pbraymond wrote:
Do I hear some discouragement for a lens acquisition? An f1.4 legend nonetheless? I know it was a hot day yesterday for folks in the US, but it was not that hot!!!
But Andy, just think of the shallow DOF and unique look you would get with 200/2 across that GFX sensor
I will check when I get home, but I am 99.9% sure it covers the 44x33 sensor. And who cares about corners when shooting at f/2 with that beast
George
cadman342001 wrote:
Thanks for all the advice on the 200/2.
It is as I expected (and already knew tbh) suited to subjects I don't really shoot, portraits etc.
I have the 200-500 AF-S for birds and wildlife (recently added used as I sold my 500PF which I LOVED before going to NZ last year, a decision I came to regret when shooting seals, Gannets and Crested Grebes in NZ but there you go. Couldn't really justify buying another so got the 200-500)
Like I said previously, I have 105/1.8 Ais, 135/2 Ais and 2 copies of the 180ED already despite only shooting landscapes and birds, just like playing with big heavy manual focus lenses.
So far I have resisted !
Incidentally, I don't fly to NZ again until 15th October but I do have room in my suitcases for the 2.4kg behemoth 200/2
Congrats on your future luggage kit. btw, you can isolate things other than people with the 2400 gram beast. The ai has a.0.25 inch thick built-in hood - just thinking of ways to save you space.
cadman342001 wrote:
Thanks for all the advice on the 200/2.
It is as I expected (and already knew tbh) suited to subjects I don't really shoot, portraits etc.
I have the 200-500 AF-S for birds and wildlife (recently added used as I sold my 500PF which I LOVED before going to NZ last year, a decision I came to regret when shooting seals, Gannets and Crested Grebes in NZ but there you go. Couldn't really justify buying another so got the 200-500)
Like I said previously, I have 105/1.8 Ais, 135/2 Ais and 2 copies of the 180ED already despite only shooting landscapes and birds, just like playing with big heavy manual focus lenses.
So far I have resisted !
Incidentally, I don't fly to NZ again until 15th October but I do have room in my suitcases for the 2.4kg behemoth 200/2
I had the 35/1.4 and 35/2 side by side and came to the same conclusion. The f/2 was generally cleaner, smaller and rendered the same at relevant apertures. Of course I ended up selling both and now have a 1.4, more because it was a good deal (doesn’t take filters.) I will say, I’ve gotten some shots in flatter light that showed great rendering from the 1.4 though. So might depend where/how you shoot, with high contrast light not the best environment.
Just one example…
leighton w wrote:
I agree with Huss, I never warmed to mine and ended up selling it. If I ever got another 35mm, it would be the f2. Just my 2¢.
There seems to be a return to our former pace coming on almost as suddenly as the increase that happened when Curtis showed up. But I'm hoping it's just a momentary lull. In any case, just to keep things moving a bit, here is my final set of visible spectrum photos from the car show in Coombs. The theme of these images is Trucks and Rat Rods, and it is brought to you by the 5.8 f/1.4 S (first photo) and the 24 f/2.8 NC (second and third shots).
cadman342001 wrote:
I do appreciate all your efforts but for once sanity has prevailed although I did buy a lens it was the Fujifilm GF 23mm f4. (A mere 900 grams !)
Prices of used examples of the 23mm have come down since the new 20-35 f4 came along (which I cannot afford btw)
But hey, maybe one day when I'm in NZ I'll add the 200/2.
GroWeb wrote:
There seems to be a return to our former pace coming on almost as suddenly as the increase that happened when Curtis showed up. But I'm hoping it's just a momentary lull.
Maybe we need to indoctrinate you into the "Blabbermouth Club".
