Iluxa007 wrote:
You go shoot an image with 70-200 at 200mm f/2.8 and the same exact one with 200 at f/2.0 and ask your client if they can see the difference... They wont.
So ask yourself: do you want that tiny difference in rendition/quality or a missed moment at the wedding just 'coz you didn't have the zoom?
When I was single and was shooting Canon back in 2012, I ALMOST bought a 200 f/2ISII. But I did a TON of research and ended up keeping the 70-200ISII.
Oh I know.. the clients won't see that ounce of difference in bokeh, but I DO. I want it and I bought it.
Iluxa007 wrote:
You go shoot an image with 70-200 at 200mm f/2.8 and the same exact one with 200 at f/2.0 and ask your client if they can see the difference... They wont.
So ask yourself: do you want that tiny difference in rendition/quality or a missed moment at the wedding just 'coz you didn't have the zoom?
When I was single and was shooting Canon back in 2012, I ALMOST bought a 200 f/2ISII. But I did a TON of research and ended up keeping the 70-200ISII.
So why do you have the 58mm then? How can you argue then your client will notice the difference between the 58mm and the 50mm F1.8g?
I think the 200mm F2 is a big jump in image quality over the 70-200mm just like the 58mm is a big jump over the 50mm. Also that said, wouldn't you be better off with the 24-70 F2.8 over the 58mm for shooting weddings? Sorry, but you can't argue to have the 58mm but not the 200mm imo.
Hardcore wrote:
So why do you have the 58mm then? How can you argue then your client will notice the difference between the 58mm and the 50mm F1.8g?
I think the 200mm F2 is a big jump in image quality over the 70-200mm just like the 58mm is a big jump over the 50mm. Also that said, wouldn't you be better off with the 24-70 F2.8 over the 58mm for shooting weddings? Sorry, but you can't argue to have the 58mm but not the 200mm imo.
You made a good point. But c'mon, shelling out 6k for a 200 is just too much for me. And trust me, I WANT it bad. But i cannot afford it
Iluxa007 wrote:
You made a good point. But c'mon, shelling out 6k for a 200 is just too much for me. And trust me, I WANT it bad. But i cannot afford it
The 200mm VRII is $6000 new, $5000 used, but the VRI can be had used for as low as $3200 to about $3700. Optically just as good, but lacking nano coating.
Hardcore wrote:
The 200mm VRII is $6000 new, $5000 used, but the VRI can be had used for as low as $3200 to about $3700. Optically just as good, but lacking nano coating.
A used 70-200VRII is 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of f/2VRI. I’d rather get myself a couple more 1.4G primes instead
But she is sexy!! Here’s an image of VRII that I rented last year... (sorry for killing the 58G topic guys)
ohsnaphappy wrote:
Do you use a monopod? I need a separate bag for it too
No. I never use monopods for cameras/lenses. I own a Gitzo CF monopod but I only use it for weddings. My assistant carries a monopod and a Westcott Rapid Box attached for off camera lighting.
m.sommers00 wrote:
Really like that style of processing for portraits. Any insight on your methods?
I send my digital files to Richards Photo Lab and they develop the process for me
But all in all seriousness, I used VSCO Fuji 400h ++ preset for this specific one. I obviously adjusted things from there; added a little more contrast, removed the fake grain, recovered highlights, brought up green primary a little higher while keeping the saturation down. I dislike how the preset adds the greens to my shadows, so I "remove" them by placing my split toning slider on the blue side and saturate it a little.
