Whether it be nikon or canon version if I mainly do outdoor swimwear shoots at beach would you opt for the 200 over 300? I was leaning towards 300 in case I needed longer focal length for things other than outdoor portrait type images?
outdoor swimwear shoots at the beach? Unless you are talking about candid/ voyeuristic type South Beach shots from a long distance, I wouldn't think either lens would be the choice. Maybe more detail of what and how you are shooting might help.
FWIW, I have the 200 2.0 and the 300 2.8 IS v.1 and I think that the 200 2.0 is a faster focusing, sharper, better built lens. Considering that I thought my 300 2.8 IS was my best lens until I got the 200 should tell you how good the 200 is.
If you are shooting swimwear, you are looking for full body and decent DOF (I would assume) which would mean that a 200 2.0 or 300 2.8 are too long and too fast for your needs...You would be paying for something that you don't need. Get a 50mm, 85mm or some other prime for a fraction of the price.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your use.
Best of luck,
Peter
pjbuehner wrote:
...You would be paying for something that you don't need. Get a 50mm, 85mm or some other prime for a fraction of the price.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your use.
Best of luck,
Peter
Maybe you should check his profile, before telling him what to buy...
pjbuehner wrote:
Actually his profile says that he is leaning towards buying the following...not that he owns it
Oops! Sorry for the unwarranted scolding. My bad. Given that I don't have the absolutely fabulous assignment of shooting "outdoor swimwear shoots at beach", I figured maybe it was because of proximity to salt water, or [mumble, mumble...].
The only lens I have on your wish list is the 85/1.2. I have used a 300/2.8 at the beach and it does give a nice blurred background of the water, but it does put you at quite a distance from the subject. I have the 300/2.8 IS mark i and not the mark 2, but I am unclear why you would spend for the mark 2. I also have the 70-200/2.8 mark 2 (had the mark 1). You may want to consider that combination the 70-200 mark 2 is unbelievably stellar. I use the 85/1.2 to round them off, it is my favorite portrait lens even when I shoot it at f>2, the colors pop.
jcolwell wrote:
Oops! Sorry for the unwarranted scolding. My bad. Given that I don't have the absolutely fabulous assignment of shooting "outdoor swimwear shoots at beach", I figured maybe it was because of proximity to salt water, or [mumble, mumble...].
Anyway - sorry.
No worries friend. Have a great night. Trust me, I'm not shooting swimwear models up here in Maine
All the best,
Peter
I can't speak for the 300 but I can say from experience with the 200 1.8L that 200 is at the outside edge of being able to work with talent for full body portraits and I can't imagine needing to melt the background more than I can with the 200 1.8. It also makes a Damn fine 280 f2.5 lens with the TC 1.4III... I love fast 200s and I see the next step above that to be the 400 since I can get so close to what at 300 can do with my TC. You can't have every lens right? I will not give up my 200 and my first longer lens will be 400.
BUSTED!!!!!