jamesmorophoto wrote:
thanks for the info. I think the difference i've seen is due to the greater magnification from the physical size of the d800 sensor + the 200 f2 vs. the much smaller D700 sensor.
Wat??
The sensors are essentially the same size. The pixel density is different, but there is no "magnification" on one vs. the other.
The sensors are essentially the same size. The pixel density is different, but there is no "magnification" on one vs. the other.
I agree. I don't know why people assume full frame is tied with higher megapixel count. The D800 (36.3 MP) is just as much full frame as D3 or D700 (12.1 MP). It just allows higher "cropability"
trenchmonkey wrote: Don't know where you got that from...but it's WRONG
200mm @f2.8 never looks like this
then prove me wrong....
the photo: ramkumar999 posted above honestly doesn't look like anything a 70-200 couldn't achieve.
even your photo: not really blowing me away for a $6000 lens unless that background is a few feet from her.
I could get the same separation from an 85 just by shooting when she's farther away from the background.
I would really love someone w/ both lenses to come on here and do a side-by-side comparison at 200mm of the same subject, and the same distance to subject.
I've seen a few photos on here that are amazing (mainly by the guy w/ the manual focus version), but I think he's just a good photographer and good at processing his images.
shitty photos of flowers, and birds against an infinitely distant sky aren't proving anything special about this lens...
show me some PROFESSIONAL portraits taken with this lens that I couldn't get with an 85 or 70-200 @ 200mm...
I really WANT to like this lens, but i'm just not being blown away...
then prove me wrong....
You can't afford me. Mine's a $3500 lens that shoots f2
Don't like it, don't buy it. I've made bank with it. Suggest you
ask over the wedding forum, then...seems like this tread's not
up to your stud standards.
Is the 85/1.4 three times better than the 85/1.8? Absolutely not! Yet it is 3 times more expensive and people still buy it. Pro lenses aren't about value for money, it's about getting that small step in front of everyone else. You also can't compare lenses from completely different leagues on their bokeh. You have to account for better coatings, sharpness wide open, overall sharpness, AF, construction, abberations, FF/BF. If you can't justify the price, then it's not for you and you'll be perfectly satisfied with the 70-200. I don't think anyone will bother proving you wrong, because they all know you are.
I haven't had the lens long enough to do that many portrait jobs. And the few I've done I can't share yet, have to wait until the clients make them public.
There is a difference between the 85mm 1.4G, on is the compression the 200 gives and the 200 is sharper and has almost zero CA compared to the 85 which suffers a lot from it wide open.
Here are a couple of casual shots, not overly processed, just quick snaps of friends.
Best 'value' in terms of light loss/mm gain.
Mine's a $3500 lens that shoots f2
