[danielchtong]

Does it AF? Sorry, manual focus lens is out of the competition.

Am I right to say that what really counts is the images? MF lenses typically sells for 1/3 of its AF counterparts even of the same optics. If anyone of us is fine with MF , there is no reason why they are discounted.

But you may rephrase your statement by saying that you are only interested in currently available lenses. That makes more senses as it is a consumer decision of not buying used lenses.



Daniel

[Pål Jensen]

This guy always has great examples from his Nikon 200 f/2, an enormous, expensive, but great lens:.

The DOF difference from F:2 to F:2.8 in a 200mm lens is not detectable in real life, except under some hard scrutiny in side-by-side comparisons shot.

You could easily say a 200/2.8 shot is made by a 200/2 wide open; no one would notice the difference.

[kristoffon]

The DOF difference from F:2 to F:2.8 in a 200mm lens is not detectable in real life, except under some hard scrutiny in side-by-side comparisons shot.

You could easily say a 200/2.8 shot is made by a 200/2 wide open; no one would notice the difference.

That makes sense until you realize that on aps-c the equivalent-fov lens is 135mm and suddenly dof is much deeper.

Or you need a really big studio to take portraits with a 200mm

[Jonson PL]

Not really . I tend to disagree. Pentax can mount a challenge anytime. You have to remember at a FL of 200mm the DoF is very little indeed even for F8.
Bokeh of 200/2 of Canon as shown in your example

Bokeh of 200/2.8 of Pentax ... And this was taken at F3.2

F3.2

And this was taken even at F5.6

Daniel, Toronto

Thanks, good illustrations.
When it comes to thin DoF, my 50/1.2 can also do the trick. But look forward to hopefully one day the 200/2.8. Or that Pentax would come out with a 135/2.
200/2 would be way to heavy and big. Don’t think it would sell much

Agreed. Obviously he used off-camera diffused lighting here, and exposed the subject slightly above the background, so hence the "pop". Actually I think it sort of removes the subject from the environment...since he is basically lit separate from the rest of the world. Still looks good thought. Also he is pushing the exposure of the eyes 1 or 2 stops here, to give the faces even more vibrancy.

Believe me, the lens is hardly doing all the work here...but it does help to have that sharpness wide open in combination with the blur. I sure hope that the 1Ds can focus accurately (I don't doubt it for a $5k ? camera).

Although, to put something straight, a 200/2 lens might make portraits a little too easy, once you get your lighting working out right. Don't have to worry about small details in the background mudding up your photo, since they are blown to oblivion in the bokeh. But I guess that leaves the photog to worry about other details such as model poses & subject lighting.

-Jim

Thanks for the info

I too have drooled over such glass. There was a blog somewhere with pictures of this woman on train tracks taken with the canon 200/2 but I don't remember where it is. Anyways, I don't think the "pop" seen in those (excellent) examples on FM forums is from post processing but rather from the photographers use of lighting

Thanks for chiming in

The photog claims that the second set were not PP but how does he get that vignetting without it? I doubt that the lens is vignetting that much and it really doesn't make sense to do that mechanically these days. Anyone have another explanation for this?
I know that this thread is about 3D pop but the vignetting is not hurting the focus on the subject at all.

Well noted

Lightroom has far more than "some basic PP'ing it can do". Many people use Lightroom exclusively for PP now. Look at Keitha's photos; I believe that she uses LR almost exclusively now and her photos are fantastically finished, but by no means are they unprocessed.

Hi Darren,
Good hearing from you

Just a strong suspicion because Ned Bunnell didn't reply to a person who asked, so something is going on w/ the FA lenses. And Pentax no doubt wants to push DA lenses for the lens correction now that the K7 supports it.

