January 18, 2017, 07:38:06 PM

Author Topic: 200mm f/1.8L not for portraits  (Read 2832 times)

Pookie

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 641
  • “Know thy tools so they get out of thy way”
Re: 200mm f/1.8L not for portraits
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2017, 06:59:57 PM »
With the price difference i cant see whats wrong with the 70-200 f2.8? the 200mm f1.8 cant be that much better?

It's what everybody thinks until they try the 200's ::)

I'd borrow or buy a 200 f/2L in a second if I could.

Unfortunately, I don't have the money to buy right now and don't know any elite professionals with discerning clients to borrow from. I mostly know the "soccer mom" types. You know, idiots with pop-up flashes on their Rebels. Don't tell anybody though. I'm ashamed to hang around them.  They aren't cut from the same cloth as I am. I'm silk. They're just plain old weekend warrior cotton. ;) ;) ;) :-[ :-[ :-[

However, if you ask nicely I'll send you a link to my Smugmug page. ;) ;) ;)

Emphasis on smug.

Owning the 200 f/2 and 70-200 II... If you say there is a huge difference in images from both you're lying to yourself. Honestly the 200 f/2 is a great lens but is it worth the cost over the 70-200...nope. The 70-200 is way more useful and produces images of equal quality. I find most that own this lens own it for the "oooo and ahh" factor rather than utility. I can say I have it because I wanted it not because I needed it... in reality the 70-200 come out to play 90% of the time and the 200 stays in the case at home.

And Charles, I'll probably be selling most of my Canon gear over the next year or so... including my like new 200 f/2. Call me anytime you might want to take a big white for yourself...

Oh, and shoot me your smugmug link... I'd like to see it. www.davidkm.com

If you can't see the difference in those two lenses why even own it? It's a BIG difference in bokeh, color, distortion, sharpness and microcontrast, all of which add up to that pop I'm always looking for. I did a comparison with the 70-200 f2.8 and 135 L and 200 f2  to see the actual difference in pop and that stop REALLY makes a difference. And 70-200 II is very limited in terms of which backgrounds can look great, while the f2 makes everything look superb.

To most people the price difference isn't worth it, I don't care about that, but say the difference isn't there is just not true. I have shot the same places and subjects with all my lenses and the one I like second best after the 200 is the Zeiss 100 which share a lot of the qualities I want with the f2.

We all have different wants, I don't lug around the f2 because people think it looks cool, I use it despite being noticed a lot.

A HUGE difference... master of observation that you are missed that point. Not a huge difference. And you are lying to yourself when you call it a BIG difference. I could put up load of shots between it and a 135L and a 70-200 and I'd bet you can't pick just the 200 f/2 out of the bunch. Just do a image search and see for yourself.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great lens but is it THE portrait lens you say it is... nope, just another in the list. And as far as you getting anymore out of it than say the 70-200, nope. Let see your images with it !!! Let's see you show something that a 70-200 can't do... I'd love to see it as you say you're an owner with stellar results. I am an owner and have shown 200 f/2 images here and I'm saying no, not a huge difference between the two lenses. Show me some and I'll show you a handful of images with 200 f/2's mixed in and your "bokeh, color, distortion, sharpness and microcontrast" is total farce.

Let's see it...
This forum isn't about photography or even cameras... it's about whining, bickering and demanding absolute perfection by hobbyists taking cat pictures. The truth is they can't even use the equipment they have to the fullest. Dogs barking at cars, they wouldn't know what to do if they caught one...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 200mm f/1.8L not for portraits
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2017, 06:59:57 PM »

YuengLinger

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1144
Re: 200mm f/1.8L not for portraits
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2017, 07:56:52 PM »
With the price difference i cant see whats wrong with the 70-200 f2.8? the 200mm f1.8 cant be that much better?

It's what everybody thinks until they try the 200's ::)

I'd borrow or buy a 200 f/2L in a second if I could.

Unfortunately, I don't have the money to buy right now and don't know any elite professionals with discerning clients to borrow from. I mostly know the "soccer mom" types. You know, idiots with pop-up flashes on their Rebels. Don't tell anybody though. I'm ashamed to hang around them.  They aren't cut from the same cloth as I am. I'm silk. They're just plain old weekend warrior cotton. ;) ;) ;) :-[ :-[ :-[

However, if you ask nicely I'll send you a link to my Smugmug page. ;) ;) ;)

Emphasis on smug.

