There are a couple of people on FB that post images from this Canon 200mm F2 and they are incredible, stunning even. What is great is that one of them sometimes posts the raw photo. What that shows is: The Canon 200mm F2 is a great lens. Match the right composition with the right editing and you have a truly phenomenal photo that cannot be replicated by any other lens.
Sort of. A 300mm 2.8 will give the same degree of bokeh with even more compression. But if you want a bokeh master with the ultimate separation, then a 400mm 2.8 beats them both; just bring your walkie talkie to communicate with the model.
@@Amerifilms if you watched the whole video you would have noticed that 1st lens element is at least 20mm away from edge so yes it is relatively safe.Placing lens on not flat surface could easily damage it though.I would never have done that with 6 grand lens.
Hey Manny, I have two things to say, first is power of photoshop function select subject, and hair select, where we can "cheat" and with a few click select subject, invert selection and raise blur to get similar results. Another thing is that ordinary people do not see the difference between F4 and F1.4. This is a great lens but I can't find enough reasons to justify this price tag.
@@davidspearman3939 the truth that many photographers don't want to hear is that most people would have to have the difference pointed out to them to even notice.
Colors don’t matter when you’re shooting raw. What you see in the lcd are in camera jpeg preview of a raw file. Raw files are flat, you decide how the colors are gonna look in the end
While I respect Manny but this is the clearest evidence of diminishing returns. Does the Canon have more pleasing bokeh? Yes. Does it have $4k plus more beautiful bokeh? No. Great video!
After watching Manny's videos; one of the questions I'll be asking my photographer is: Are you shooting with 1.x to 2.0 or 2.8+ ? I know who i'll hire.
For a full body shot at around 2:26 with soft background, I will use the 85mm; plus the distance to subject is sooo far it is hard to interact with her, IMO. For a close up shot at 2:14, the blur is minimal between the 2 lenses. So outside shots I rarely use the 200f/2 and eventually I sold it. I kept it for a few year during the time my daughter do indoor plays, dances and it is awesome. IMO, the 200f/2 is an indoor event and sports lens.
Great comparison Manny, I've been using the earlier 200mm f1.8L version since 1998, it's simply superb and even on current Canon cameras it looks so good and still holds it's own! The out of focus bokeh highlights are just insane! Looking forward to seeing your 85mm shootout soon!
I use the Nikon 200mm f2 with my Sony a7riii and love it. The Commlite af adapter works great for street or portait photography. Had the 70-200 2.8 and just wasn't as happy with the files when working on my 34" monitor. Maybe for viewing on small screens like phones it doesn't matter as much but I'm a larger print type of person.
Politely disagree if you are printing or displaying large images. There is a significant difference between the two. You have to shoot with them both to see it. If you are only viewing or showing images online, then you are correct. It is very hard to see differences with small online images.
I got both lenses that you show in this video. There isn't much of a difference to clients, they wouldn't care. BUT, there is a difference to me. I find joy in that little bit of extra the F2 gives. That also counts for something when you try to make great pictures, your own pleasure in the process.
Ahh! Can't wait for that portraits video, man. Even after this video, I still want the 200 F/2, haha! Awesome in-depth comparison WITH the pics man! Love these where you show the pics vs just talking about how the pics look like (without showing the pics that some people do).
My first thought before I got to the end of the video was, how would the sigma 135mm 1.8 compare? Considering its just 1k compared to the silly prices of the Sony and Canon.
I've used the 200mm f2 and love the lens. I'm looking forward to Canon coming out with the RF 135mm f1.4 next year. As person who has used the 200 f2, it is a fantastic lens! I love the images, they are just dreamy but sharp! I would love to see a comparison of the 200mm f2 when the RF 135mm f1.4 comes out.
love this bro... but my anxiety was at level 10000 every time you put the camera down on its lens... smh.. lol love that f2 bokeh better tho... all about that POP!!!
Great content Manny, I saw the 85mm 1.2-105mm 1.4-135mm 1.8-200mm 2.0 comparative, but thought 70-200 2.8 comparative was missing. Not actually. Plus is perfect, because is straight out of the camera. The only thing would like to ask is to please compare the 300mm 2.8L IS to the 200mm 2.0L IS for this type of shots. I have all those lenses, except for the 200mm f/2 for my Canon and Nikon DSLR’s and was trying to convince myself if I should drop some mad money on an old Nikon 200mm f/2G VR that who knows if AF is going to hold, for purely non-business street photography use.
