QUESTION:

On Feb 18, 2006, at 11:19 AM, trever wrote:

hi mike,
i am studying photography in california right now and am a HUGE fan of your work.....(congrats on the wedding style cover). anyways....i had a quick question. in your toolbox, it says you have 70-200 and then you have a 200mm. what is the difference (besides aperture) from that lens compared to having a zoom extended to 200mm. i obviously see the price is a big difference. thanks a ton!

trever

ANSWER:

On Feb 18, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Mike Colón wrote:

Hey Trever, Thanks for the kind note! The 200mm 2.0 VR is not a very practical lens given the price ($4-5K) and weight (6.4 lbs), but I have to say that it is worth every penny and every drop of sweat spent lugging it around. The main difference is in the aperture. It gives my images a very distinct separation of subject and background. Since its max aperture is 2.0 instead of 2.8 (like the 70-200mm) it allows twice as much light in, which paired with the VR feature is quite handy in low light situations. It is also an amazingly sharp lens because it's got a fixed focal length (no moving pieces to soften the optics), although the 70-200mm is quite impressive even with the zoom. It's lenses like these that will help your work stand out from the pack. This lens does not, however, replace the 70-200mm which is an all time favorite of mine. Is it worth $5K? That depends on what $4-5K means to you. IMO... this is not a lens to get into debt over but if money is not an issue, I say get it. You will LOVE it! For more info on this lens CLICK HERE.

Hope that helps!
Mike

IMAGE ON LEFT TAKEN WITH:  AF-S VR Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED Lens