The 200mm f/2 lens is normally thought of for things like sports photography, but it has found a second home in the hands of portrait photographers. Are the magical images it creates worth the price? Check out this great comparison video to find out.
Coming to you from Manny Ortiz, this great video compares portraits shot on a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens to those taken with a 200mm f/2. The 200mm f/2 lens has traditionally been intended as a tool for photojournalists and sports photographers, but it has found popularity as an extreme portrait lens, where its combination of sharpness, telephoto compression, and super-narrow depth of field make for instantly unique renderings, which is why I named it the piece of gear I will never sell. The downside of the 200mm f/2 is that it is an extremely expensive lens, typically selling for about two to three times the price of a 70-200mm f/2.8, which is usually already a fantastic lens. Still, it offers the absolute best performance and superlative images, which is why some portrait photographers swear by it. Check out the video above to see a comparison between the two lenses and a lot of great example images.
These lenses have a unique look, but I find the perspective created by the photographer-subject distance to be unflattering. The images have a sort of 1980's fashion catalog feel, and there's just no sense of intimacy.
For a headshot, I'd never want to go above 135mm, and for a full body shot, 85mmish. Just my taste.
It all depends on a face type. For children and skinny adults the 200/2 is a superb lens. For not-so-skinny adults you may need to "shape" the face with a proper light and makeup.
OP: "which is why I named it the piece of gear I will never sell" - never say never :) I will sell mine as soon as an RF version is announced.
The 1980s fashion look...LOL I remember that look, often shot with a 300 2.8, a blurry New York yellow cab and a couple traffic lights in the background was essential.
One lens which is overlooked in the Nikon world is the 180mm f2.8 which I have and used for portraits gives the same effects
I loved the 180/2.8 back when I shot Nikon film cameras. I seriously doubt that I’d invest so much into a lens as the 200/2 requires. If I shot sports, I could justify a 300/2.8.
Working in under some pretty extreme condition here in Fairbanks when i replace a lens which the cold is hard on gear I buy used. the 180 is one of the only lens I have bought new after wearing out my old one. I do a lot of work for the mining and oil field work while shooting workers engaged in work out side a lot of times I have to shoot from a distance. Its perfect for this application one would think the 70-200 is way to go when its 40 to 50 below zoom lenses have way to much going on inside to preform effectively.
An older MF version is on my wish list. It’s much more affordable than a Nikkor 200/2.8 which still fetches a couple of grand on eBay.
I f your looking for a MF 180 our local camera repair guy here in Fairbanks might have one he is in the process of retiring and hard to track down he a personal freind of mine I ll ask.
As for the 200 f2 pretty much is a indoor sports lens which I have used a borrowed a few times for hockey and basket ball its well worth the cost if you can justify it.
Sure, I’m interested. My first serious camera was a Nikon FTn I bought overseas in the early 70’s. That camera is long gone and I shoot Sony a7’s now. I’m going back and buying all the old classic Nikkor glass I couldn’t afford in my youth. Other Nikkors of note include the 24/2.8, 50/1.2, 85/1.4 & 105/2.5. The 50 & 85 are also on my wish list. The 55/1.2 is often overlooked due to it’s soft focus. I love this lens for its rendition of buttery smooth complexion. Very flattering for female portraits.
....used for portraits gives the similar 'but not the same' effects"
FIXED
I suspect that saying it’s found popularity is probably a bit of a stretch.
A 200mm prime where you have to stand a mile away to do even a half body length shot?
And pay all that extra for the privilege?
To produce images with such a fine difference that paying clients can’t discern it?
No thanks.
I don’t shoot portraits anymore, but I wouldn’t use that lens for free.
Paying clients generally need lots of direction and the working distance for that lens makes it impractical (for me) to work with paying clients.
Love the look of the 200mm but would agree that the working distance can make it tough - unless you are working with a great model who doesn't need any instruction.
Not true, I've never had an issue with photographing all sorts of subjects with it, including children.
This video is quite old now and I believe Manny was mainly using it just for fun, it’s not really a viable option with the price etc when you can just buy the 56 and stand a bit closer... but interesting results nonetheless.
This is a new video; he actually ended up purchasing the lens earlier this year.
Ah if it’s new I’ll give it a watch. I thought he was a Sony shooter and only tested Fuji stuff occasionally?
Not that is matters what brand he uses.
He mostly shoots Sony as his daily driver but owns a camera from Canon, Nikon, and Fuji for lens review and comparison opportunities.
I like how long focal lengths can crush a background at times . Getting very unique looks . I just picked up an old Nikkor 400mm f/3.5 ais manual focus lens . This lens is so easy to manual focus at f/3.5 to 5.6 . It’s still a hit n miss thing . I shoot live music with this it would be so tough working with a model .
Looking at the cost and weight of these 200mm f/2s (5+ pounds!) makes me love my Samyang 135mm f/2 even more on a Pentax K3 APSC with IBIS. Its FF equivalent 206mm has been great for live music where the manual focus isn't much of a hindrance.
135mm f2..... I have been in love wih it from the first moment.
Love the 200 for head shots but the same can be done with 85-135mm compressing the background at that framing is NA. What would produce more stellar images is any lens with tilt ability’s allowing the photographer working close with the model to shape the focus plane.
I always enjoy a picture of a subject in a sliver of focus showing a OOF foreground and background, this however won’t cut it for life style.
My experiences: 250mm on a Hassy V500 plus extension tube! Excellent with proper lighting! Today, M Zuiko 75mm f1.8 rocks for portraiture, imo! Or M Zuiko 45mm f1.2 pro all weather! Studio needs vs on-location tools may be very different. “Whatever floats ‘yer boat!”
Personally, the 200 seems a little long for portraiture. And comparing to a zoom lens with all the problems lots of moving glass introduces isn’t measuring like for like. Surely the best portrait lens is the 85mm f1.2? It’s short enough not to flatten features, long enough to flatter and fast enough to get great DoF control well inside its operating envelope.
85mm to 135mm I think is the sweet spot for portraits.
Ultimate is relative. For each photographer, there is a different ultimate.
I stumbled upon this years back for about $120. This is as much 200mm as I care to work with. :-)
That is one sharp lens I have one
It is. Granted, manual, but TINY for 200mm.
I have a 70-200 ƒ/2.8 and a 200 ƒ/2.0
I rarely use my 70-200 for weddings/portraits/cars anymore
200/2 is a beast and amazing build quality
Yep this is my go to lens for portraits. It's definitely the piece of gear I would never ever sell.
A 200mm lens even at f/4 or f5.6 has extreme shallow DOF. At f/2, would that not be a bit too much? In other words, - The "One eyelash in focus" syndrome? I'm not a big fan of blowing the background out so much, that it loses all context. The backgrounds can start looking like those backdrops photographers use for school photos. Just pure mush.
I actually preferred the Sony photos in most of his test shots in the video.