Manny I would go for the Sony every time from what I am seeing. I get it with the blur but I think we are over the boka thing now. Look at the colour in the Sony images...... beats the Canon six grand lens every time. Ill take the Sony and a chunk of change. If they were free to me........ I think I would still go for the 70-200. More versatile, better colour. My 10c
Hmm, seeing how computational photography advances (look at Dxo photolab4 for noise reduction for example, it is absolutely insane!), I wonder if we will not be able to easily simulate the "slight"difference in post, not having to carry a large, heavy, expensive, single focal length lens to achieve "this look". Heck, even a f4.0 lens could do the trick!
Great comparison! 👍 How would the 200mm F2 compare to the 300mm F2.8 as that is a more affordable lens used and is what most people would be more app to buy ? Thanks 😊
Nice content as usual Bro. Looking forward for the next battle video. And in case you can, try to add the Canon 300mm F2.8 (version 1) for that Portrait Prime Lens Battle
I'm so tempted, this would complement my 85 1.2 and my 300 and 400 2.8's. Right now the Canon store is selling the EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Refurbished for only $3875 but even for that price not sure I can justify any new EF lens purchase now given EF's are being put out to pasture. Likely sticking with my 70-200 2.8 for that focal length. I can enhance the 70-200's bokeh in PS but still on the fence. This lens is sweet and would be great for nighttime sports however the advancements in lowlight ability of RF cameras likely negates that as well. Perhaps these factors will continue to impact the pricing of this lens and as such I might pull the trigger in the future.
Wow thanks for the review… inspiring..I’d go for the native 70-200mm… does it focus closer than 200mm f2? Hands down I think the perfect portrait lens set would be 135gm and 70-200 gm … Nice review bro!!!
I personally like the clearer perception of what the background is over the overly muddy waters that the F2 produces. I could see it useful when a photographer needs heavy compensation for not willing to find good backgrounds, or when forced to shoot in crummy places, but the price tag is just ridiculous to even do that. Topaz Labs products can do it way better for way less in cost initially and in the long term.
the Canon 200mm f2 looks great!! I did test Sony GM and Canon L lenses for me the Canon rendering and looks wins! I had the Sony a7rIII and went back to Canon for this and the ergonomics!
@@ralphtime I compared the 200 f2 to my 135 1.8 and the 200 gave the more pleasing image to my eye. I’ve not yet used a 105 1.4 but according to a DOF calculator, the 135 1.8 has a shallower DOF than the 105 1.4. That said, the 105 probably has a creamier rendering as my 135 is too sharp sometimes.
In the leaf situation, in most of these shots, like more texture. Gives more context but still really nice pop of Diana! You know she always pops anyway!
You should also check out the Fuji G110 F2 on the GFX 100S medium format. The 110 f/2 in full frame is 88mm with f/1.6. I know, I have that setup. I would like to see that Fuji against the Canon 200 F/2
Sony color looks great! I would say at 6:06, in the Sony, her face looks thinner/longer. So strange since both are 200mm. Your video ends at 9:01, but the length of your post is 11:55, really strange. Is it my computer?
Manny, had a question bro, I have the sigma 24 1.4 EF mount and my friend is using it on his R6 he says it’s not shooting at the highest 12fps, what could be the issue other than the battery and cards not being fast enough?
Great Video Manny, could you add the Sony 24 1.4 G master to your next video’s comparison? I find 85 mm lenses hard to work with most of the time for portraits, would love to see the 24mm 1.4 Many thanks
These 200mm primes are magic. I use the Nikkor 200mmmm 2.0 VRII. It is creating the difference in you images. Same thing like with the 600mm 4.0 Primes, you get the difference to a 200-600mm 5.6 - 6.3 in your images for the price of maybe 5x the Zoom. If that is worth for you, you need to decide. For me it is.
