Buy the Sigma 135/1.8 and shoot in DX mode and see if that doesn’t get you a similar look of the 200/2, I had the 200/2 and the 135, I sold the 200 after seeing the image quality of the 135.
kilowhiskey wrote:
Buy the Sigma 135/1.8 and shoot in DX mode and see if that doesn’t get you a similar look of the 200/2, I had the 200/2 and the 135, I sold the 200 after seeing the image quality of the 135.
Nah, this lens is already inferior to the Milvus 135mm f/2. I only use it when I absolutely need autofocus.
Chris Court wrote:
A 70-200 or 85/105 prime would be much more useful for studio portraits, IMHO. For environmental portraiture though, the 200 is fabulous (aside from the weight).
Totally agree on both points. I have a 200/2 in another mount and it's vital for certain low-light situations (e.g. stage) but the cost, weight and fixed FL make it about worthless in the studio. With strobes, light is plentiful and the Nikkor 70-200/4 is king. I also own the 70-200/2.8 FL for portraits in available light.
Folks, I have a 200 f/2 on the way, yes I've got a chubby
I would like to apologise to the few people who pm'd me in regards to a lens because for some reason I was unable to respond due to "not enough posts" ??
Anyway, my first of many questions is what TC would you recommend to add to the length? I would love to be able to use the 200 as a 400 f/4 if the need arises. Good combination? Better than the 200-500 5.6 ?
The 1.4 and 1.7 are EXCELLENT. Skip the 2.0. Also, get the most recent versions of the 1.4 and 1.7... Miss this lens and kick myself for selling it.
Tristanstudios wrote:
Folks, I have a 200 f/2 on the way, yes I've got a chubby
I would like to apologise to the few people who pm'd me in regards to a lens because for some reason I was unable to respond due to "not enough posts" ??
Anyway, my first of many questions is what TC would you recommend to add to the length? I would love to be able to use the 200 as a 400 f/4 if the need arises. Good combination? Better than the 200-500 5.6 ?
Tristanstudios wrote:
Folks, I have a 200 f/2 on the way, yes I've got a chubby
I would like to apologise to the few people who pm'd me in regards to a lens because for some reason I was unable to respond due to "not enough posts" ??
Anyway, my first of many questions is what TC would you recommend to add to the length? I would love to be able to use the 200 as a 400 f/4 if the need arises. Good combination? Better than the 200-500 5.6 ?
Thanks and pretty damn excited to be aboard.
It's more glass & more pixels vs. less glass & fewer pixels. The tradeoff may be different in the center and in the corners, so it would depend on your use case (as always) and on the pixel pitch of your camera. With a high-resolution sensor, you may be better off cropping, because the TC+lens acuity dips below the pixel resolution, while a low-resolution sensor may benefit from having the image spread out over all available pixels, with the TC+lens acuity staying above the pixel resolution. A low-resolution sensor may have better quality at higher ISO levels, thus you can achieve a faster shutter speed and minimize motion blur. All in all, it often depends on what you shoot and what camera you use, and that camera may itself depend on your use case.
I shoot with both on FX & DX bodies. They're close BUT
