Two 200mm F2 options for mirrorless announced

[Macro_Cosmos]

1. Sigma
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/s025_200_2/
This lens can be adapted to the Z-mount.

2. Laowa
Laowa flew the idea of a 200mm F2 lens with autofocus since mirrorless cameras from Canon and Nikon took off a few years ago.  It was quite exciting for me to see something finally being released.
https://photorumors.com/tag/venus-optics-laowa-af-200mm-f-2/

It is nice to see them still at it with rather unique lenses instead of racing to the bottom with another F1.8 'cheaper alternative' to the big 3.

[ColinM]

Thanks
Fascinating watching the online reviews of this.

But....bring your own biceps to help with hand holding 

[Frank Fremerey]

Thanks
Fascinating watching the online reviews of this.

Apparently, extra biceps to help with hand holding arent included in the extras 

I still like the 2.0/200VR by Nikon whicjh I already own. Nice thing about LAOWA is that the weight is significantly reduced
A Nikkor 2.0/200 with PF-construction and half the weight of the AF-S would be very tempting. The Biceps I already have

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I still like the 2.0/200VR by Nikon whicjh I already own. Nice thing about LAOWA is that the weight is significantly reduced
A Nikkor 2.0/200 with PF-construction and half the weight of the AF-S would be very tempting. The Biceps I already have

PF would not reduce the weight and size of a very wide-aperture lens that much, they can do it without PF most likely, similar to how Sony was able to make a 300/2.8 that's very lightweight or Nikon with their 400/4.5 none of which use diffractive optics.

Bokeh would be adversely affected by a PF design as well.

[Akira]

Canon abandoned their DO element (PF in Nikon term) from the high-end lenses, possibly because of the flare issue which is inherent and cannot be solved by the lens coating.

I guess that Sigma decided to stay away from the diffraction optics from the outset.  Apparently, both Canon and Nikon are abandoning optical designs using PF elements.

The new Sigma 200/2.0 doesn't accept TC, which may disappoint some potential buyers a bit.

[Frank Fremerey]

PF would not reduce the weight and size of a very wide-aperture lens that much, they can do it without PF most likely, similar to how Sony was able to make a 300/2.8 that's very lightweight or Nikon with their 400/4.5 none of which use diffractive optics.

I love the 4.5/400Z very much. How light weight could a 2/200 be with that kind of construction?

[Frank Fremerey]

Official site of Sigma with preorder for 3.499,00 €: https://shop.sigma-foto.de/sigma-200mm-f2-dg-os-sports
No mention of Nikon Z though1800g for Sony E-Mount





US-Site: https://www.sigmaphoto.com/200mm-f2-dg-os-s$3,299 (note that Euro-Prices include VAT, US-Prices do not)

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I guess that Sigma decided to stay away from the diffraction optics from the outset.  Apparently, both Canon and Nikon are abandoning optical designs using PF elements.

Nikon did make 600/6.3 and 800/6.3 with PF designs and I know many bird photographers love these lenses. Lightweight, very sharp and contrasty, but to my eye it never quite looks as natural as the conventional refractive versions.

Today it seems possible to make similar weight savings with other approaches, at least for many focal length / aperture combinations.

I think a Nikon 200/2 made with non-PF design could be of similar weight as the Sony 300/2.8 which is 1470g. I would be very happy if they do.

[Akira]

Nikon did make 600/6.3 and 800/6.3 with PF designs and I know many bird photographers love these lenses. Lightweight, very sharp and contrasty, but to my eye it never quite looks as natural as the conventional refractive versions.

Today it seems possible to make similar weight savings with other approaches, at least for many focal length / aperture combinations.

I think a Nikon 200/2 made with non-PF design could be of similar weight as the Sony 300/2.8 which is 1470g. I would be very happy if they do.

Oh, I missed those Z teles.  But the flare problem of PF elements seems to be more serious on faster lens like 400/2.8 which should be even more benefited otherwise.

[Frank Fremerey]

Today it seems possible to make similar weight savings with other approaches, at least for many focal length / aperture combinations.
I think a Nikon 200/2 made with non-PF design could be of similar weight as the Sony 300/2.8 which is 1470g. I would be very happy if they do.

The main reason I do not use my 2/200VR so much is the hefty weight of 3 kliogramm

[Birna Rørslett]

The 200/2 is a small boat anchor and thus can be hand-held on occasion. The *true* boat anchor of thre Nikkors was the 300mm f/2 ED-IF; both extremely heavy > 7kg, and with a fat and short barrel that made carrying it slung over your shoulder meant you had bruices all over as the massive piece of metal rolled around.

The 300/2 Nikkor was the first - and only -- lens I have sold because I couldn't manage it in the field.

[ColinM]

Thank you to Birna, and others.
This has sent me down a wonderful rabbit hole

Back to the 200mm focal length, did any of you ever get to play with Canon's f1.8 version?

[Birna Rørslett]

A colleague had the Canon 200/1.8. White, heavy, sharp, and didn't fit my Nikons

I did keep the special TC 14C bundled with the 300/2, though. It worked well on my 200/2 ED-IF and the 500/4 P.

 

[ColinM]

Ahh...it seems the bar may be higher than I realised

[Akira]

Christopher Frost reviews Canon 400m/2.0 lens;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCGTKL7PKtc