trajan wrote:
A lot has been said about these 2. But which one is your favorite in terms of IQ? The faster older glass or the newer, more contrasty and better color controlled?--trajan
I wonder what gave you that idea ?
Not that the 200 f/2.8 is a mediocre lens....far from it, particularly when one considers its (still) reasonable price. However, the 200 f/1.8 is in an alltogether different league.
Despite its moderately slow AF drive, 200 f/1.8 performed very nicely for me when shooting some DIFs just the other day. For one, 200 f/2.8 could never give me the same degree of subject isolation which was very important in shots #1 and #2 because the background detail was unappealing and it had to be diffused beyond recognition.
trajan wrote:
A lot has been said about these 2. But which one is your favorite in terms of IQ? The faster older glass or the newer, more contrasty and better color controlled?--trajan
I wonder what gave you that idea ?
Not that the 200 f/2.8 is a mediocre lens....far from it, particularly when one considers its (still) reasonable price. However, the 200 f/1.8 is in an alltogether different league.
Despite its moderately slow AF drive, 200 f/1.8 performed very nicely for me when shooting some DIFs just the other day. For one, 200 f/2.8 could never give me the same degree of subject isolation which was very important in shots #1 and #2 because the background detail was unappealing and it had to be diffused beyond recognition.
Nov 04, 2009 at 06:53 AM
Previous versions of PetKal's message #7730935 « What's your favorite? 200/1.8 or 200/2 »
