Elijah wrote:
NEVER. I'd try to scrum up some dough for both, 200/2 and 105E, that's for sure.
We just invested a lot of money in opening up a studio. Had clients coming to the house every day, and with the kids there it wasn't real professional. After I recover from that investment I pay pick up a 105E. That is if a 135 isn't released by then. I will never sell the 200 F2 though. Unless a new F2, F1.8 or F1.4 200 comes out.
Don't get me wrong I loved the 200F2. I'm not saying the 70-200 is as nice. But for my purposes it was close enough. The reason I didn't love the 200F2 is it was impractical-often too long-often too impersonal yelling at clients for direction since you're quite far apart in some shots and the last reason: To me it looks ridiculous. It looks like an RPG.
agelessphotog wrote:
Sounds like someone can't afford a 200 F2, lol. Sour grapes. I think someone else in here regrets selling theirs also....
I thought my horrible grammar and winks would be enough to indicate that I was joking. Guess not. Anyways, I own the 200mm F2 and will buy the 105mm F1.4. I might keep both or sell one that doesn't get as much use. Definitely no sour grapes. I also know that there is no "best" lens for anything. Every lens has it's compromises and what works for one person may not work for another.
I find it funny though how people are saying the 200mm F2 is going to be better than the 105mm and it isn't even released yet.
Wow, it's interesting how hot under the collar people can get over a lens or two. There's no best lens - I love my 58, I'm growing to love my 200 f/2 and I'm sure I'll love the 105E. They're all different and each will excel in different settings/circumstances. Just enjoy shooting and making magical images that please clients and enable you to keep doing what you love....
Yeah that's a bit of why I was trying to get at. This isn't a world in which the 105 & 200 can't coexist. Neither one needs to be proclaimed the best portrait lens for all occasions. There is almost 100% difference in the focal length. I can and intend to use both happily in different circumstances. But if we are not going to depart this course, I look forward to discussions of the compression of the 200 F2 v the 400 2.8 and 400 2.8 v the 800 5.6...
Ummm... no. This image was take with an 85mm f/1.4. Please read the comment below image before posting.
It captions: "This one was taken with the 85mm f1.4."
Elijah wrote:
Ummm... no. This image was take with an 85mm f/1.4. Please read the comment below image before posting.
It captions: "This one was taken with the 85mm f1.4."
Well excuse me..... Keep your sarcasm to yourself.
Beautiful girl, but unfortunately, I don't think this photo is very flattering to her face. Her skin looks very porous, grainy... not natural. Just my opinion...
It looks like one of those 'Portrait Pro' advert shots where someone's been too heavy handed with the skin smoothing sliders.
No Regrets wrote:
Beautiful girl, but unfortunately, I don't think this photo is very flattering to her face. Her skin looks very porous, grainy... not natural. Just my opinion...
May have to start a new thread with actual images shot by the photographers posting them, almost seven pages of men yakking about a tool that nobody has yet.... proving that men talk more than women
there are some of us that get excited about new old toys. Otherwise, the largest thread on FM wouldn't be celebrating all those old toys that became new again
Just for giggles, here are a couple of quick and dirty portraits I shot this evening of my very photogenic sister-in-law and her hubby. Sunlight was brutal - tried to tame it a little with some flash. Wide open Chubby and wide open 58. Which is which? (EXIF is stripped to prevent cheating!)
I also know that there is no "best" lens for anything. Every lens has it's compromises and what works for one person may not work for another. 
This thread will be on page 50 before the first ACTUAL USER sample gets posted 