Owning the 200 f/2 and 70-200 II... If you say there is a huge difference in images from both you're lying to yourself. Honestly the 200 f/2 is a great lens but is it worth the cost over the 70-200...nope. The 70-200 is way more useful and produces images of equal quality. I find most that own this lens own it for the "oooo and ahh" factor rather than utility. I can say I have it because I wanted it not because I needed it... in reality the 70-200 come out to play 90% of the time and the 200 stays in the case at home.

And Charles, I'll probably be selling most of my Canon gear over the next year or so... including my like new 200 f/2. Call me anytime you might want to take a big white for yourself...

Oh, and shoot me your smugmug link... I'd like to see it. www.davidkm.com

Your opinion is no surprise, considering you seem to take the same photo over and over again.   ::)

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2752
Re: 200mm f/1.8L not for portraits
« Reply #17 on: Today at 02:16:19 AM »
Well, "master of observation" is perhaps a stretch, but I test my gear extensively so yes I know the difference between those three lenses. That's not to say you can't take a crappy shot with f2 and optimize the 70-200 shot and say "ha ha". That's no point.

An example I can give is that I shoot my sons soccer games, and I put them all in the same album. Some of the other parents who comment on them suddenly said, "wow, how did you edit those shots, they look different and nice". That was the exact game I got my (second) 200 f2 after using the 70-200 for all the previous games.

So if non interested in photo mom and dads call the difference, perhaps it's just you then...
1dx mkII, 35 L II, Zeiss 100 f2 mp, 200 f2.0 L, Profoto B1.

arthurbikemad

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
Re: 200mm f/1.8L not for portraits
« Reply #18 on: Today at 03:50:53 AM »
I love my 200/2 but its a pain for what I use it for, namely portraits. Its MFD is hard to live with and strongly limits where you can use it, I think for what it was built for it surely would shine i.e indoor sports etc. Does it have that "Canon Magic"? I think it does, worth the money, well I'd not think about the money, if you have a desire for it buy it and live the dream as you can always sell it, but as said (I think) I'd avoid the 1.8 and get the F2.0 for service reasons if any. I also have the 70-200Mk2 and side by side I'd say the 200/2 will give you the look, i.e that classic 200/2 compressed look I find hard to match with any other lens. There is no doubt its one of Canon's finest lumps of glass, even though I hardly ever use mine I just can't part with it, those rare times I have the space to use it I do, I don't have a 135/2 but I am told many times it's a better option and MUCH cheaper, it's another classic Canon lens for a similar look. Only other issues I have are size and weight of the 200/2 and it draws a LOT of unwanted attention! I find the best way to solve this kind of problem is buy it, hire it, live with it, get it out of your system one way or another haha

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2752
Re: 200mm f/1.8L not for portraits
« Reply #19 on: Today at 04:42:18 AM »
I love my 200/2 but its a pain for what I use it for, namely portraits. Its MFD is hard to live with and strongly limits where you can use it, I think for what it was built for it surely would shine i.e indoor sports etc. Does it have that "Canon Magic"? I think it does, worth the money, well I'd not think about the money, if you have a desire for it buy it and live the dream as you can always sell it, but as said (I think) I'd avoid the 1.8 and get the F2.0 for service reasons if any. I also have the 70-200Mk2 and side by side I'd say the 200/2 will give you the look, i.e that classic 200/2 compressed look I find hard to match with any other lens. There is no doubt its one of Canon's finest lumps of glass, even though I hardly ever use mine I just can't part with it, those rare times I have the space to use it I do, I don't have a 135/2 but I am told many times it's a better option and MUCH cheaper, it's another classic Canon lens for a similar look. Only other issues I have are size and weight of the 200/2 and it draws a LOT of unwanted attention! I find the best way to solve this kind of problem is buy it, hire it, live with it, get it out of your system one way or another haha

Amen to that.

I bought my 200 f2 for a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS and 2500 usd and it's absolutely worth it. Is it worth the 7000 usd retail ? Not to me, but if it wasn't to anyone, how could I buy them used?

And at the last indoor soccer game I was at 12800-25600 iso, it would have been much worse at 51200 with a 2.8 ...
1dx mkII, 35 L II, Zeiss 100 f2 mp, 200 f2.0 L, Profoto B1.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 200mm f/1.8L not for portraits
« Reply #19 on: Today at 04:42:18 AM »