Yeah, bought an open box Nikon 200 f/2 for my D3 a decade ago, after drooling over the photos taken with it on NikonCafe's lens lust forum for years. That thing is heavy and lightly used, but it is a real 3D popper. Also the legend of using a Folgers instant coffee plastic cap as its lens cap. In addition, I believed the 200 f/2 was the go to lens to shoot gymnastics back in the low ASA/ISO (film) days. 🙂
Prefer the color rendering of the 70-200, but the overall look of the additional glass and wider aperture of the prime is unique. Maybe not $5700 unique, but it's hardly as if people don't spend even more than that on individual lenses for specific applications.
i could be wrong, but same photos u could take with a Samyang 85mm f1.4 ... there would be some difference, but not anyone would be able to point it out. or 135mm 2.8 lens would do something similar. The only advantage of 200 mm lens is to be further from your subject. as i said i could be wrong, just my nerdy opinion.
Manny summarised, unintentionally, everything that's wrong with photography today. The background became more important than the subject/foreground. A 'great' portrait has become determined by how much 'bokaaa' you get in your shots. Gear shots, ones that require only a 6k$ lens and a camera, have become the standard to what makes a 'stunning, superb, portrait shot'.
I’m not surprised how little of a difference there is between these lenses at only a one stop difference with aperature. I think the 200 looks gorgeous at f2, but the fact that you can practically reproduce the exact same thing at 200mm f2.8 shows enough that buying a beast of a 70-200mm f2.8 will do just fine. For me, I’m gonna get the 100mm T5.6 GM for the super buttery bokeh.
Both images look great! Seriously when u pixel peep, sure the 200mm f2 is softer, but that doesn’t mean its better, having some context in the background is good especially if ur doing an environmental portrait as u mentioned. Having an image 3D pop too much can look weird unnatural and as if the subject been copy pasted into a backdrop. Not for everyone
I'm with you. It is rather boring to not be able to distinguish any of the background at all in all kinds of portraitures. That is the reason for a great composition. Otherwise, anybody can take any kind of portraiture w any fast lenses.
One thing is see a bunch of bokeh and something different unnatural pics, how is possible you don't know you can close f value as you need or not bokeh, sony fanboy
I can't wait the comparison of these bad boys. I love my 135mm GM because it's spectacular background compression, so it'll be interesting to see it compared to the 200mm f/2.
definitely a big difference... way more than expected. The 6k and the size of the lens is a deal breaker for me though. I struggle enough carting around my 70-200 2.8. Under certain circumstances it would be awesome though.
They both crazy sharp. If I could afford the 200 with no worries then yeah get it. But to save the money on it I’d rather put the time in post production to make it look great. Great vid Manny. Props to you both.
There are a couple of people on FB that post images from this Canon 200mm F2 and they are incredible, stunning even. What is great is that one of them sometimes posts the raw photo. What that shows is: The Canon 200mm F2 is a great lens. Match the right composition with the right editing and you have a truly phenomenal photo that cannot be replicated by any other lens.
Sort of. A 300mm 2.8 will give the same degree of bokeh with even more compression. But if you want a bokeh master with the ultimate separation, then a 400mm 2.8 beats them both; just bring your walkie talkie to communicate with the model.
Anyone else watch the 3 mins of black screen at the end waiting for manny to come back? 🤣
😂😂😂😂 i was like okay anything coming up
So true 😂😂😂😂
gotta do what you gotta do for that youtube money lol
Needed to get over 10 minutes to place another ad in the middle :)
Yesssirrryy
It's neither lens imo... It's Diana 💫 (and I say that with all respect) - You're an amazing photographer Manny 👍🙌
Yeah man, make photos to her with a webcam from 2000 and its all about her 😂 be real
@@svaeon Bruh... Make it make sense 😵💫
My heart..... you put the lens face down on the concrete ! 😂
Just what I thought 😱😱😱
me too, is it ok to do that? without the lens cap?
@@Amerifilms if you watched the whole video you would have noticed that 1st lens element is at least 20mm away from edge so yes it is relatively safe.Placing lens on not flat surface could easily damage it though.I would never have done that with 6 grand lens.
With a uv filter...no worries. I do it all the time.
