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.

-Tim

One more time, this is always one of my super favourite lens. But I dont think I can handle it in my hand even just one time.


A belief for the dream come true

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

Technically speaking, 200mm will give you more perspective compression, compared to 85L, when you frame the same composition.

The 200mm has about 2 stops more background blur than the 85L for same framing and same aperture (but same DOF at same aperture and framing)

tukhang: Buy the Kirk Handle and a replacement foot. That way you can support the rig at the CG and, when standing, put your elbow on your hip.

Sorry about any DOF error. I just consulted my iPhone app.

jhartman wrote:
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


Yeah,

I am sure photog to subject distance will be something to deal with. Just love the look of compressed images from a telephoto...and gods knows I can't afford the 200....

Thanks for sharing!
Your photog skills shine!
Wow, this is a great example of why this lens is so fab!
The 135 f/2 helps me last until the day I can afford the 200 f/2 IS.
My 100-400 also holds me over until the 300 f/2.8 IS.

SoundHound,
Can you elaborate more on the Kirk handle and foot ? I am interested in this. Any more info greatly appreciated.
Thx.

SoundHound wrote:
tukhang: Buy the Kirk Handle and a replacement foot. That way you can support the rig at the CG and, when standing, put your elbow on your hip.

Sorry about any DOF error. I just consulted my iPhone app.

Just curious, are you using the stands the come with the RP's that hold the flash and RP? I have been trying to find information about which softbox ring will accomodate these? I am going to be purchasing some PX's and will use at least one with a softbox and want to make sure the setup will fit properly.

Thanks,
Tim

jhartman:

Can you tell me which softboxes you're using most for your 580 EX II's? I have three 580 EX II's but have not been using softboxes with them. I use umbrellas - with both bounce and shoot through. I'd like to get some softboxes for flash, but am not sure which are the best quality/value-wise. There seems to be quite a gap in price between the brands, and I'm also not sure if I need more than one or which size to get. Care to shed some light on this for me?

Sheldon Charro wrote:
jhartman:

Can you tell me which softboxes you're using most for your 580 EX II's?

Yes, jhartman, please.

Thanks

Thank you for posting the pictures, Canon should pay you for advertising the 200/2.
Also, thanks for posting some nuggets of knowledge which in this day and age seems rare.
Oh btw I think you have a small following.

Wonderful photos but don't let anybody be fooled. What really is shining through is your mastery of lighting, mood, pose, and composition.
Not that the 200F2 isn't an amazing lens but that is hardly the primary thing making the photos this good.
What would one choose to get the best results:

1. Having you behind a digital rebel and a kit lens

2. Giving an inexperienced photographer a 1DsIII and a 200 F2


Thanks for sharing.

Obviously you know your light pretty well and I like about 85% of your poses, but I do not like the eye enhancement where you have noticeably increased brightness of the sclera (to the point of almost uniform whiteness) and saturation of the iris. The skin smoothing is consistent.

Since 580EX flashes were used with softbox, I assume you used a ND filter, shady/overcast outdoor areas, or high speed sync?

"Just curious, are you using the stands the come with the RP's that hold the flash and RP?"
"Can you tell me which softboxes you're using most for your 580 EX II's?"

Below are two photos of my setups. For additional light I sometimes use two flash units in a single Q39 12x16 softbox. No need for huge light modifiers outdoors - you just need to get a tiny amount more light on the subject than the ambient light already provides. So there is no harsh light falloff at all in these images like there would be in an indoor setup. Small is good - lightweight, less cumbersome, and it never blows over, precluding the need for sandbags, stakes or a human assistant.

I have two of these two-light rigs, plus a single 580 without any modifiers that I use as a kicker light (light modifiers do not appreciably change the kicker effect outdoors).

You will see on the two-ligh setup that I do use the RadioPopper plastic foot, but I don't actually mount the foot to the stand in the usual way. I broke three of them learning that plastic is not a good material for everyday use (and have made requests for an aluminum option). The flash heads are velcroed together and 'pinched' between two aluminum bars mounted to the flash ring. This is much more sturdy, and allows the heads to be rotated easily to make adjustments to the flash or RP unit. This is a DYI setup that you can do with a hardware store, a hacksaw and drill and about $10.




"I do not like the eye enhancement where you have noticeably increased brightness of the sclera (to the point of almost uniform whiteness) and saturation of the iris."

I confess to bending to commercial interests, here - my clients love this look. It's not obvious at all in a large portrait, where the effect is more subtle than these oversharpened Web images. As I've said before, beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder. ;-)

jh

jhartman wrote:

I confess to bending to commercial interests, here - my clients love this look. It's not obvious at all in a large portrait, where the effect is more subtle than these oversharpened Web images. As I've said before, beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder. ;-)
jh

Well said.

How are you matching ambient light color with the 580EX flashes? There is usually some difference in white balance - minor, but present.

"How are you matching ambient light color with the 580EX flashes? There is usually some difference in white balance - minor, but present. "

I think this issue is more theoretical than actual. I've never seen it in my work. The camera WB is set to flash, and ambient light isn't too far from it. I think the eye tends to look at and believe the skin tones of the highlighted portrion of the face. Of course, if you're working in shade right next to grass in the open sun, the reflection back up into the shadows could present a problem, but I watch for that. Same with brightly colored walls or buildings. GIGO.

jh

It sucks! It totally sucks I can't afford this lens!!! Haha

Thank you so much for sharing stunning pictures and great experience

First of all, Mr Hartman, I can't express my gratitude enough for you taking time to share your 35+ years of experience with us on FM. I've been working on your lighting techniques not only on portraits, but on other things like flowers as well. I've been extremely happy with the results. Your straight forward aproach has given me great insight for light.

Rather than use a STE2 and RP's, I've been having some very good luck using a 580II as a master with the flash turned off. So far, although I don't have a ton of experience with it, I've been getting plenty of range in bright daylight and the "line of sight" issue isn't quite as touchy. I've actually had the master and slave talk in adjoining rooms where they couldn't see each other at all. I'm sure the IR was bouncing off the wall for communication.

Thanks again for your kindness.

The lens is only part of the success in these images - excellent composition, good model prep, and really, really good lighting appear to be just as critical. (Did I mention really good lighting!) All of these combine to make some outstanding images. Great job!!!!
Mike