p.10 #4 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
dmbphotography wroteBeautiful shots. I found the same, my 70-200 is gathering dust now I have the 200/2.
Interesting how your shots have beautiful green (bokeh'd) backgrounds as I have found this lens renders green beautifully, especially in even shaded light.
hello
for the shots I posted I was really careful to choose nice tree background so I was not surprised by the results, they show the different lighting I had during the 2 days shooting
I will have to use the lens longer to check if there is any color improvement over the 70-200, at this point this have not stroke me, but thank you for pointing out ... anyway I was always pleased with the 70-200 on colors !
p.10 #6 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
The more I use the lens, the deeper my appreciation becomes for the ease of handling, relatively low weight and superb AF. The 200 f/1.8 is a great lens, however, the 200 f/2.0 IS is a photography tool nearing pure all-around excellence.
p.10 #7 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
dmbphotography wrote:
Andrew love that cheeky shot of the bride looking at you.Gorgeous.
Thanks! I like it too.. still have trouble choosing between that one and the B&W version.
@Petkal- I agree, the lens is superb for handheld work. I totally get the sports photographer argument that they use a monopod (so IS and hand-held balance is not so important) + the 1.8 lens is 2/3 stop faster, which gives more SS which is crucial, but for candids and portraiture work, the new lens is much better. Like a 135L on steroids with IS
p.10 #18 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
Nick-San, the last two images in particular appeal to my sense of "nice photography".
BTW, is that Mark Rich strumming the guitar ? Boy, has he ever aged.
p.10 #19 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
PetKal wrote:
Nick-San, the last two images in particular appeal to my sense of "nice photography".
BTW, is that Mark Rich strumming the guitar ? Boy, has he ever aged.
Peter, +1 for me. The "IS" does it well in these shots while the "NON-IS" might need mono/tripod pod to get the same images (with some luck). I am still thinking about f1.8
p.10 #20 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
mttran wrote:
Peter, +1 for me. The "IS" does it well in these shots while the "NON-IS" might need mono/tripod pod to get the same images (with some luck). I am still thinking about f1.8
Michael, I can push 200 f/1.8 down to 1/250 sec if my arms are not tired. If I am able too lean against a tree or a building, or prop the lens on a fence, handrail, whatever, then 1/250 sec is not a problem for me. However, I wouldn't wanna shoot scenes like those at low shutter speeds anyway because of the subject motion blur concerns.
You will love 200 f/1.8, I am sure of that.
)
