These were taken Monday evening (6:00pm) just before some rain/thunderclouds moved in and while there was a little sun still left. All pp work done quickly in Canon DPP. I find the 70/2 f/4 IS is no slouch but my 200 f/2 on my 5D is simply "insane".
I wonder how different the 135/2 and the 200/2 are for bokeh and sharpness.
I don't think I've seen any back to back shots.
Edit:
Search is my friend https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/806803/0
These were taken Monday evening (6:00pm) just before some rain/thunderclouds moved in and while there was a little sun still left. All pp work done quickly in Canon DPP. I find the 70/2 f/4 IS is no slouch but my 200 f/2 on my 5D is simply "insane".
Canon 5D 200 f/2 IS:
Robert,
All the colors and WB on your photos are very off on my monitor.
It may be due to the afternoon sun, or the yellow shirt, but still way off.
You might want to calibrate it.
Or i might be wrong since you could have used different adobeRGB or something else instead of sRGB as i am using.
Kind regards.
Hung
How about a 100-200 f/2.4L IS as a compromise between the prime and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. f/2.4 would keep the size and weight manageable but be a noticeable step over f/2.8.
Thanks for the test Jonesy. What I'd really like to see though is one with a bit darker background, and preferably with some lights in the distance to get a better idea of the bokeh between the two in tungsten lighting or outside under street lighting or at dusk/early morning.
Jonesy wrote:
100%crop of each one
Show some comparisons, using the Canon 200 F2 @ F2.2, 2.5 and 2.8. I am sure thats when the 200. f2 begins to unleash its sharpness.
I normally use mine at F2.2 or 2.5 for ultra sharpness.
Only had the Mk2 for a day, but it sure is impressive! Still find the 200/2 rendering even better colour and micro contrast. Question is it worth the $$$$$? I keep both over the summer and see if one is redundant. If not, I'll keem 'em both
One thing for sure my Mk1 is leaving with-in a week And this was my most used lens until yesterday
Emperors new clothes? Who knows, as long as I'm happy....
solomon10 wrote:
Show some comparisons, using the Canon 200 F2 @ F2.2, 2.5 and 2.8. I am sure thats when the 200. f2 begins to unleash its sharpness.
I normally use mine at F2.2 or 2.5 for ultra sharpness.
Unfortunately, even the Mk II will not give the same results as the F2.0. Sure you can use the 200 F 2.8 at 1/500 sec and stop them both down to F5.6 or so for some kind of a test. That's not the point, however, either you value the super IS, low shutter speeds and F2.0 or you don't.
I have the zoom, 70-200 Mk I, the 85/135L etc. I shot a few hundred low light action shots with the F2.0 and soon after sold my 300mm F2.8 which suffered in comparison. Now I look for any excuse to shoot the F2.0. Right out of the camera I get the look I used to spend some time on in PS with other lenses.
if I decide to get the 200/2 I won't be stopping down to 2.8 lol It will be at f2...Otherwise I would not be looking at it.
I'll try some low light photos if it stops raining.
Jonesy wrote:
if I decide to get the 200/2 I won't be stopping down to 2.8 lol It will be at f2...Otherwise I would not be looking at it.
I'll try some low light photos if it stops raining.
you say that now but your DOF is really tight at 2.0 on the close-up head shots. Set it at 2.2 or 2.5 and it shines; you can't go wrong with this lens. I love it on my 5D and I could only imagine on a 5D2. Enjoy !
Robert Carr wrote:
you say that now but your DOF is really tight at 2.0 on the close-up head shots. Set it at 2.2 or 2.5 and it shines; you can't go wrong with this lens. I love it on my 5D and I could only imagine on a 5D2. Enjoy !
+1
Robert Carr wrote:
you say that now but your DOF is really tight at 2.0 on the close-up head shots. Set it at 2.2 or 2.5 and it shines; you can't go wrong with this lens. I love it on my 5D and I could only imagine on a 5D2. Enjoy !
whats it like on your 1d mrk3
I had the mkIII before I picked up the 5D. The 200 f/2 was a "9+" on the mkIII but on the 5D it is a "10". I love the 200 f/2 for sports on the mkIII as I carry a 1.4tx with me and put it on when I need the reach. It's a tad short for some of the bigger fields but hey, nothing is perfect. I've read a few good things about the 200 f/2 with th 2x TC @ 5.6. I have a soccer tourny this weekend so I'll be trying that combo out as well. I've used the 2x on the 200 before and the pixx were "ok", but dummy me never thought of using f/5.6. I've seen some great shots when at that setting so I guess we'll see.
What kills the f/2 is simply the price. It is steep and not sure what Canon was thinking about when they set the price.
These were taken in the early evening. Cropped about 50% with no NR. The field was in a valley of sorts, the sun (what was left) was already behind the trees and not really any direct lighting. I shold have set the SS to around 1/1600 and brought the ISO down:
Wow Robert. Those are indeed impressive with a TC, even at 1000. Stopping action in low light and ability to focus track at high speed with a converter is no small feat for any lens.
