200/2 vs. 300/2.8 -- for portraits.

Pros and cons of each, relative to the other?

icor1031 wrote in post #18989322
Pros and cons of each, relative to the other?

?????
Why?
What do you want to achieve?
To me Long focallenghts with tjent that required distance makes portraits look very compressed

A few thoughts, if you please. Both lenses are outrageously expensive, compared to alternatives. For tight head/head & shoulders shots, the DOF will be ridiculously thin, which results in way less than optimal results. In order to increase DOF, stopping down is required, and that leaves you paying a crap-ton of money for a really fast lens and shooting it at f/5.6+. I've owned the 135L and 200L II, and was a fan of neither for portrait type work. For head shots, you need f/5.6 to have any hope of getting everything in focus (ears, hair, etc.). I can shoot f/5.6 with a 28-135, or 18-135, for a lot less money than 135L or 200II L, let alone the choices presented here.
Studio use for the lenses in question would require pretty large spaces. Studio work may (should?) relieve you of the necessity of shooting huge apertures, as you control the background and the light, and the results. Again, good results can be had for significantly less money.
If I were planning on using a 200 f/2 or 300 f/2.8, it would be as a fast-action/sports lens. Portraits? Not so much.

I am a full time pro(commercial/adverti​sing) and I have done portraits with both. I preferred the 200 2L. I am also one that is in the camp that if the eyes are sharp then it is OK. In my opinion the 200 2L, 300 2.8L and 400 2.8L are the real gems in the Canon lines line. I went all Leica in 2015 and when I sold my Canon gear I almost got what I paid for the 200 2L after 8 years of use.


Here is a link to Lisa Halloway's work and she uses the 200 2L a lot for her portraits. She also posts here.
http://ljhollowayphoto​graphy.com

Heres a couple of mine with the 200 2L. Both wide open (f/2).

icor1031 wrote in post #18989322
Pros and cons of each, relative to the other?

Cons:

Walkie-talkie needed to comfortably convey commands for poses and directions to subjects. They better be adults too.

Using a lens like this for portrait is a very niche thing. There are a few who do it and do it very well, but again, its quite niche and requires lots of space for environmental style (like Lisa's work), and is not even doing anything special for headshots compared to a shorter focal length at a closer distance to subject.

Otherwise, the glass is fantastic, surgically sharp, lovely rendering and can produce blurry backgrounds. But that's not what makes a portrait good, at all.

Very best,

To my eye, the photos above make my point that the 200 (and 300) being too long for portraiture. They do a nice job of blurring the distracting background, when/where that is necessary. I think the 200mm shots would be greatly improved wrt to the subject if they were stopped down to get more of the subject in focus. That would also include more of the background, which would not work for those shots. Environment matters.
The last photo using an 85mm lens reinforces my point. Most of the subject is in focus at f/4. In studio, shooter controls the background. As a portrait, the 85mm photo is hugely better than the 200mm photos above it. And at f/4, the range of less expensive lenses is huge.

And I would argue that these are examples of why sharp ears (unless you are photographing earrings for a jewelry ad) are not important. I have yet to have a art director or a client say "dang I wish that ear was sharp". Those things really don't take place in the world outside forum land. The eyes are important and whether the image is working with the concept and layout. There are a bunch of important things happening but sharp ears are not usually one of them.

I found the 200 2L better for me than the 300 2.8. But these choices are subjective. What fits best for the way I see and work are not the same for anyone else. I found the 200 2L to long for most of the work i need to do. Also I found that Leica M better fits the way I see and work. But I do miss the 200 2L sometimes though that is rare. I do think that equipment, post production techniques, the way we compose and many other things can all help to contribute to a style. A 200 2L and a 300 2.8 are both big investments. Make sure that those are the right tools for you and the type of work they are intended to be used for. They can be used quite effectively for portraits. But it is good to understand why you are using them and to what end.

200 f/2 can be made into a 300mm (280mm) f/2.8 with a 1.4x T-Con. You get both "looks" in one lens. the same can not be said if you get the 300mm.


If portrait's will be the primary use, the 200mm makes a lot more sense. IMHO all the pros are on that lens for this category of photography.


That's between those two.

If you do not already have a 135mm f/2L try that first. It gets you 90% of what the 200mm offers for 1/8 the price.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18989540
200 f/2 can be made into a 300mm (280mm) f/2.8 with a 1.4x T-Con. You get both "looks" in one lens. the same can not be said if you get the 300mm.


If portrait's will be the primary use, the 200mm makes a lot more sense. IMHO all the pros are on that lens for this category of photography.


That's between those two.

If you do not already have a 135mm f/2L try that first. It gets you 90% of what the 200mm offers for 1/8 the price.

You've had both the 200 1.8 and the f/2 correct? Do you still have either?

I owned the f/1.8 twice in fact! Sincerely regretted having to sell it. But then a deal on a used f/2 came along and I did sell the f/1.8

I shoot with the 135mm f/2L probably 5x more often than I shoot with the 200mm.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18989554
I owned the f/1.8 twice in fact! Sincerely regretted having to sell it. But then a deal on a used f/2 came along and I did sell the f/1.8

I shoot with the 135mm f/2L probably 5x more often than I shoot with the 200mm.

Yeah the 1.8 is special. I always really liked the IS on the f/2. The 200 2 is a beast though. Schlep that around for 10 + hours ha ha. I agree that the 135 2 is a really nice lens.

I have most of the lenses mentioned above. It's rare that I get my 200mm 1.8 out for portraits. But when I do.... Wow!

The 200/2 is really special for portraits. I wouldn't want anything longer and sometimes wish I could get the same look with something shorter, but it's unique in its rendering among Canon lenses that focal length or shorter.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18989413
Heres a couple of mine with the 200 2L. Both wide open (f/2).

I actually dislike that. I want to use the lens to shoot full-length or close to it, and have the subject mostly in focus, such as in the images below. At 300mm, what f/ do you think I need to achieve this? Especially note: I want to maintain the beautiful blur these have.

https://i.pinimg.com …28e3e13a9a08b8a​604d06.jpg
https://www.slrlounge.​com …f2-portraits-800x1200.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com …cb8158a356c65b5​f995df.jpg

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18989540
200 f/2 can be made into a 300mm (280mm) f/2.8 with a 1.4x T-Con. You get both "looks" in one lens. the same can not be said if you get the 300mm.

That's a very interesting point. However, I'm a perfectionist when it comes to sharpness; I doubt I'd be happy. I'll see if thedigitalpicture has sample images of that combo.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18989540
If you do not already have a 135mm f/2L try that first. It gets you 90% of what the 200mm offers for 1/8 the price.

I have the Sonnar 135, as in my sig.

200mm on full frame, just around knees up in portrait orientation is a 30 foot distance with a little room to spare to compose but that's mostly centered. You have to be even farther away to do this full body. Full body, landscape orientation, with room for the environment will put you around 60 feet.

I assume you're already prepared for these working distances for what you're looking for?

The 300 would be even farther.

Have you considered something like the Sigma 105mm F1.4? I realize you have a 135mm F2. What are you looking to truly do different than what your 135 F2 does? Examples?

Very best,