I’ve owned this lens now for 5 years, and have been meaning to provide a write up for a long time. I guess I just haven’t used the lens enough, for reasons I will explain during my blog, to do it full justice, but enough is enough, it’s time to write up my experiences…..
This short review is based upon the v1 lens. It has since been replaced by a v2. The main differences between v1 and v2 are the addition of Nano coating, to help reduce flair/ghosting, and VRII. The optics on both lenses are exactly the same, so I believe this review still holds a lot of relevance to those considering the purchase of this fine optic.
I bought the lens on a whim – I was traveling through Schiphol airport one afternoon, and noticed they had a rather large lens on the shelf in the electronics section of the duty free. On closer inspection I noticed it was the venerable Nikon 200mm f/2G VR lens, an optic that had been getting rave reviews and was subject of the longest thread on NikonCafe (so long in fact it had to be split into two threads to prevent the forum software from crashing) at http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=61674 and http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=261618. One thing struck me immediately about the lens – the price – it was listed for €2500 when everywhere else was selling it for over €3000 (in fact if you look for the best price today you’ll see the newer version two trading for closer to €5000).
So, thinking that I could always sell it again for what I had paid later if I didn’t like it, I bought the lens.
5 years on, this is a lens that I don’t use that often. I think the main reason I don’t use it is simply down to the size of the lens. In order to provide a f/2 maximum aperture on a 200mm lens, the front optic has to have a large diameter – around 120mm/5inches. This makes the lens big and heavy, and not something that gets chosen to go in the day bag (if you can indeed find a reasonable day bag that will fit it!). Especially when I have a 70-200mm which is a lot more flexible. It’s a great portrait lens, as it really blows the background, but the focal length means the model to photog distance is a little bit too long, so I typically resort to my other cream machine, the 85/1.4, or the 24-70/2.8 in the studio. For wildlife, the lens is a bit too short, and the 300/2.8 or 200-400/4 get chosen in favor of the 200/2.
However, the 200/2 does have a place, and it’s a nice lens to use when the opportunity arises. The autofocus is lightning fast, and combined with the f/2 aperture, it doesn’t miss a shot. So I have used this lens a number of times as a sports lens – most recently at the DNRT race days at Zandvoort, and a couple of years ago when the Giro passed through Amsterdam. With the shots of the cars in this post, I dropped my aperture to f/4, to give me a bit more depth of field tolerance for the fast moving vehicles, but with the cyclists I shot every bike at f/2, and the autofocus was dead on every time.
The lens weighs just under 3kg, so it is heavy, but it balances nicely on a pro body such as the D3, and sits nicely in the hand. Although it is a lot more comfortable to use it with a monopod, it is definitely possible to shoot hand held for extended periods of time, and the Giro shots are testament to this – I shot handheld for the whole afternoon, and didn’t feel any strain on my back.
Perhaps the biggest disadvantage of the lens though is the sheer bulk. It’s certainly not a lens that you can use inconspicuously when shooting on the street or in public for example. So it remains a very specialist lens, and one that unfortunately doesn’t see much time on my camera. But the pure quality of the images that I end up with when I do use it mean that I won’t be selling this beautiful lens without a very good reason……