I just got the lens last night. I went out and got a few quick test shots with my daughter and her new baby. I purposely resisted from editing much of anything since I thought everyone here would appreciate more from looking at what the lens can do.
I should add that the background is mostly a date palm located about 8 feet behind her (maybe a little closer...doing it from memory).
Alex, after all the conflicting information on the 200mm f2 supporting TCs, did you happen to test if the 200mm f2 works on Nikon Z with Sony TC's like the 300-400?
Any action shots people have, along with their opinion of the autofocus for such shots, would be much welcome. Considering this lens for portraits as well as field sports, where crop mode gets used often with my 70-200 2.8II. I'd lose the option to add a TC, but the speed benefits might outweigh it.
If I manage to get my hands on this lens, I’d love to shoot a few frames alongside my old Nikon 200/2 for a direct comparison. I suspect the Sigma will edge out in sharpness, but what really interests me is the overall character and rendering, especially in the out-of-focus areas. I realize that’s more subjective, but I have a clear idea of what I’m looking for. From some of the sample shots already shared in this thread, all fantastic captures, by the way, I feel the background rendering looks a little less smooth. Of course, I could be wrong, and I cannot draw any real conclusions without testing both lenses side by side.
Another shot taken yesterday, I am really glad I picked up this lens. I love that you can see the bokeh and compression and as you back up from your subject or get closer you can see the big difference it makes.
Lt.Deadeye wrote:
I tried that with a 300 f/2.8 and it seems I ran into the law of diminishing returns on that endeavor.
Can you explain what you mean here? Is it that a brenizer done with an 85/1.4 vs a 200/2, both effectively create the "large format look" and the extra gain from the wider aperture of the 200mm is not worth the additional effort (from needing more images for the same FOV)?
Yeah. My efforts with a 300 f/2.8 didn't appear all that different from a single shot with the same lens. Perhaps it was a poor choice in environment but I didn't think it was worth all the effort in the end.
Got it, yeah I agree. It definitely does depend a lot on the composition/environment to have layers where the differences in focus is visible.
There was a video review I watched of this lens where the photographer did a bunch of bokeh panoramas:
Some of them come out a bit flat looking because the 200/2 is so long, so even the merged images still have a telephoto/compressed look. I think the look is most striking when the effective focal length is in the 30-50mm range to capture the environment a bit, but to get a 30mm equivalent with a 200mm lens requires at least 60-100 images (depending on how much overlap you leave). Not to mention this leaves a lot of room for error in missing a frame or somewhere or movement which will cause problems for stitching in post.
I say all that, but I would definitely try the technique if I picked up this lens though!
I remembered last minute today during a quick shoot to test the Brenizer method with the 200mm f/2
First photo is the "main" shot with subject centered, the second is with the extra photos added and merged, resulting in something close to a 105mm f/1.4 (103.21mm f/1.44 to be exact). I didn't have any layers really and the backdrop was not super far but you can see the effect, but I could have just used my 105 f/1.4 (and I wish I had it with me I would have taken a shot to compare)
* edit also I forgot my clip on ND filters so I had to shoot at f/2.8, f/2 would have resulted in a f/1.03 equivalent
