"Have you ever shot the 200/2.8L in a similar way, and how did
you like the results? I know the 200/2L is in another league, but I personally
like a little greater depth of field for most of what I shoot, and I'm curious how
close to this look I could get with the (much) cheaper lens [which I already own]."
tim,
I used both the 135/2L and 200/2.8L last summer. Both produced stellar images, though 100% crops and identical print enlargements showed the 200/2 to be noticeably sharper when viewed side by side. Again, the biggest difference I noticed was how accurate the AF is on the 200/2. It really locks on to the focus spot, and provides a significantly higher number of images that are sharp where I intended them to be, which is ultimately more important than having the sharpest lens. It just so happens that the 200/2 is both accurate and sharp. I'm thinking it also may have something to do with the IS, though the duds from the 135 and 200/2.8 weren't blurry from camera shake, just from not nailing the focus.
But to answer your question, you must have really good reason or just plain deep pockets to justify the extra stop. I actually borrowed the lens last year from Canon's CPS program and tried it for several weeks. Even then, it was a stretch, but I now don't regret at all. Of course, it's paid for itself dozens of times over in the several months I've owned it, so it's been a good value for me. It's a highly specialized piece, however - I'm definitely not recommending it for everyone.
"Do you have any experience with the 200/1.8 to draw comparison from (200/1.8 vs. 200/2 in the AF department)?"
Jacob D, I have not used the 1.8 but have read comments from the few who have used both and they appear pretty similar in most respects, with the weight nod going to the 200/2. I can only guess that in the ensuing years since the development of the 1.8 improvements were made to both the AF and IS systems, but that's only an uneducated guess.
You said that you use the RadioPopper PXs. I'm new to wireless and trying to understand. So I have to buy the Radio Popper PX Transmitter, Radio Popper PX Receiver, and a Canon ST-E2 as well? Or am I missing something? I must be missing something because that's like $720 for all three.
I had the chance to try this lens in a workshop organizaed by Canon (Spain) and got stunned by its quality.
This is one of the (too many!) L lenses in my wish list. The problem is that I don't know whether to choose this one or the 1.8 discontinued version...
Indeed, I love my 200F2 as well. Other then portrait, I find this lens is also superb for indoor sports. The ability to hand hold this lens and shoot is also a real plus.
I have also shot portraits with the 85F1.2 and 135F2....some how the 200F2 gives that magic that I cannot describe in words.
I have nothing to contribute, but wanted to say big thanks to jhartman for not only posting some great examples of his work, but explaining his technique.
I had CPS send me a 300/2.8 a year before trying the 200/2 and my main complaint about it (besides that I needed a winch to help me hold it) was the poor close focus range. Tight head shots were only possible using ether the smallest extension tube or the 1.4 extender. Also, for typical portraits, I like to have a conversation with the subject, and with the 300 we had to use walkie-talkies ;-)
I agree, however, that you should get a similar look with the 300. Post some of your experiments!
JoshGTL wrote:
I have nothing to contribute, but wanted to say big thanks to jhartman for not only posting some great examples of his work, but explaining his technique.
You sir, are a champion.
Nothing else I can add but I think Josh expressed what I wanted to say the best.
Thanks for sharing the images and your knowledge. Wish I lived in WI.
These pictures are especially notable because the style complements the subject's expectations and their generation. We will never go back to: "Look over your shoulder and smile-Next!" Then, for an extra charge, the B&W is, pathetically, "tinted."
But back to the 200 F2.0: I believe it's virtually unique (you hear similar things about the older design Nikkor)-at least compared to all my other many lenses. Yes, the 135L might be closest. Realize 200mm @ F2.0 has less DOF than a 85L @ F1.2. Four stop (+) IS makes this lens, if anything more useful for available light hand held candids.
Such special IQ (I sold my 300mm f2.8 because it suffered by comparison!) nothing else looks quite like this lens. I actually spent lots of time in PP "shopping" my pictures (colors, contrast, etc.) to look like the 200 F2.0 image right out of the camera. Often "The Difference" is apparent on an iPhone display.
SoundHound wrote:
Realize 200mm @ F2.0 has less DOF than a 85L @ F1.2.
Well, technically it doesn't have less DOF when you frame the same composition, the 85L wide open will actually have shallower DOF. The 200 f/2 does a better job of blowing out the background though due to the longer focal length and narrower FOV for the background.
I've got the 200 f/1.8L and the 85L and they're both stellar, just very different looks. I'd have a hard time getting rid of either!
I just bought a 200 2.0L and it should arrive on Monday! I can't wait to get it and take some portraits. I had to sell my 300 2.8 IS to get it, but then again I wasn't taking very many sports pictures, and when i was they were typically indoors.
The 200L looks like it will be a great compliment to my portrait photography and do very well for the type of sports I shoot, both with and without the 1.4TC.
SoundHound wrote:
Realize 200mm @ F2.0 has less DOF than a 85L @ F1.2.
Sheldon N wrote:
Well, technically it doesn't have less DOF when you frame the same composition, the 85L wide open will actually have shallower DOF. The 200 f/2 does a better job of blowing out the background though due to the longer focal length and narrower FOV for the background.
I've got the 200 f/1.8L and the 85L and they're both stellar, just very different looks. I'd have a hard time getting rid of either!
+1, for most photos I take, the 200L has more DOF but a blurrier background
