use it at 2.8, right? Unless you NEED that depth of field.
+Stephan Eilert i ment the canon 70-200 mkii was sharper than the nikon 70-200 at F2.8 200mm
+david appleton Oh, Im sorry. Its really tough to compare Canon to Nikkor lenses, since their sensors are so different nowadays, but I believe on what you are saying,
+david appleton
Impossible to tell these days since we can't test both lenses on the same body nor mp count.
That being said being a true 190+mm(not parfocal 200mm but close) means it will shallower depth of field and tighter portraitss.
So i think general opinion agrees that the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 LII is the best in class. Just as the Tamron 70-200mm VC is the best bang for buck 70-200mm
Tell me do models laugh when you pull out the f/2? I already get enough flack for my 70-200 being "huge" by their standards.
try pausíng at 5:15 xD
+Dennis Osipov
I did :D
Face scrunch for the win :b
I'll bet most pros who use the 200mm don't choose between these. They own both the 70-200 AND the 200mm for different situations.
Luckily Canon also has a very good 200mm f/2.8 L. Nikon only has the 200mm f/2 and the far less performing 180mm f/2.8. I had the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS for some years but substituted it with the 200/2.8L. It's very lightweight and performs really good. It also focusses quicker than the zooms. It only lacks IS...
+UCreations i looked at the 200 f2.8L but was not as sharp as my 80-200 F2.8L at f2.8
david appleton
I never compared those, but what I can find, is that the 80-200 isn't better than the 70-200 f/2.8L. The 200/2.8 has more contrast wide open than the 70-200 f/2.8.
do u think 70-200mm actually is not 70- 200, it's 70-180 or so
+1 for Hendricks gin. Love that stuff.
Prince William? We all know you're more into photographing Prince Albert.
It is simple, if you can justify it then buy it. but I guess most people can not justify it.
The 200mm prime is an attractive lens, but expensive. I suppose if I just had "crazy-endless" monies, I'd own this lens. The proof was in the comparison pictures, very nice.
When you say it out performs all the 70-200 in the market ..i assume you mean Nikon fit
Your friend the Angry Photographer says the 70-200 Nikon VR2 'SUCKS' and it's the worst 70-200 on the market. I disagree with him, like to now your comments.
They were building a missile didn't finish it and turn it into a lens lol that's a beast
Matt I love your videos ... go Canon and I'll love them more buddy :D
Why go to all this trouble? Buy a Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 used for 300 bucks on ebay and blow the 70-200 out of the water with it.
Find someone with a 3D printer and make a cap for the lens.
Damn. Really wish I hadn't watched this. I've had my eye on the 200 f2 for a while now. More from a 'I wish' point of view up until now. I'm going to have to find one somewhere to test....or not, because I'm pretty sure I'll want one at that point. But I suppose I can use the excuse that it'll pay for itself in just a few months. I'll just have to purchase the wife something nice to alleviate the arse kicking I suspect I'm going get. Thanks Matt!
It is still a 200mm, its just focus breathing.
I wouldn’t bother with the 200mm F2 I’d go get the 180mm 2.8
DAT focus breathing :/
You need to normalise the sound in this video :P Otherwise a good review!
legendary 70 200? legendary for what? being 160 mm actually or that its just mediocre performance compared to other 70 200s? im sorry i just dont like when people throw around phrases like legendary or exceptional or excellent.
Buy the 200mm prime then show youre cat
Pffft, no way, just get the 200 F/2 AF-S VR I for about $2600 Used and you'll get almost the same identical lens to the VR II for less than half the price. That's what I did!
Enjoy
Nikkor 200mm f2 > Canon 70 - 200mm f2,8 IS II > Nikkor 70 - 200 f2,8 VR II
+Alesh86 Canon 200mm f/1.8 > Nikon 200mm f/2 ;)
+UCreations Or Nikon 300mm-F2...
+UCreations
1988 optical design that is no longer available and without IS.
No just no.
1barnet1
Old optical design, but still very very good. And the bokeh is deliscious.
+UCreations
Sure it's bokehlicious. It just isn't made with current 36 and 50mp sensors in mind.
Heck it was made for 35mm film.
Who is the chick? She's hot.
She has amazing lips!