New lens – 200 F2
- This topic has 17 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated Sep 9, 2008 at 2:45 am by
.
-
Posts
-
Took some test shots with my new 200 toady (hand held) and man am I happy.
It’s the sharpest lens I’ve ever seen that’s for sure – even at F2 !
Does great stuff to the background as well..
Might be a bit heavy (and pricey :o) to drag around the small streams this summer, but might also be hard to resist.. 😀
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Um, David, is this your lens?
http://www.digitalrev.com/en/nikon-nikkor-af-s-200mm-f2-g-ed-if-vr-55.html
Did you win the lottery?
These age great David! Love the DOF and yes, it is crystal sharp. Same thing with the Nikon lens, very sharp through out. Please tell me that you also used a reflector panel so that I don’t have to throw all of my gear away. 🙂
I said it before and will say it again, I don’t give all of the internet reviews a lot of weight as your shots prove that setting the camera properly maximizes the potential of a given lens. Love the shots and really like the effect on the hair. Great looking kids, take it that these are your gun totting boy’s?
Um, David, is this your lens?
http://www.digitalrev.com/en/nikon-nikkor-af-s-200mm-f2-g-ed-if-vr-55.html
It’s a Canon 200 F2 L IS Zach.. 😉
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Yes Ben, those are my boys 3 & 10 both littlie ratbags and both packing. 😀
I agree about getting the basics right – those shots are all about finding the good light & location.I shot these with available light only and didn’t set them-up as it was my day off ;), the first background stripes are foxtail palm leaves with fairly hard direct sunlight on them.
If I was working there I would have bounced a bit of light on the subject with a large white reflector.
(with a couple assistants ;))Here’s a couple of my friends daughter, she would sit still for me so I could line up a background.
Here’s an idea of how sharp this puppy is @f2..
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Yes, they are great looking kids David!
I was studying the balance of contrast and saturation between the shadow~vs~direct sunlight and was to impressed with the amount of data in both. No wonder that lens (damned thing :)) is so sharp! I don’t really put a lot of energy into all of the technical details but I do like to study the MTF charts before I drop a good sum into the lenses. The Nikon version of the 200mm 2.0 is crystal sharp as well but I was very impressed with the amount of contrast/saturation that you were able to maintain in both the highlights and shadows, that was the reason that I was hoping, so badly, that you had used a reflector panel lol. The Nikon version does seem to slightly bend the frequencies more and it is enough to make a difference on the soft ends of the Nikon 200mm f2 lens. I have to admit… Canon really put some amazing engineering into that 200 f2.0 L glass. Your Canon has 17 elements in 12 groups compared to Nikons 13 elements in 9 groups. It’s bad enough that you get to shoot 28mp FX, and I get a little over 12 (with great ISO potential I must add), and now you get this kind of an awesome lens available to the Canon folks too. Feel the rocks my friend, I just tossed a few. I see the Cool Aide but I’m just not ready to drink the loss on all of this Nikon gear yet.
Ben, the location of that shot is the most important element, I (or anyone) could have got a very similar look from the 85 or 135 (or a 50 1.4 on a crop camera) near wide open.
The spot is right on the edge of the shade with some light seeping through the tree cover and the foliage behind has great light coming through from above.
The light on the kids is coming off the water nearby and is nicely diffused as well as the filtered light from above.
It’s also only very early spring here so the sun hasn’t hit full blast yet, when that happens the big scrims & cuts come out.I wouldn’t get to fussed about MTF’s on lenses, there’s a thousand things YOU can do to improve a photo before you start to talk lens specs or brands.
That said, I like the look of fast prime lenses and use them most of the time, this new one will be busy I can tell you. 😉There is a down side to dumping zooms though, you have to change lenses more.
I will admit that the DsIII is a killer camera for skin-tone and people shots in general, the high rez gives very smooth transition from highlight to shadow as well.
They don’t need a lot of post to look good.(Thanks for the comments on the kids as well, I think they’re beautiful as well and have no idea where they get it from. ;D)
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Sweet David.
Grats on the new lens. Now I can live vicariously through you and a friend who picked up their new 800 f5.6..The 85mm 1.8 is a great portrait lens on 1.3 bodies but it’s not going to get the same compression, although their DoF should be similiar when each is wide open. I’ve looked at the 85mm 1.2 L but couldn’t possibly justify it unless fashion or wedding photogrpahy were my source of living. Not when the f1.8 stands in well for the journeyman. Anyone I know who has or had the 135 f2.0 L has done nothing but rave about it. I think if I did more indoor sports like Volleyball, gymnastics where 200mm can be to much, that would be my lens of choice.
I’m with you on preferring fast primes over zooms. The 24-70 f2.8 is my workhorse now and while I’m still thinking hard about a 70-200 ( F2.8 or f4 IS or non IS), it and they will be my only zooms. Thinking I really want a 70-200 for the hunting stuff I’m about to embark on. Having said that, a second body with the older
John, the 85 1.8 and 100 F2 are both sweet lenses and both are a bargain and don’t suffer when compared for sharpness to the more expensive L’s.
With the 70-200’s I would go for the f4 L IS – it’s sharper then the 2.8 and much lighter, the stop you loose is easy made up with the improved high ISO performance.The 135 F2 is another awesome lens, I think it’s good value for it’s quality and a little easier to handle when chasing a 3 year old around.. 😉
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Absolutely love the earth tones in that last David. Hope thats on a wall.
I like the 85 f.18. Use it for family shots, indoor sports and have experimented a tiny bit with it for Flowers and using 12mm tube. Bet you could do some wicked razor thin dof , creamy backgound stuff with the 200 d2.0 and a tube.
J
What’s the min. focus distance with the 85 on the 12mm ?
I bet that would be great for general fishing stuff if all you had to do was add the tube to get some macro happening..I have to try the 200 with a tube – the 1.9 mtr (6 feet?) min. focus distance is a bit long !
My 300 /4 as an example comes down to 1.5 (5feet ?)
Also going to give it a run on a 1.4 extender soon.
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
MFD on the 85 f1.8 is about 2 feet. I think its 26 inches. With 12mm in tubes is about a maybe 16inces.
As you can see, the effective DoF at MFD is razor thin and I love the “gag” Bokeh. Slap a Tube (maybe 26mm) on the 200 and you’d get some wicked dof/bokeh. Im not much of a flower shooter but what little experimentation Ive done its good and maybe better than my 180mm f3.5 for “larger” macro subjects..flowers, dragon flies, maybe frongs and the like where you want a bit more DoF anyways and where 1:1 would be too much. according to the lens its 1:1.8.
With 66mm in tubes it would be darn close to 1:1 at f1.8.
ouch 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.