Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR vs Nikon AF-D 85/1.4, 105 DC, 135 DC, 180/2.8

[Erik Lund]

The 200mm AFS f/2.0 in used condition is not that expensive and it can replace all of these lenses in your list:


Zeiss 85/1.4, Zeiss 100/2, Zeiss 135/2, Nikon AF-D 85mm f/1.4, Nikon AF-D 105mm f/2 DC, Nikon AF-D 135mm f/2 DC, Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8, Nikon AI 300mm f/2.8

[Jedi]

The 200mm AFS f/2.0 in used condition is not that expensive and it can replace all of these lenses in your list:


Zeiss 85/1.4, Zeiss 100/2, Zeiss 135/2, Nikon AF-D 85mm f/1.4, Nikon AF-D 105mm f/2 DC, Nikon AF-D 135mm f/2 DC, Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8, Nikon AI 300mm f/2.8

I am not agree. A 200mm can't replace an 85mm, a 100mm or a 135mm. I will never sell a Zeiss furthermore. A 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom could do it,ma only in terms of focal lenghts, because, as I learned, 85/1.4 AF-D, 105mm f/2 DC and 135mm f/2 DC are specific tools for portrait, because they're faster (first of all 85/1.4) and have got Defocus Control (105mm and 135mm DC).

[Jedi]

I am not agree. A 200mm can't replace an 85mm, a 100mm or a 135mm. I will never sell a Zeiss furthermore. A 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom could do it,ma only in terms of focal lenghts, because, as I learned, 85/1.4 AF-D, 105mm f/2 DC and 135mm f/2 DC are specific tools for portrait, because they're faster (first of all 85/1.4) and have got Defocus Control (105mm and 135mm DC).

...... I learned in this topic!!

For my landscapes I use Zeiss, from 21mm to 135mm (in the range of 70-200mm range I use Zeiss 85/1.4, 100/2, 135/2, of course). My doubts with this topic were at the beginning about bokeh, colours, contrast of new Nikon lenses, tonal passages and sharpness for portrait....... and then I'm searching for a great lens around 180mm-200mm to complete over 135mm for landscapes....

[Erik Lund]

We are all constantly learning and evolving


The 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses are Pro everything photo journalist lenses and does everything to almost perfection.


I of course agree that the 200mm can't exactly replace shorter focal lengths, however it can mimic the look and feel or even surpass it, depending on style:


For my work ie. If you are able to manipulate distance to subject and subject distance to back ground, then the 200mm f/2 can replace/surpass the 85mm f/1.4 and 105 DC, 135 DC as well as 180mm and 300mm (maybe except the 300mm f/2 I have never used it)

What i'm trying to say is;


With the complex internal focusing and floating element lens designs of later years the shear size of the front and rear elements and of course the overall design, makes for different qualities not related directly to focal length and aperture value.


To our advantage we now can pick now from many different looks

[Jedi]

I have seen some my friend's pictures with D810 and 70-200mm f/2.8 FL and,  in my modest opinion, for my little experience, the 70-200mm f/2.8 seems to be very very contrasted, much more than my 105mm f/2 DC and 135mm f/2 DC, the bokeh of 70-200mm is very nervous, less fluid, less flowing. On the landscape 70-200mm FL APPEARS very, very sharp, but on the faces of persons, it destroyes their faces. Maybe my friend can't use very well, so I've searched for others pictures and I've found also these pictures......

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2611259

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2610042

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2611258&l=it

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2367058

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2659127

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2067315

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2461888

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2389497

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2521904

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2391321

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2600084

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2599995

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2684732

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2652934

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2495306


Here the 70-200mm is too much contrasted, is it true? Are you agree?

What can you see to me about this aspect? For over 135mm I would be able to use the Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8 in manual focus for landscapes and AF for portraits and street and not buy the 70-200mm...... For landscapes until 135mm I use Zeiss; for portraits Nikon 85/1.4, 105 DC and 135mm DC.

[MFloyd]

Five pages. But for what ? The 180 mm is not sharp enough; the 70-200mm is too sharp / « contrasted ». Make up your mind. End of story.

[Jedi]

Five pages. But for what ? The 180 mm is not sharp enough; the 70-200mm is too sharp / « contrasted ». Make up your mind. End of story.

