Blakehfreeman wrote:
Love that first shot! Can we archive this thread so I don't buy this lens please?!
Thanks Mate! You don't have to scrum up dough for this 105E.
Just sell your 200/2 hefty pig, buy the 105E and take your wife out for the remainder that's left
Hey... no need to call the 200mm names!! I'd never sell her .
Elijah wrote:
Thanks Mate! You don't have to scrum up dough for this 105E.
Just sell your 200/2 hefty pig, buy the 105E and take your wife out for the remainder that's left
agelessphotog wrote:
Yes, the 200 F2 will never leave my bag... Love the 105 1.4E, but it's no 200 F2.
I'd like to see some comparison shots between the 105 and the 200 with the same subjects. I'd like to see how much of a difference there actually is. I have neither but I'm defiantly lusting for either or both. But the 200 is out of my price range. I've seen enough shots with the 200 to see it's magic. But I keep this in mind: Anyone who slaps down $6000 for a lens is probably a very good photographer. They could get wow shots with a kit lens.
Keiththom wrote:
But I keep this in mind: Anyone who slaps down $6000 for a lens is probably a very good photographer. They could get wow shots with a kit lens.
There's is a 200mm f/2 image thread somewhere on here. I'd say less than 1/10 of the shots wow me, the rest are pretty mediocre. Expensive gear doesn't always mean good photographer.
glowhunter wrote:
There's is a 200mm f/2 image thread somewhere on here. I'd say less than 1/10 of the shots wow me, the rest are pretty mediocre. Expensive gear doesn't always mean good photographer.
Expensive gear in no way means good photographer. But expensive gear, and particularly the amazing 200/2, does make a good photographer's shots even better. As one example, if you follow Lisa Holloway, her portraits got noticeably more pleasing since she started using 200/2 (albeit the Canon version).
I agree! Ps I've seen terrible (and amazing) photos in this thread as well. There are working pros that post here as well as affluent photogs who simply want the best equipment or need a way to spend all the disposable income 🤓.
cambyses wrote:
Expensive gear in no way means good photographer. But expensive gear, and particularly the amazing 200/2, does make a good photographer's shots even better. As one example, if you follow Lisa Holloway, her portraits got noticeably more pleasing since she started using 200/2 (albeit the Canon version).
"Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones"
glowhunter wrote:
There's is a 200mm f/2 image thread somewhere on here. I'd say less than 1/10 of the shots wow me, the rest are pretty mediocre. Expensive gear doesn't always mean good photographer.
I agree that equipment doesn't make one a photographer. But that's not what I said. Or tried to say. A good photographer is more likely to lay down 6K on a piece of equipment than a poor photographer. There will always be newbies with more money than sense. MOST people that have the nikon 200 f2 or a nikon 800, probably have significant experience.
cambyses wrote:
Expensive gear in no way means good photographer. But expensive gear, and particularly the amazing 200/2, does make a good photographer's shots even better. As one example, if you follow Lisa Holloway, her portraits got noticeably more pleasing since she started using 200/2 (albeit the Canon version).
You mean that lady who shoots gloomy looking kids backlit in a field? I'm not a fan of one trick wonder photographers to be honest. These bokeh monster lens are for people who don't know composition and rely on blurring bokeh to hide poor technique IMO.
.