Sorry for the overload. I just have lots of content of my wife lately This particular one shows the booked quality and size of this lens. Just phenomenal!
I'll take both of my 200's to the next track meet and see for myself how many keepers I get with it. To tell you the truth though the split focusing screen does take much of the guesswork away while being able to concentrate on composition. Plus at a cost of less than half of a used VR I the AI-S version is a viable alternative to many.
Great shot of the wedding group in the car, Elijah. I'm usually numb to wedding shots, there being so many of them.
I would Photoshop out the two bright pinpoints in the green of the tree on the right, one point above the guy's outstretched arm on the left, the other between the two parallel trees on the right.
Whether those points are natural--I don't think they are--shouldn't matter. They look like dust or artifacts of some sort and should go.
RiverGuy wrote:
Great shot of the wedding group in the car, Elijah. I'm usually numb to wedding shots, there being so many of them.
I would Photoshop out the two bright pinpoints in the green of the tree on the right, one point above the guy's outstretched arm on the left, the other between the two parallel trees on the right.
Whether those points are natural--I don't think they are--shouldn't matter. They look like dust or artifacts of some sort and should go.
Dan
Thanks Dan! What you see is heavily backlit flies. You're right, I should've photoshopped them.
This happens all the time; I always catch some fly, bee, flying bugs when I shoot during a heavy backlit situation.
Oh, you say you don't like wedding stuff, huh? Here's some more
Elijah wrote:
Oh, you say you don't like wedding stuff, huh? Here's some more https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/62/1291862.jpg
One of your best, Elijah. The b/g effect is sublime, delicate detail in the whites, beautiful subject. And only 2 brides in a hundred know how to carry a nosegay (hint: it's not a cudgel ).
OK, you immediately post 4 images, all of which are exceptions to my phobia about wedding shots. I like all four, especially the first, which demonstrates the courage to have the bride looking away from the camera even though she's alone..... I avoid most wedding shoots because they're so repetitive. You got yer cake, you got yer tossing the bouquet, you got yer driving off in the car....
Actually I like #4, too.
Now I want you to step out into the world of true courage, Elijah. Venture into the daring realm of f 2.2 and 2.5. The car shot you posted earlier probably would have been best at one of those apertures. That would have given you a totally sharp front bumper and rear bumper, or nearly so. And the same separation and bokeh you and I love. The ONLY difference between 2.0 and those next two settings, especially at that distance, is depth of field. I should say with "air" behind the subject, which the car image had. The look is precisely the same, but a subject with more front to back depth gets better coverage. If you really are addicted to that total separation, you should live in 2.0 to 2.5, depending on circumstance. It won't hurt, I promise. The lens does not cease being phenomenal when you move away from f 2.0 every now and then.
rico wrote: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/62/1291862.jpg
One of your best, Elijah. The b/g effect is sublime, delicate detail in the whites, beautiful subject. And only 2 brides in a hundred know how to carry a nosegay (hint: it's not a cudgel ).
Thank you! Yes, you're absolutely right
---------------------------------------------
RiverGuy wrote:
Elijah,
OK, you immediately post 4 images, all of which are exceptions to my phobia about wedding shots. I like all four, especially the first, which demonstrates the courage to have the bride looking away from the camera even though she's alone..... I avoid most wedding shoots because they're so repetitive. You got yer cake, you got yer tossing the bouquet, you got yer driving off in the car....
Actually I like #4, too.
Now I want you to step out into the world of true courage, Elijah. Venture into the daring realm of f 2.2 and 2.5. The car shot you posted earlier probably would have been best at one of those apertures. That would have given you a totally sharp front bumper and rear bumper, or nearly so. And the same separation and bokeh you and I love. The ONLY difference between 2.0 and those next two settings, especially at that distance, is depth of field. I should say with "air" behind the subject, which the car image had. The look is precisely the same, but a subject with more front to back depth gets better coverage. If you really are addicted to that total separation, you should live in 2.0 to 2.5, depending on circumstance. It won't hurt, I promise. The lens does not cease being phenomenal when you move away from f 2.0 every now and then.
Thanks again dan! When I decide to "step out into the world of true courage", I use my other lenses. I did not buy a 200/2 to shoot at 2.5 or 2.8
I don't really care for the front end of the car, it's actually slightly OOF, not by much.
As for the weddings, I hate weddings. I've been shooting them for 6 years as a hobby.
This is the last year I'm doing them.. I quit weddings for good. Maybe a few of very close friends and family here and there, other than that I'm done...
"Thanks again dan! When I decide to "step out into the world of true courage", I use my other lenses. I did not buy a 200/2 to shoot at 2.5 or 2.8"
Why? There is no logic to this. The lens' peak performance goes all the way past f 4. No, you won't get the isolation at f 4, but you'll sure get it at 2.2 and 2.5.
Will you shoot kids and have their torsos and faces fill most of the original frame? At f 2? They'll have mush for ears and noses.
You've bought into a fetish. Some of my very best shots, and some of some very good pros and amateurs with this lens, have been at 2.2 to 3.2, even 3.5. But especially 2.2 to 2.5.
1. You realize that 2.2 and 2.5 don't exist on most of the other lenses.
2. You do understand that 2.2 to 3.2 with this lens is far superior in IQ than, say, 2.8 in virtually any other AF lens? Only the new Zeiss Batis 85 approaches it in AF, and it does not have the character of the 200/2. Excellent, but not the same. The new Sony might approach it, but it seems to have some early problems. So when you put down the 200/2 to shoot 2.8 with another AF lens, you opt for a lower quality 2.8 image. Again, for the thousandth time, the quality of the 200/2 glass does not go away when you change that aperture to 2.2 or 2.5 or even 2.8.
It is not the "world of true courage" (my cynicism aimed at the wide open fetish) to go to those other lenses for 2.8. It's bad reasoning. Fear of not being cool.....Something.
This particular one shows the booked quality and size of this lens. Just phenomenal! 
).
