The 200/2L has been earning its keep lately. These images were all done hand-held with the lens wide open, ISO 50 & 100 on 1DsMkIII, using two or three stand-mounted 580EXII (main with softbox, kickers hard light).
A few have 100% crops to show how accurate the AF is.
I used the 200/2.8 and 135/2 last year. They're both great pieces, but this is in a league of its own. (I know, I know, and so is the price)
Great lighting and artistic work! I think the lens only enhances the talent you already have. These images leap off the page. I would have loved to have had senior pictures like this! I think you'll be stopping yearbook flipping with these...
jhartman wrote:
I used the 200/2.8 and 135/2 last year. They're both great pieces, but this is in a league of its own. (I know, I know, and so is the price)
Great looking photos. I've seen local photographers charge a lot for senior portraits that don't look anywhere near as nice as these. Hopefully, "the price" of the 200/2 will be paid for soon, as seniors and their parents should be flocking to you.
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Awesome but when I saw your heading my first thought was senior citizens I guess when you get my age you forget about any other seniors
- No offense, I believe this senior group is more pleasing to the eyes. Don't worry, we could be in the same age group, too .
My compliment to the OP - Those are some great shots!
The lens does amazing things with the background, but you are a master portrait photographer. Wonderful skill, amazing lighting work, such natural work with the poses and the settings. Truly stunning work. This is why I tell people who like my pics, that I might be a decent photographer. When I'm having a good day, I might go so far as to say I'm approaching being a good photographer, but I am nowhere NEAR a great photographer. You, sir, are a great photographer.
if i buy this lens will my pics look this good?
+1
Now these pics are awsome, but I would love to see the same pics taken with a 135/2, using the same lightning and post proc. Admit though those 1:1 crops are gorgeous!
How large must the picture be to see the difference between a 135 and 200?
"How large must the picture be to see the difference between a 135 and 200?"
Thanks all for the nice comments. I feel incredibly blessed and privileged to have been able to earn my way through life in this profession for the past 36 years. This truly is the Golden Age of photography.
WebDog, the 135 and 200/2.8 are great lenses, don't get me wrong. Where the 200/2 shines is in the AF, in my opinion. I use spot focus, and move the focus point around with the joystick, so I don't focus and recompose. But the 200/2 has way more keepers, to the point where almost every image is sharp as a tack (my focus point is always the near eye, and the eyelashes of the near eye if it's a closeup). The 135 and 200/2.8 have many keepers, but they're nowhere near as accurate, percentage-wise. For me, when I do this all day long, that additional accuracy is very well worth the extra weight, fuss factor and expense. Additionally, the bokeh on the 200/2 is visually better than the others.
I did tests on all three lenses with the same subject, and the 200/2 is noticeably sharper. But without it to compare, the 135 and 200/2.8 are both excellent lenses.
I guess when you get my age you forget about any other seniors 
I think most all of them were! It's where ya put yer feet 