And you're right about processing/lighting helping images pop. To get the pseudo-3D effect (what I refer to as "pop"), it's a combo of background blur, sharpness/contrast of the main subject, lighting to make the subject look more 3d (like a shaded graphical sphere). I think someone in that FM thread mentioned that some of the images looked like the people were superimposed on a fake background which is a side effect of making something look "3D" in what's inherently a 2D medium...

[m8o]

as many have noted, it is more about photographic technique than equipment cost.
it all goes back to the fact that a good photographer can take a good image iwth any camera simply because he knows how to use it.

In this regard, I'm hoping everyone read the photographer's note regarding his AF technique at the link in the OP. I found it very interesting. Senior Portraits with 200/2 wide open. - FM Forums

[jogiba]

The opening shot on this video was done with a Canon 200mm F1.8.
[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=7151244&amp[/vimeo]

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326

[pinholecam]

I don't see the point to the claim.
The sample pict of the 200/2 has
1. A highlight flash lighting coming from the top right.
2. Likely a flash from the front left.
3. Background that is underexposed wrt flash
All these work to emphasize the subject over the background.

[Blue]

I have to agree here. The first shot looks like it was taken late afternoon in warm, beautiful light and the colours look spot on. The second is way too blue and a little too magenta as well. White balance on the first seems far better to me. Daniel, maybe you need to calibrate your screen?

I'd would consider that a little too warm even for the same time period for Florida. That pic should be warm, but the camera apparently was effected by the red hat.

[Clicker]

as many have noted, it is more about photographic technique than equipment cost.

it all goes back to the fact that a good photographer can take a good image iwth any camera simply because he knows how to use it.

...and this is why i follow most of you guys/gals here and one reason Pentax has been slow to adopt competitors features on their equipment

[goubejp]

The bokey of the Canon 200 f2 looks a bit nervous and I dislike it; the 3D pop effect obtained in these portraits seems obtained by light effects instead of the lens itself.

[kenyee]

Wow...this thread is still going? :-)
Just to prove it's just not the lighting that's doing this:
Nikon 200/2 (looks like one umbrella):
Rachana. on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Canon 200/1.8 (looks like just a reflector):
IMG_0281 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Canon 200/1.8 (maybe one light or possibly cloudy skies):
AJ's Senior Pics Corrected 29 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Canon 200/1.8 (maybe a reflector but probably not):
Flickr: Please wait...

What's interesting about the bokeh is it smooths out so quickly the further away the subject is from the background. It's almost like your subject in front of a muslin or other background.

That said...if Pentax made a DFA*135/1.8 for around $1000, I'd be more than happy :-)

[filorp]

i'd buy it for 1500-2000 it would be fair price i'd say....

[danielchtong]

Getting back to the OP's suggestion about 200/F2. My point is that given the cost, weight , size and price (4x) , it is doubtful if Pentax should make that. Pentax should concentrate on availability of longer lenses like 400 - 600mm range.
Also given the very little DoF, majority of my 200mm shots are in F3.5 to F4 as there is really no need to throw away the DofF as bokeh is something that is guaranteed.

Here are both at F4 even with background very close to subject.














The background is like paint brush even at F4. Why bother to blur it more by widening the aperture given bokeh is guaranteed.










Of course if you want spend $3000 more for that little difference of F2.8 and F2 (in aperture), that is your privilege






Daniel

[danielchtong]

I am to copy as much as I can about the performance (sp bokeh) of the famed Canon 200mm/F2L
Senior Portraits with 200/2 wide open. - FM Forums



And you may compare them with the bokeh performance of Da*200mmF2.8

Hope the comparison is extensive enough to enable forum members to see if $3K premium on top of DA*200mm is worth it or not











Daniel

[danielchtong]

The DOF difference from F:2 to F:2.8 in a 200mm lens is not detectable in real life, except under some hard scrutiny in side-by-side comparisons shot.

You could easily say a 200/2.8 shot is made by a 200/2 wide open; no one would notice the difference.

I missed your comment in this long thread. Cannot agree with you more
I said the same earlier as well


Daniel