Hey Manny, I have two things to say, first is power of photoshop function select subject, and hair select, where we can "cheat" and with a few click select subject, invert selection and raise blur to get similar results. Another thing is that ordinary people do not see the difference between F4 and F1.4. This is a great lens but I can't find enough reasons to justify this price tag.
between f/4 and 1.4? bull crap... even a noob would know the difference..
@@RyanREAXHe is tripping bro, seen too much cake in the video and didn't checked the numbers 😂
sorry you are not ordinary and you got super powers superman 😂 anyone can notice a difference between at least a ~0.5+/-.
Who else here is surprised that the difference was actually that big?!
There is one-stop between F2.8 and F2.0
@@riverhe2852 so true , that one stop really makes a world of difference!
There was not a $3000 difference for me.
I was surprised that its not that much of a difference as expected. especially compared with my 135 1.8. This video saved me a lot of money
@@davidspearman3939 the truth that many photographers don't want to hear is that most people would have to have the difference pointed out to them to even notice.
That 200 f2 crazy, but the colours on the Sony looks better IMO
I agree with you. Much better colors
Colors don’t matter when you’re shooting raw. What you see in the lcd are in camera jpeg preview of a raw file. Raw files are flat, you decide how the colors are gonna look in the end
I was with Sony for years and now a canon R6. Canon colors in raw are amazing! I build my own custom color profiles for even better colors.
Colours are easy to change, dof is not 👈
honestly, the sony file just looks warmer.
While I respect Manny but this is the clearest evidence of diminishing returns. Does the Canon have more pleasing bokeh? Yes. Does it have $4k plus more beautiful bokeh? No. Great video!
Exactly. And does a regular client care or notice? Pretty much no.
After watching Manny's videos; one of the questions I'll be asking my photographer is: Are you shooting with 1.x to 2.0 or 2.8+ ? I know who i'll hire.
@@j.kimmer1509 hahaha. You can still achieve the same result on photoshop! 😁😁
You know lenses aren't JUST made to get more bokeh lol
@@j.kimmer1509 sounds good if you pay your photographer a super premium for using ultra premium equipment.
For a full body shot at around 2:26 with soft background, I will use the 85mm; plus the distance to subject is sooo far it is hard to interact with her, IMO. For a close up shot at 2:14, the blur is minimal between the 2 lenses. So outside shots I rarely use the 200f/2 and eventually I sold it. I kept it for a few year during the time my daughter do indoor plays, dances and it is awesome. IMO, the 200f/2 is an indoor event and sports lens.
Great comparison Manny, I've been using the earlier 200mm f1.8L version since 1998, it's simply superb and even on current Canon cameras it looks so good and still holds it's own! The out of focus bokeh highlights are just insane! Looking forward to seeing your 85mm shootout soon!
the photo that came out straight of the sony side look so much better in term of color than all your edit
I use the Nikon 200mm f2 with my Sony a7riii and love it. The Commlite af adapter works great for street or portait photography. Had the 70-200 2.8 and just wasn't as happy with the files when working on my 34" monitor. Maybe for viewing on small screens like phones it doesn't matter as much but I'm a larger print type of person.
Honestly it aint all that. I'd save the cash and be happy enough with the f2.8
Politely disagree if you are printing or displaying large images. There is a significant difference between the two. You have to shoot with them both to see it. If you are only viewing or showing images online, then you are correct. It is very hard to see differences with small online images.
I got both lenses that you show in this video. There isn't much of a difference to clients, they wouldn't care. BUT, there is a difference to me. I find joy in that little bit of extra the F2 gives. That also counts for something when you try to make great pictures, your own pleasure in the process.
Indeed, it's so true. The smile that appears on one's face after capturing a great shot, or the process of editing, is incomparable.
The subject Looks more slim in the 70-200mm and wider in the 200mm f2. Why is that? Both images look nice but the 70-200mm seems to be more sliming.
If they are sooc then no distortion correction was applied.
Not sure why 9:05 through 11:54 is black screen, but 00:1 through 9:05 is excellent. Looking forward to your next video!
Ahh! Can't wait for that portraits video, man. Even after this video, I still want the 200 F/2, haha! Awesome in-depth comparison WITH the pics man! Love these where you show the pics vs just talking about how the pics look like (without showing the pics that some people do).
