It's Already 2AM: 33nd Edition... Time for monk3y to post some J-Girls!!

iLvision wrote in post #15511979
I’m just busting your chops. This is irrelevant anyway. We ALL go through switching

I’m a complete sucker when it comes to 200mm f/2!!! Maybe It’s time for a purchase one of these? I will get around 4.5k back from taxes... Either 200mm or a newer car..
[/IMG]

The 300 is sharper.

iLvision wrote in post #15511979
I’m just busting your chops. This is irrelevant anyway. We ALL go through switching

I’m a complete sucker when it comes to 200mm f/2!!! Maybe It’s time for a purchase one of these? I will get around 4.5k back from taxes... Either 200mm or a newer car..

IMO, that picture doesn't do the lens justice. Check out Erik Almas, I think you might appreciate his work.

dgrPhotos wrote in post #15511983
The 300 is sharper.

I cannot use 300mm indoors. Way too long and heavy anyway. There’s just something about that 200mm...

dgrPhotos wrote in post #15511983
The 300 is sharper.

Neith are the best for portraits though

iLvision wrote in post #15511990
I cannot use 300mm indoors. Way too long and heavy anyway. There’s just something about that 200mm...

85L. All im saying

laxlife1234 wrote in post #15511991
Neith are the best for portraits though

Are you kidding me? 200 f2 IS the king of portrait lenses. Too bad not everyone can afford it

I mean look at this beast... need a 300mm 2.8? no problem slap a 1.4x and you get a 280mm 2.8

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …kdphotography/4​779136319/

iLvision wrote in post #15512002
Are you kidding me? 200 f2 IS the king of portrait lenses. Too bad not everyone can afford it

I gotta disagree, it's second to 85L II, I've seen pictures with both and the 200 makes the face a tad too flat imo. That's subjective though, bokeh wise it's obviously better, focal length wise I think the 85 produce much nice features on the face.

iLvision wrote in post #15512005
I mean look at this beast... need a 300mm 2.8? no problem slap a 1.4x and you get a 280mm 2.8

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …kdphotography/4​779136319/
Nikon D700 with 200 f2 & TC-20 by MKD Photography, on Flickr

I'm not denying it's a beast! But 280mm doesn't equal 300mm

I think you may have been out of school for too long

laxlife1234 wrote in post #15512014
I gotta disagree, it's second to 85L II, I've seen pictures with both and the 200 makes the face a tad too flat imo. That's subjective though, bokeh wise it's obviously better, focal length wise I think the 85 produce much nice features on the face.

Dude... I’d rather keep the entire face in focus (200mm f2) than an eye in focus and the nose ALREAY out of focus at 85 1.2.
What I’m saying is that the 200mm is a little easier to use. You get more play with focus with the 200mm, thus you can be a little sloppier and still get great results
With the 85... one slight little movement... boom, the entire face is OOF

Fricks wrote in post #15510650
Supercross!!

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Monster Energy AMA Supercross Anaheim 2 2013 by JacobFricks, on Flickr

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Rock Star Energy girls. Self portrait by JacobFricks, on Flickr

Did you get to meet Tanner Foust? Or is there another driver for Rockstar that does this event?

laxlife1234 wrote in post #15512024
I'm not denying it's a beast! But 280mm doesn't equal 300mm

I think you may have been out of school for too long

20mm is not THAT much different for a telephoto.

Well it looks like my purchase may be delayed a bit. Seems I have a new daily spending limit on debit card purchases....maybe my wife is behind all this!

iLvision wrote in post #15512030
Dude... I’d rather keep the entire face in focus (200mm f2) than an eye in focus and the nose ALREAY out of focus at 85 1.2.
What I’m saying is that the 200mm is a little easier to use. You get more play with focus with the 200mm, thus you can be a little sloppier and still get great results
With the 85... one slight little movement... boom, the entire face is OOF

I don't follow your logic. Shooting both wide open with a distance of 10 ft, you have 0.29 ft in focus with the 85L and 0.09 ft in focus with the 200 f/2.

iLvision wrote in post #15512034
20mm is not THAT much different for a telephoto.

Nah, but I'm just saying since you said 280mm = 300mm, maybe in imaginary number world, not in real life though