Iluxa007 wrote: DontShoot wroteIluxa007 wroteI rented a VRII version last year and I LOVED the lens. As a hobbyist, I wish I had the money for this one...
However, if I was a full time pro or would shoot lots of weddings/events, I would never buy a 200/2.The 200/2 is awesomesauce for weddings and will give you that unique 'look' that 70-200 can't, especially at long distances and very busy BGs. Thing is, if you're also lugging a 70-200 it can get to be too much. The good thing about it is that it almost doesn't lose value. I've had mine for almost 3 years now and it's still selling for the same price I paid for in 2012!
Btw, I did some comparison shots between the 200 f/2 and 58 1.4G wide open. They are strikingly similar in terms of subject iso, albeit the 58 doesn't 'magnify' backgrounds as much due to its shorter FL. But the rendering and 3D effect is very similar.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: Iluxa007 wroteYou 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.
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: Hardcore wroteIluxa007 wroteYou 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.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: Iluxa007 wroteHardcore wroteIluxa007 wroteYou 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.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.
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)
Iluxa007 wrote: Hardcore wroteIluxa007 wroteHardcore wroteIluxa007 wroteYou 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.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.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)
Do you use a monopod? I need a separate bag for it too
ohsnaphappy wrote: Iluxa007 wroteHardcore wroteIluxa007 wroteHardcore wroteIluxa007 wroteYou 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.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.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)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.
