I've read many views that the 200/2 is not that much different to the 70-200 @ f2.8. What are your thoughts on this? I'm interested as the 200/2 is on my wish list but I have the 70-200/2.8. Isn't there a 200 f2 thread somewhere with loads of sample pics....?
ct8282 wrote:
I've read many views that the 200/2 is not that much different to the 70-200 @ f2.8. What are your thoughts on this? I'm interested as the 200/2 is on my wish list but I have the 70-200/2.8. Isn't there a 200 f2 thread somewhere with loads of sample pics....?
oh there is lot of differences
- for person photography it is huge difference because at MFD you lose lot of lenght as 70-200 is only about 150mm. For portraits you want as much as you can get. 600mm is optimal but 400/f4 or 200/2 (with this lens) gets you started.
- the background is much nicer on 70-200 because there is no background on 200/f2
- they are about same size, 200 is just little fatter, so it is not like hulking 600/4
- 70-200 quite sucks at f2
- they focus about same fast but in low light you get advantage with 200/2
EB-1 wrote:
Most of those are hardly a fantasy, since one can easily go out and buy them now.
EBH
Well, mine are fantasy purchases. My NAS was being satisfied, then 4 months ago I bought a house and we had our first baby 3 months ago, so I no longer have any money, let alone enough for a 200 f2 or 300 f2.8.
- for person photography it is huge difference because at MFD you lose lot of lenght as 70-200 is only about 150mm. For portraits you want as much as you can get. 600mm is optimal but 400/f4 or 200/2 (with this lens) gets you started.
- the background is much nicer on 70-200 because there is no background on 200/f2
- they are about same size, 200 is just little fatter, so it is not like hulking 600/4
- 70-200 quite sucks at f2
- they focus about same fast but in low light you get advantage with 200/2
Kittyk wrote:
Well instead D400 with 55f1.2 you can buy D800 with 85 f1.4 :-)
Yea, but I don't want an FX camera. At the long end, the lens kit needed becomes to damb big and bulky for my liking even if I could afford anything I wanted.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Yea, but I don't want an FX camera. At the long end, the lens kit needed becomes to damb big and bulky for my liking even if I could afford anything I wanted.
D800 is also awesome DX camera which have resolution of D4 and lets you magically expand your image if you accidentally make bad composition
600mm is perfect for full body portraits. It lets you pick background even if you are shooting in cluttered city, is very flattering for almost all body types (rotating 1° removes 20kg of weight, extend lengs for 10cm, reduces butt size for two steps,...) and the distance also helps for PP, because hard contrast transitions stay there (eylashes, hairs towards background, clothes) but low contrast not that much (skin blemishes). It is a little easier to PP later. Also you never hit sun in frame unless you really do everything for to have it there, same for clouds. You can pick one lonely dramatically lit cloud and make it matter.
as for disadvantages, thats what walkie talkies are for. i have one on loud modus velcroed to light stand
if they sit or stay on same place (what they should anyway because of light) you can remote your camera and sit next to them interact eye to eye. not with some 120cm black hole stuck in their face.
nuff said that since i started to use MF again, my 500 i used so often lays in the cellar and is so sad that it wont speak to anyone.
Kittyk wrote:
D800 is also awesome DX camera which have resolution of D4 and lets you magically expand your image if you accidentally make bad composition
Frame rate is too slow and I don't care to crop every image after the fact.
600mm is perfect for full body portraits. It lets you pick background even if you are shooting in cluttered city, is very flattering for almost all body types (rotating 1° removes 20kg of weight, extend lengs for 10cm, reduces butt size for two steps,...) and the distance also helps for PP, because hard contrast transitions stay there (eylashes, hairs towards background, clothes) but low contrast not that much (skin blemishes). It is a little easier to PP later. Also you never hit sun in frame unless you really do everything for to have it there, same for clouds. You can pick one lonely dramatically lit cloud and make it matter.
as for disadvantages, thats what walkie talkies are for. i have one on loud modus velcroed to light stand
nuff said that since i started to use MF again, my 500 i used so often lays in the cellar and is so sad that it wont speak to anyone....Show more →
I have to give you credit Kitty, you think differently. I do have to agree, long tele lenses take great portraits.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Frame rate is too slow and I don't care to crop every image after the fact.
i dont believe that Photographer like you needs the framerate. and cropping can be done in camera and your favorite raw converter for you automatically
come on, dont be so stubborn, you know you want it.
Nov 26, 2012 at 09:39 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
600mm is perfect for full body portraits. It lets you pick background even if you are shooting in cluttered city, is very flattering for almost all body types (rotating 1° removes 20kg of weight, extend lengs for 10cm, reduces butt size for two steps,...) and the distance also helps for PP, because hard contrast transitions stay there (eylashes, hairs towards background, clothes) but low contrast not that much (skin blemishes). It is a little easier to PP later. Also you never hit sun in frame unless you really do everything for to have it there, same for clouds. You can pick one lonely dramatically lit cloud and make it matter.
as for disadvantages, thats what walkie talkies are for. i have one on loud modus velcroed to light stand
nuff said that since i started to use MF again, my 500 i used so often lays in the cellar and is so sad that it wont speak to anyone....Show more →
I have to give you credit Kitty, you think differently. I do have to agree, long tele lenses take great portraits.
Nov 26, 2012 at 09:40 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Kittyk wrote:
i dont believe that Photographer like you needs the framerate. and cropping can be done in camera and your favorite raw converter for you automatically
come on, dont be so stubborn, you know you want it.
Oh sure, a D600 with a nice 85 f/1.4 and a 24-70 for general purpose work & family events would be very nice indeed. If I did do FX, it would be limited to those areas where FX has the clear advantage such as what I just described.
But, then again, I still want the D400 for sports/wildlife and since DX is my "complete go anywhere do anything kit" I still need the 55 f/1.2 and would love a 120-300 f/2.8 ... I could only imagine the size of a 180-450 f/2.8 for FX !!!!!!
As for frame rate, I'm not sure why a "photographer like me" would not need the frame rate. I do a lot of sports, panning shots and kids at play. Timing is still important, but frame rate can be a great tool when combined with good timing.
Nov 26, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
. 
