but I just can't resist, a crop of my "worst" corner, upper left, with my new 85 1.4 :biggrin: Of course it was very hard to identify a "worst" corner since they are all pretty good. I think I have a great copy. Shot at f1.4, 1/4000 second, from about 3' away. Handheld just for fun, but the tripod shots were not much different at this shutter speed. All of my tests show that it is pretty darn good at 1.4 and gets maximum sharpness at f4 on up. But boy, at 1.4 and at close distances, your dof is super narrow! No backfocus issues either. Pinpoint accurate. oh and by the way, the 35mm f2 is very very nice too. A song comes to mind "Heaven,.....I'm in Heaven" The 85 1.4 and 35mm f2, are now among a quartet with the 180 2.8, and 200VR, for sharpest lenses in my kit. Color and contrast winners are still the big telephotos for now until I get some shots on real subjects with the new lenses. Cheers, Happy lusting Wade
Wade, sorry to say this, but I think you are seriously wrong here. I can detect quite a bit of softness in various parts of this image. The lines do not converge properly in the center, and the ruler markings are not at all consistent. In order to help you sort this out, I would suggest that you send the lens to me where I can test this much more thoroughly for you over the next 24 months or so. I will very carefully test this side-by-side with my 85 1.8 during the high school basketball season and report both on sharpness as well as focus speed. I would only make this offer to a fellow forum member, let me know when you are ready to ship and I'll send you my address. (so, do you think he will fall for it? No, you fool, I think you should put your glasses back on :wink: ) To be honest, Wade, waving these bits in front of people is really quite unfair. Of course you will now have the joy of knowing that you are helping to spend other folks money :biggrin:
Thanks so much, and I already am enjoying it. Never knew that lens testing could be so "thrilling" Wade
That is how I ended up with the 200VR, Ron and others extolling the virtues of the lens. and UF and his beast, now I am almost glad I got a bad beast copy, this is to much fun. anyway...... I figured it is the least I could do to help other addicts and lusters. Wade
Hi Wade! I like to shoot the occsional rez target myself. They are especially frisky in the fall, don't you think? :wink: I have the 35 f/2 and 180 f/2.8 and I agree that these are magically special lenses. I'm curious though. I would consider the 200vr a replacement for the 180, not a compliment. How do you justify that, especially considering the slow focus issues the 180 has? Is it a size thing?
Chris and Paul Chris and Paul, great comments and questions. I have nearly sold the 180mm 2.8 lens several times since getting the 200VR, but the lens is just so light and useful for carrying around in general use. When I hike, walk, go to an outdoor event that doesn't require fast focus, I used to take the 24-120VR and the 180mm prime. Now I will take the 35mm and the 180mm and maybe the 85mm, or another setup that is very flexible, my 12-24mm and 85mm, and 180mm. That seems to be what I shoot mostly, wide and tele. The 180 is also just a nice unobtrusive long range portrait/street lens. Also it was the first "pro" lens I bought and I tend to get sentimental with equipment. :wink: 200VR? 2 reasons: I bought the 200VR for wildlife/birding to have a second lens/camera setup when I was stationary at a blind or location with the 200-400VR. Some of my best Eagle/Bird shots came with the 300f4 AFS while I was setup with the 200-400 at a nest or water hole and things were happening behind me. Also, I needed the shutter speed with the f2 or 2.8 with a 1.4 attached to help with flight shots in the golden light time periods. The 300f4 just was to slow for that even with iso 400 (I never shoot higher than iso 400 for wildlife since I tend to crop these images a lot.) I am hoping that with the d200 the focus will be faster and I can use iso 800 and have more crop room. The other "PRIME" reason for the lens was indoor dance recital, and indoor theatre/concert photography which I do a lot. Here the speed of the 200VR vs the 180 2.8 is a huge difference, and the VR helps with my handholding of the lens. Even with the small light 180 when I was shooting at ISO 800 or 1600 at 2.8 I was only getting a shutter speed of 1/100 to 1/250, maybe a bit more, now I can shoot at 800 ISO in most good theatre lighting situations and get 1/300 - 1/400. Helps with Dance Blur. Well, some long explanations, thanks for taking the time to read and trying to understand my thought process. Wade