I'm happy with Sony 2.8 and somehow love the sony colors better. Thanks for this video 💕 love to see more videos like this! 💕
great video.
love the song you put this video. who is the artis? (
My first thought before I got to the end of the video was, how would the sigma 135mm 1.8 compare? Considering its just 1k compared to the silly prices of the Sony and Canon.
Looking forward to that ultimate portrait lens comparison!!
I've used the 200mm f2 and love the lens. I'm looking forward to Canon coming out with the RF 135mm f1.4 next year. As person who has used the 200 f2, it is a fantastic lens! I love the images, they are just dreamy but sharp! I would love to see a comparison of the 200mm f2 when the RF 135mm f1.4 comes out.
Manny thank u, ive been looking for this video title for ages, they next one is the one i want badly
love this bro... but my anxiety was at level 10000 every time you put the camera down on its lens... smh.. lol love that f2 bokeh better tho... all about that POP!!!
I like this dude, but seriously WTF is that? On a dirty ass sidewalk/street no less. To each their own I guess.
Gonna be unpopular here, but look at those Sony colours! They pop!
Wow- Beautiful! The Fuji Film 200mm f2.0 is my future lens. For my XT3.
Thanks for this comparison Manny, waiting for the ultimate comparison video! Loved the last 3 mins of total black btw 🤣👍🏻
Uncle, would you review Nikon 200 f2 vs the Canon's 200 f2?
My parents thinking i am sleeping
Meanwhile me watching 👀 Manny video at 1AM😎
Great content Manny, I saw the 85mm 1.2-105mm 1.4-135mm 1.8-200mm 2.0 comparative, but thought 70-200 2.8 comparative was missing. Not actually.
Plus is perfect, because is straight out of the camera.
The only thing would like to ask is to please compare the 300mm 2.8L IS to the 200mm 2.0L IS for this type of shots.
I have all those lenses, except for the 200mm f/2 for my Canon and Nikon DSLR’s and was trying to convince myself if I should drop some mad money on an old Nikon 200mm f/2G VR that who knows if AF is going to hold, for purely non-business street photography use.
How will the support for this lens be? Since it is one of the EF lenses that were discontinued by Canon, if it has a problem, will it become unusable?
Manny I would go for the Sony every time from what I am seeing. I get it with the blur but I think we are over the boka thing now. Look at the colour in the Sony images...... beats the Canon six grand lens every time. Ill take the Sony and a chunk of change. If they were free to me........ I think I would still go for the 70-200. More versatile, better colour. My 10c
Hmm, seeing how computational photography advances (look at Dxo photolab4 for noise reduction for example, it is absolutely insane!), I wonder if we will not be able to easily simulate the "slight"difference in post, not having to carry a large, heavy, expensive, single focal length lens to achieve "this look". Heck, even a f4.0 lens could do the trick!
Great comparison! 👍 How would the 200mm F2 compare to the 300mm F2.8 as that is a more affordable lens used and is what most people would be more app to buy ? Thanks 😊
Nice content as usual Bro. Looking forward for the next battle video. And in case you can, try to add the Canon 300mm F2.8 (version 1) for that Portrait Prime Lens Battle
Can't wait for the ultimate portrait lens video!!!
I'm so tempted, this would complement my 85 1.2 and my 300 and 400 2.8's. Right now the Canon store is selling the EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Refurbished for only $3875 but even for that price not sure I can justify any new EF lens purchase now given EF's are being put out to pasture. Likely sticking with my 70-200 2.8 for that focal length. I can enhance the 70-200's bokeh in PS but still on the fence. This lens is sweet and would be great for nighttime sports however the advancements in lowlight ability of RF cameras likely negates that as well. Perhaps these factors will continue to impact the pricing of this lens and as such I might pull the trigger in the future.
Great practical view. Apart from the visual element holding the f2 makes you feel good, (if you can).
Wow thanks for the review… inspiring..I’d go for the native 70-200mm… does it focus closer than 200mm f2? Hands down I think the perfect portrait lens set would be 135gm and 70-200 gm … Nice review bro!!!
It seems the Canon 200mm f2 had a better background blur, but the subject and the colors looked better with the Sony 70-200mm 2.8.