Thank you.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

It's true the 70-200/2.8 FL is very contrasty. The only situation where I find this to be a problem is in dim indoor available light where it can be that a high contrast lens renders the shadows so dark that they're significantly affected by noise whereas a low-contrast lens may not lead to this effect. I haven't studied it in detail, it just has been my impression. In reasonable daylight or in the studio I really like the 70-200/2.8 FL and it has become my go-to lens for tight portraits in the studio. I tend to use fast primes in indoor available light and my primes are not quite so contrasty as this zoom. I guess there is much that is subjective about these matters.  Generally the 70-200/2.8 FL is very much to my liking although I've been a fan of the primes for a long time. I do find that the zoom does not have as nice bokeh as most Nikon tele primes especially there can be some weird effects in the out of focus areas in front of the subject. However, the bokeh behind the subject (which is typically more important) is improved from the VR 70-200/2.8 G II version.

[Jedi]

It's true the 70-200/2.8 FL is very contrasty. The only situation where I find this to be a problem is in dim indoor available light where it can be that a high contrast lens renders the shadows so dark that they're significantly affected by noise whereas a low-contrast lens may not lead to this effect. I haven't studied it in detail, it just has been my impression. In reasonable daylight or in the studio I really like the 70-200/2.8 FL and it has become my go-to lens for tight portraits in the studio. I tend to use fast primes in indoor available light and my primes are not quite so contrasty as this zoom. I guess there is much that is subjective about these matters.  Generally the 70-200/2.8 FL is very much to my liking although I've been a fan of the primes for a long time. I do find that the zoom does not have as nice bokeh as most Nikon tele primes especially there can be some weird effects in the out of focus areas in front of the subject. However, the bokeh behind the subject (which is typically more important) is improved from the VR 70-200/2.8 G II version.

Thank you!!

Thank you very much!! Your experiences and impressions are very precious for me. Probably you have got my same subjective tastes about personality of lenses and when you can understand that and which is the personality of the lenses, the door of photography opens up to you and climbs a step further in this magical world. I discovered magical word of bokehand delicate character, footprint of the Nikon DC lenses and I'm not sure to buy the 70-200, for this different character.

Unfortunately, often those who have no sensitivity to these things also come to offend others. However, a forum is also a place to exchange opinions respecting others. 

[Alaun]

Do you use a filter in front of the 180mm?

I had problems using any kind of filter on that lens, without filter everything was fine.

[Jedi]

Do you use a filter in front of the 180mm?

I had problems using any kind of filter on that lens, without filter everything was fine.

Yes, Nikon uv always mounted.

[Erik Lund]

I would also strongly suggest to remove all filters!

[Akira]

Do you use a filter in front of the 180mm?

I had problems using any kind of filter on that lens, without filter everything was fine.

Good point, Werner!  I'd had the same problem with the 50/1.8G used for distant shots, which was solved by removing the protection filter.  Even a high quality filter caused that problem.

[Jedi]

Good point, Werner!  I'd had the same problem with the 50/1.8G used for distant shots, which was solved by removing the protection filter.  Even a high quality filter caused that problem.

Tomorrow I will try with and withoout filter for distant subjects. Thanks!!!!!!!

[David H. Hartman]

Yes I have, i own it. And I described my impression based on my experience with my sample. I took the word agressive as it was there, being aware that it is not a too precise descriptoin Compared to the 135 DC or 105/2,5 it is less soft and less forgiving in showing details. Sometimes that is good sometimes other lenses are a better choice. The AF-S 200/2 is something completely different btw

I don't see a very sharp lens as a problem for portraiture. Too sharp? Try a UV filter with a little nose grease. I'm not kidding.

Another approach is to spray the inside surface of an older multi-coated UV filter with a light or very light over spray of flat black paint. A mist of black dots will cause diffraction that is available at large apertures. This is a home made Harrison and Harrison black dot filter used in Hollywood to soften the skin of older leading men filmed against younger leading ladies.

One might use a lower megapixel camera with an AA filter and use no sharpening at all or maybe just for the eyes.

A post processing possibility is to create a "plastic skin" layer over a normal resolution and sharpness layer. The drop the opacity of the plastic skin until it subtly takes the edge off the sharper layer, maybe 10% to 15% opacity for the top layer. What you end up with is not plastic skin but a softer, kinder version of reality. 

My 2 cents is it's easier to deal with a lens that a bit too sharp than with one that's not sharp enough. The ideas above didn't mention soft light v. hard light which is another way of mitigating a lens that's too sharp.

Dave Hartman