GabrielPhoto
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: LAOWA 200mm F2.0 AURA Image Thread | |
Sure but saying "The 135GM gets me plenty of bokeh " is very different from your first statement "just to get bokeh I can get with my 135GM" that was my point. First statement made it sound like you could get the same with one or the other.
Plus is not just bokeh..depending on distance to subject etc, the 85mm 1.2 destroys backgrounds but is also the "compression", when its all combined, nothing the 200mm will have a very unique look when used properly.
Different tools, different results
We all choose the tools that fit our needs, not much else to it.
Regards
pasblues wrote:
GabrielPhoto wrote:
pasblues wrote:
Yes, there’s just a matter of deciding if IS, build quality and extra weather sealing are deciding factors.
As I assesed my usage if this lens, I was coming from a Nikkor 200mm f2 VR II I use with my D850. That combination gives me an ability to crop in so deep, I don’t have to use a 300mm f2.8 and I get a critical extra f-stop for the low light sports I shoot.
But I wouldn’t use the Nikkor for portraits or model shoots because at 6.5lbs, it’s not worth it just to get bokeh I can get with my 135GM - lens too short for football or soccer.
So, for me, the Siggy gives me a solid quality but a lens I can carry and handhold. It also makes my footprint smaller for indoor arenas. This affects my work life quality as I shoot sports several times a week for publication.
It’s really hard to beat the quality of that Nikkor 200mm f2 especially when paired with the D850.
The weight factor and affordability of the Siggy was my tipping point. In test shots with a non moving subject, I could get my SS down to 1/60 with no camera shake combined with the A1. I don’t know when I would use that low of a SS, but the lens IS is nice to have. It’s also nice to know that I wouldn’t have to panic if I got caught in some light sprinkles or faced some humid conditions like indoor swimming. Rain jackets can close that gap, though, so that may not be a dealbreaker if that option is used with the Laowa.
White lenses, much as I agree with others who simply don’t like them, do tend to reflect off heat, keeping them cooler longer. How much this matters depends on shooting conditions. Even a black camera body absorbs heat out in the field in hot conditions so it’s a consideration.
I think when we consider cost, it does depend on hobby vs pro-heavy usage. If I was a hobbyist with plenty of money, it’s a great era of photography for choices. The Laowa would scratch the itch of owning and using this 200mm f2. It’s long enough to capture more non camera aware moments and subject isolation as long as one has the discipline to not have zoom capability like with a 70-200 f2.8, which a lot of folks already own.
In my decision, a rear filter is never something I would use but that might matter to some so good point.
Alex Phan wrote:
pasblues wrote:
The Sigma has IS - the Laowa relies on the camera image stabilization. The Sigma is completely weather sealed, while the Laowa has a seal only at the mount. Great price point on the Laowa and the lens foot release is a great feature. Love the colors.
?si=tUUamA82RrYmL26b" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Richard Wong's review
Don't forget about the rear filter as well. I spent over a month using both lenses, and for me, the extra cost of the Sigma isn't worth it. Don't get me wrong; Sigma makes great lenses, but I can put that extra $1,300 toward something else. At the end of the day, they're all just tools, and we should use the one that fits our needs best.
Ok but you CANNOT get the same look with a 135mm 1.8, so this is the problem I have when people try to dismiss this lens.
Sure is not for everyone but 200mm F2.0 gives a unique look that no other lens can match.
It doesn't mean is better or worse, its a matter of styles and preferences.
But no a 135mm or other is NOT the same.
For my shooting style my perfect combo is my 85mm 1.2 and a 200mm F2 or 1.8. Others will have difference preferences and that is perfectly fine, I am not going to dismiss their choices based on what I prefer or claim that mine can do the same as theirs.
Regards
And if you read what I stated - neither did I dismiss someone else's choices. For me, the difference is in reach, weight and handling. To be clear - for me - plus the fact that I already own the 135GM - if I didn't have a sports usage for the 200mm f2, I wouldn't have purchased it. The 135GM gets me plenty of bokeh - in addition to the fact that I'm closer to my subject and can communicate more easily with the subject. This can be a factor for portrait shooters - and possibly why many prefer the 85mm focal length.
But I wouldn’t use the Nikkor for portraits or model shoots because at 6.5lbs, it’s not worth it just to get bokeh I can get with my 135GM - lens too short for football or soccer.
There's a number of things that play into bokeh besides aperture that can be closely achieved with shorter focal length lenses to a certain point. I think the 135GM produces bokeh just fine without lugging a 6.5lb lens or even a 4lb lens. YMMV. Here's some compares I just did:
|
