"jhartman: could you post a few of the pictures w/o any postprocessing? I'm curious how much of the 3D "pop" is from the processing and how much is the lens' smooth bokeh... "

Kenyee, here are a few processed directly out of Lightroom without ever being in Photoshop. I don't think PP does anything at all to enhance bokeh...but you can compare for yourself.''

"jhartman: could you post a few of the pictures w/o any postprocessing? I'm curious how much of the 3D "pop" is from the processing and how much is the lens' smooth bokeh... "

a few more...

bigv616,

Ambient exposure is indeed tied to the focus point (actually, an larger area than the normal 5º spot, as I mentioned, because metering automatically switches from Spot to Evaluative when you go from ambient exposure to ETTL).

Because I'm focusing on a face, which in the case of my mostly-Caucasian clients is brighter than a gray card, I set the flash exposure to overexpose slightly to compensate. The ambient meter setting determines the contrast ratio between the flash and the 'fill', which is the ambient light. The lower the ambient setting, the darker the area not exposed by the flash, i.e., the shadow side of the face, the background, etc. I like to set it to about -1/3 to -2/3 stop to give the flash just enough pop to light the face properly (and also allows me to standardize my WB to the Flash setting on the camera) without giving an artificially 'flash' look.

Questions #2 and #3: No to both. No need, because the above method works just fine.

#4: The only reason ETTL would underexpose a full body shot is that the flash is too far away or that the aperture was too small to give the proper exposure to the subject. I've never had this issue, although even with my groups I shoot at f/8. You could test this by racking up the ISO in a series of identical tests on the same subject (same settings throughout). If your exposures start getting better at the higher ISOs, the flash isn't powerful enough. If nothing happens, you've got something else going on. But the use of any kind of light modifier should not change the exposure (of course, it WILL require more light in a modifier, but ETTL should compensate).

HTH,

jh

Thanks, I will try to test it again.

Wow.... I'm impressed !

WOW, what an incredible lens.. it really makes the difference

Beautiful shots.

Your comment on the focus and keeper rate is interesting seeing as the 135 is known in part for it's AF. The 200 must be a little slice of heaven

Do you have any experience with the 200/1.8 to draw comparison from (200/1.8 vs. 200/2 in the AF department)?

Thanks,jhartman. The first two and fourth image really pop w/ a 3D look, even w/o PPing

These are just absolutely amazing. They just pop out at you. I want the 200/2, but I don't think I'd take as amazing shots. Just wow.

Even better than admiring jhartman's terrific work, make sure to read his posts answering technical and practical questions. As if the photos weren't proof enough, he really knows his stuff. The thread title might've led one to believe this thread would be about the 200 f/2L IS, but the real meat here is the lighting technique--simple yet so effective when done right. Who says E-TTL is unpredictable, eh? Not when the photographer knows what he's doing

"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.

jh

"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.

jh

jhartman,

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.

Great work, best set i have seen from 200/2!

Fantastic series. Love it all.

Truly amazing!

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...

"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?"

You're not missing anything, TeeJay. The RP transmitter sits on top of the ST-E2, and you need a receiver at each flash unit. Make no mistake, my five-flash setup is pricey, but, again, I'm using it every hour on the hour, all week long, so the cost for me is well worth the convenience. The RadioPoppers are necessary because without them your flash must be positioned in a line-of-sight with the ST-E2. I did it this way for several years before the RP's came out, and it severely restricted my shooting angles. The Poppers allow me to use the kicker lighting and profile lighting you see in many if not most of the photos above, without regard to which direction the flash IR sensor is pointing.

BTW, I've been asked about the difference between the RadioPoppers and the new Pocket Wizards. I had three of my photographer friends up for a Wireless Flash Summit a few weeks ago and two of us had the RPs and two had the PWs. They both pretty much worked the same way, although my friends had a few more hiccups with the PWs. Since the latest firmware upgrade, one of my friends just reported to me this morning that he's had better luck with them since then. I haven't tried the PWs so I can't comment on their use other than what I saw with them in use at the Summit. They sure look slicker than the PWs, but I'm excited about the new mounting cradles coming out (hopefully soon) that will eliminate the velcro and tape half-measures that we have now with the RPs.

Some images from our Summit shoot can be seen here:

http://gallery.me.com/jrhartman#100529

jh

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.

You sir, are a champion.

Nice series. Thanks for posting.

I have been wanting to try this exact same style with my 300 2.8 IS. I think I will get similar results.

Love your shots and explaining how you did this. Very nice indeed.

Jon,

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!

jh

wow wow wow! My dream lens 200/2LIS.

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.

John

that is some amazing work! killer photos. wide open is awesome on that lens