D2X and 200mm F2 MF - a good match?

I'll give the combo a try, Andreas. So many lenses to be re-evaluated with D2X, it makes my head spin. Probably I'll cover the ground in the next months  

Anyway, th 200/2 of any kind (MF, AFS) is most useful set wide-open or nearly so. If you shoot repeatedly at f/5.6 -, f/8 or f/11, you have the wrong lens  

 

Despite urban legends to the opposite, using any lens on a DSLR won't change its DOF properties at all.

 

The era of digital photography has fostered a wealth of myths, the intelligent behaviour of lenses is one of them. Thus, if a lens changes DOF and focal length just by being mounted on another camera, the lens must be intelligent enough to talk to the camera and change its inherent optical properties according to the information it gets from the camera. This is of course nonsense, but a surprisingly high number of people believe this is true and believe in crop factors and suchlike.

As to CA with lenses on a film-based system ("silver halide" camera in official Nikon-speech), this is caused entirely by the optics. The film itself doesn't add to the issue.

With digital however, the picture is much more complex. Since CA typically gets worse towards the periphery of the image circle, you might think the reduced area recorded by DX-format DSLRS would avoid the most troubled outer zones. However, on a DSLR the sensor chip itself may generate CA by direct or indirect means. A typical example is light rays striking the sensor surface in an oblique angle and causing trouble for the Bayer filtering. Thus, light might spill over into adjacent pixels and register in the wrong colour. The microlenses on top of the pixel wells may cause CA. In a later stage, demosaicing may create artificial colour fringes, and so on. So there is an interaction between the lens, the way it projects its image onto the imaging chip, the pixel pitch and resolution of the sensor, and the algorithms needed to extract the completed image from the recorded data. With the introduction of the high-resolution D2X, we see that some lenses previously believed to be star performers no longer are superb, whilst others shine.

 

#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;

 

Det var bare et forsøk på å få begrepene litt mer på plass, Andreas   Men absolutt *ingen* test av 200/2 MF! Jeg vet faktisk ikke hvordan den oppfører seg med D2X.

For the rest of you folks: athe above is a test to see whether a Swede understands Norwegian, we being neighboring countries and all that

 

Go for it Andreas   That lens should be superb for shots like this one, don't you think? BTW, found this one in the middle of the Duke Point inductrial complex today - go figure.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

Very nice Rory. What is it, and what was your set-up?

Frank

 

This is another lens myth, one of my favorites. Regardless of the format of the sensor, every point of the image is formed by light that passes throught the entire lens opening. That is, a smaller sensor does not use just the center of the lens - it uses the center of the image circle - that is, the circular image made by the light that came through the entire lens.

Like you, I'm glad that Bjorn cleared up the raging controversy (well, not here,) on DOF. I like that:

Perfect. Then one understands the relationship between amount of enlargement and viewing distance (think magazine vs billboard) and you're set! Thanks to both of you for bringing up the topic.

Speaking of the topic, it's the ten grand that would hold me back. D2X, 200mm, f/2, VR, A. F. S! What's not to like. It's a night shooter's dream.

 

Andreas, I see that you are half considering a 180mm f/2.8. I wouldn't trade the quality of the images I get from mine for anything, but the mechanics of the lens, well I gotta say it, suck.

Hopefully the X's better focusing motor will be a big improvement over my D100's. Autofocus cannot follow anything moving, period. I need to switch to manual focus, then it's difficult to compose and keep an eye on the focus indicator (again the X should improve on this.) It's cumbersome to switch from autofocus to manual, as you need to switch both the camera and the lens. I don't know why they didn't make it like the 60 with a botton and ring on the lens!

Other than that, the size, weight, and did I mention image quality, all are the lens's big plusses. When shooting at night though, an extra stop would really be appreciated.

I hope you find a good 200 soon!

 

Well, I'm not quite sure what it is - I forgot to look at the tree, which was about twenty feet high and round. I'll have to go back and get more info to identity it.

The shooting specs were 500/4 1.4x 1/180s f/8 ISO 200 auto tone auto sharpening auto WB plus minor photoshot work.

 

As to your original question, Andreas, the answer is probably no. Although the lens is still very sharp, there is also more CA than I appreciate and the bokeh seems to be impaired because of this. The subject will as always be the final test, but I'm not sure my 200/2 MF will see much use on D2X given that I also own the 200/2VR.