You manni love the work man keep it up you inspire me to keep working at it. Which camera bag is that
I personally like the clearer perception of what the background is over the overly muddy waters that the F2 produces. I could see it useful when a photographer needs heavy compensation for not willing to find good backgrounds, or when forced to shoot in crummy places, but the price tag is just ridiculous to even do that. Topaz Labs products can do it way better for way less in cost initially and in the long term.
Hey Manny, wanna try a Canon 200mm F1.8?
cheers for the great vid manny,what do you think of the canon 300mm f2.8
the Canon 200mm f2 looks great!! I did test Sony GM and Canon L lenses for me the Canon rendering and looks wins!
I had the Sony a7rIII and went back to Canon for this and the ergonomics!
Your content keeps getting better and better
You introduced me to lenses in a very good way
Can't wait for the ultimate vid av always wanted to see the 135 vs the 200
105 is better than both
@@ralphtime I compared the 200 f2 to my 135 1.8 and the 200 gave the more pleasing image to my eye. I’ve not yet used a 105 1.4 but according to a DOF calculator, the 135 1.8 has a shallower DOF than the 105 1.4. That said, the 105 probably has a creamier rendering as my 135 is too sharp sometimes.
the calculator says that at the same distance or the same composition. I would think they where
Ahhhhhhh! 4K !! what a joy to watch this on my 5K iMac. that's how lens review should always be. Love you Manny!
Great work man, looking forward to the next video!
Manny dont you think this all depends on how much you zoom in? Ive taken shots with my 2.8 where the background just completely gone and beautiful.
In the leaf situation, in most of these shots, like more texture. Gives more context but still really nice pop of Diana! You know she always pops anyway!
The 200mm slays! How does Canon’s new RF 70-200 2.8 measure up?
I've got the RF70-200 and the L200/1.8 . The RF is very sharp, very speed and very good... But it hasn't got the f/1.8 look 😉
Thanks for finally starting to shoot your videos in 4k so I can take advantage of my 4k display.
Adding the 400 f2.8 would be interesting
The price would also be more interesting 😆😆😆
If canon updates the 200mm F2 will you make the switch to the RF mount?
You should also check out the Fuji G110 F2 on the GFX 100S medium format. The 110 f/2 in full frame is 88mm with f/1.6. I know, I have that setup. I would like to see that Fuji against the Canon 200 F/2
Sony color looks great! I would say at 6:06, in the Sony, her face looks thinner/longer. So strange since both are 200mm. Your video ends at 9:01, but the length of your post is 11:55, really strange. Is it my computer?
Really loving your videos man!
Forgot to set the out point on the video. dont worry I have done that a few times. you can edit it on youtube creator.
Not forgotten. I bet it is on purpose to place another add in the middle
9:06 blank footage??
Manny, had a question bro, I have the sigma 24 1.4 EF mount and my friend is using it on his R6 he says it’s not shooting at the highest 12fps, what could be the issue other than the battery and cards not being fast enough?
Great work bruh, seriously ya skills are on 💯
what sony camera did manny use in this video?
That extra stop makes all the difference, I don’t see Sony making a lens like this.
Colors look infinitely better on the left straight out of camera.
Yep, indeed! Where are the Sony color haters now? 😛
@@JeanV1986 its just white balance..
Great Video Manny, could you add the Sony 24 1.4 G master to your next video’s comparison?
I find 85 mm lenses hard to work with most of the time for portraits, would love to see the 24mm 1.4
Many thanks
That’s what I call buttery smooth with the canon 200mm my favorite.
Love the video Manny...thanks for the comparison
These 200mm primes are magic. I use the Nikkor 200mmmm 2.0 VRII. It is creating the difference in you images. Same thing like with the 600mm 4.0 Primes, you get the difference to a 200-600mm 5.6 - 6.3 in your images for the price of maybe 5x the Zoom. If that is worth for you, you need to decide. For me it is.
Yeah, bought an open box Nikon 200 f/2 for my D3 a decade ago, after drooling over the photos taken with it on NikonCafe's lens lust forum for years. That thing is heavy and lightly used, but it is a real 3D popper. Also the legend of using a Folgers instant coffee plastic cap as its lens cap. In addition, I believed the 200 f/2 was the go to lens to shoot gymnastics back in the low ASA/ISO (film) days. 🙂
Prefer the color rendering of the 70-200, but the overall look of the additional glass and wider aperture of the prime is unique. Maybe not $5700 unique, but it's hardly as if people don't spend even more than that on individual lenses for specific applications.
