Nikon 200 f2. comments?

[naseby1645]

Has anyone any experience of the Nikon 200 f2 VR lens? I am hoping to purchase this to use on a D200, and am looking to use it with the Nikon tele converters giving me a range (35mm equivalent)from a 300 f2 through to 600f4 taking into account the 1.5 magnification the D200 gives. I am thinking of a new
300 f2.8 as an alternative but feel that the minimum 450mm equivalent on my camera wont give me enough flexibility for wildlife at lower magnifications.
Any advice or suggestions appreciated. Looking to shoot birds and other wildlife but trying to remain 'compact' with my travel gear.
Thanks

[yossi]

I've tried this lens and it's superb. TCs work fine with it.
I was considering it too, but I've decided to go for the 200-400/4 AFS VR.
The zoom option, the fact that I do not have to stress it with large TCs (even though it works) and the price which is not far from the 200/2 made me got for it.
The 200-400 is a bit longer and heavier, but is still manageable. If you use the TC 20EII with it, you can obtain an 800mm lens, and with the crop factor taken into account, it actually becomes a 1200mm lens.
I didn't find any use for the 200/2 - which is best suitable for shooting sports in closed places. I do not shoot sports.
For nature, birds and wildlife - the 200-400/4 or the fixed 500/4 are the best choices IMHO.

[naseby1645]

Thanks Yossi, I’m still in a bit of a dilemma as I appreciate just how good the 200f2 lens is, and the fact that its reasonably compact is also great for travel/safari/general wildlife viewing.
If anyone has or is using this lens with converters it would be interesting to know if they found a longer lens such as the 300f2.8 was a significant improvement. In the UK there is approx £600 difference between the two and that would buy me the 1.4 and 1.7 converters.

[Andy Bright]

From accounts I have read , the 200/2 VR + teleconverter doesn't seem to give the quality that a 300/2.8 VR will give. Ultimately, if you need the reach, it's best to get there with as much lens focal length as possible rather than with the use of teleconverters.

I really can't see the advantages of the 200/2 over the 300/2.8 from a bird photography perspective, and that is the general consensus of opinion as well. The 200/2 is clearly a great lens but it's strengths are more suited to other forms of photography (close-range sports)

If you're interested in having a reasonably compact handheld lens.. I'd strongly suggest the 300/2.8 VR. I have just purchased this lens ( see HERE (http://www.digiscoped.com/Nikon300mmVR.html) ) for handheld use and it is superb. If you intend using some form of support, then the 200-400 VR is the logical option if you want VR.

Cheers,
Andy

[naseby1645]

Andy, Thanks for your input, I guess it will be the 300 f2.8 VR after all, has anyone tried this with the X2 Nikon converter and if so what were the results like? (I will be getting a 1.4 and 1.7)

Thanks

Bill.

[Neil]

I have the 300/2.8 AFS,VR and agree it is a great lens. I find though it is heavy to carry around all day and for long periods without a tripod/monopod ( perhaps I need to do some weight training ). I'm thinking of getting the 70-200/2.8 AFS,VR or the 300/f4 AFS and the 1.7x tele as my walking around/travel lens to use with my D2x. In Crop Mode on the D2x the 300/f4 becomes a 600/f4 and the 1.7x makes it equivalent to 1020 mm lens (although f5.6 ). Neil.