^I agree. In NYC, you'd get chased by those security guards at a lot of locations if you had a tripod. Even the police would have some bullshit about banning tripods on a really slow (and uncrowded) day in Times Square.
With a lens like the 200/2, you can tripod sometimes but it's really better just to handheld unless you have an assistant with the tripod/monopod ready.
Till you have to wear something that doesn't take those "guns" into consideration... for instance, my school uniform isn't going to fit right no matter what.
trenchmonkey wrote: Guns are a wonderful side benefit of handholding the Chubster.
MazeRunner wrote:
^I agree. In NYC, you'd get chased by those security guards at a lot of locations if you had a tripod. Even the police would have some bullshit about banning tripods on a really slow (and uncrowded) day in Times Square.
With a lens like the 200/2, you can tripod sometimes but it's really better just to handheld unless you have an assistant with the tripod/monopod ready.
See, I didn't even take that into consideration. I just don't use it because it'd slow me down. One moment I'm crawling through dirt and a second later I'm climbing trees
jamesmorophoto wrote:
do you have any full body versions of those groomsmen shots? curious what stepping back a little does to the compression & bokeh..
Not enough time and/or space. Here's one with the groom and bride afterwards with the 200/2 (ran back really fast to get this).
yea...i'm not really blown away by the compression when shooting full body shots. looks really similar to the 200mm end of a 70-20. I think i'm going to pass on this lens..
Here's a full body of a young girl with the 1:1 ratio close-up for detail I know a 70-200/2.8 wouldn't get. D4 body. Not sure about you, but there's a pop to it I can't get with the 70-200/2.8 at f/2.8 at 200mm.
It shines for portraits more than for full-body shots, but if used in exactly the same situation as the 70-200/2.8 VR II at 200mm wide open, it'll out-resolve and have a nicer DOF rendering, from my experience.
DontShoot wrote:
Actually the 200 f/2 was shot at a further distance, and still managed to beat the 85.
Of course the 200mm was shot from a longer distance. However if we were to shoot the same subject with both lenses then either the 200mm would need to be moved back even further (if we both lenses were capturing the older boy) or the 85mm would need to be moved forward even further (if both were capturing the little girl). The blur ratio would change in either case. Saying that, the narrower FOV of the 200mm combined with its larger physical aperture would still result in overall much more blurred background.
Guns are a wonderful side benefit of handholding the Chubster. 
PM me for samples.