I just ordered the Fuji xf 200mm f2 ,how would you compare that with this f2
200 F2 is a beast! Hopefully, Sigma and Sony will release a lens like this. Currently, I love my 135 F1.8 so much!
Awesome lens, beautiful blur. Happy I got one used for only 2000 $ and you know what? It fills the Hasselblad X2D sensor without vignetting.
love the 70-200 gm, versatility with almost perfection at 200mm also
Manny, Don't forget the Sigma 85 and 105, they are very decent. It would be worth adding one of them as the reference line.
Can’t wait till the next video. Thanks
i could be wrong, but same photos u could take with a Samyang 85mm f1.4 ... there would be some difference, but not anyone would be able to point it out. or 135mm 2.8 lens would do something similar. The only advantage of 200 mm lens is to be further from your subject. as i said i could be wrong, just my nerdy opinion.
The 200 f2 looks a lot sharper than the other lens! Please please can you compare the Canon 200 f2 with the nikon 200 f2!?
Manny, have you ever shot with the AF-S NIKKOR
200mm f/2G ED VR II?
Manny , what about the Nikon 200 ?
Have you tried the GFX 50 with the gf 110mm? 😊
Manny summarised, unintentionally, everything that's wrong with photography today. The background became more important than the subject/foreground. A 'great' portrait has become determined by how much 'bokaaa' you get in your shots. Gear shots, ones that require only a 6k$ lens and a camera, have become the standard to what makes a 'stunning, superb, portrait shot'.
$6k??? What the hell!??? Nah!! I didn’t even know they had this lens. I’m good with my RF 70-200 2.8
Subtle yet distinct, the difference certainly can set one's photos apart from the pack [04:40 & 05:10].
Loved your video! why is there such a color difference? i loved the skin
tone on 70-200.
I have the 70-200gm, I also have the 85mm gm, I wonder if the 85mm at 1.4 would be as nice as the canon..
What happened after 9 minutes video ? I have black screen up to 11:55
I’m not surprised how little of a difference there is between these lenses at only a one stop difference with aperature. I think the 200 looks gorgeous at f2, but the fact that you can practically reproduce the exact same thing at 200mm f2.8 shows enough that buying a beast of a 70-200mm f2.8 will do just fine. For me, I’m gonna get the 100mm T5.6 GM for the super buttery bokeh.
Both images look great! Seriously when u pixel peep, sure the 200mm f2 is softer, but that doesn’t mean its better, having some context in the background is good especially if ur doing an environmental portrait as u mentioned. Having an image 3D pop too much can look weird unnatural and as if the subject been copy pasted into a backdrop. Not for everyone
I'm with you. It is rather boring to not be able to distinguish any of the background at all in all kinds of portraitures. That is the reason for a great composition. Otherwise, anybody can take any kind of portraiture w any fast lenses.
One thing is see a bunch of bokeh and something different unnatural pics, how is possible you don't know you can close f value as you need or not bokeh, sony fanboy
Great video. Everything well said and helpful. Appreciate u ✊
I can't wait the comparison of these bad boys. I love my 135mm GM because it's spectacular background compression, so it'll be interesting to see it compared to the 200mm f/2.
Is it just me or the 70-200GM looks better 🤷🏻♂️ background isn’t as blurred but in this case it actually looks better. Just imo though
Great content as always 🔥🔥🔥
Meh its the 70-200 for me lol... thanks for the comparison though.
definitely a big difference... way more than expected. The 6k and the size of the lens is a deal breaker for me though. I struggle enough carting around my 70-200 2.8. Under certain circumstances it would be awesome though.
Try the ef 135mm f2 l lens, it's pure butter and costs quite a bit less than either of these...
It would be interesting to compare the 135/1.8 Sony but on crop mode vs the 200/2...
They both crazy sharp. If I could afford the 200 with no worries then yeah get it. But to save the money on it I’d rather put the time in post production to make it look great.
Great vid Manny. Props to you both.