That's the good and the bad. You can blur out boring backgrounds at F1.8 and beyond, but then you start losing the atmosphere of where you are shooting.
Why the hell do you gotta fucking go anywhere if you're going to blur the background you could have everything in focus and still have a good model shots.
Funnily enough, in most of the cases I preferred the 2.8, as the 1.8 blurs the background so much as to make it almost irrelevant what is back there. May as well have a blank wall.
I must say I agree. The first spot on the grass. I liked the 2.8 more. With the rocks i did love the 1.8 over the 2.8, but cant you get the same thing by moving the model even further from the background? At the third spot it wasn't too much of a difference. But as Jason said, low light i guess that's ware the difference really comes into play.
Robert Kwolek Same here. I like that the subject looks sharper on the F/2.8 lens. The background looks better too, as it is not harsh at all and you can still make out what it is. I wonder how the Sony Zeiss 135 f/1.8 and Samyang 135 f/1.8 compares.
As Jason stated the benefit might be more useful in lower light situations were you gain with the speed that you shot at or the ISO. I don't know what the closest focus distances are for the lens but the fall off might be important for the shot. If you don't need the F1.8 then don't buy it. I want one but don't need it so I won't be buying one. The wife will just buy new shoes and hand bags instead.!!!!!
Great video, Jason, you made some great points. Depending on the distance between your subject and the background, to my eye, the 200mm 2.8 L looked just as amazing. I think that the fact the f1.8 L sometimes needs a tripod and is far less compact and heavier, kind of makes the 2.8 L the clear winner in terms of practicality and ease of use. I don't own either of these lenses, but I do own the EF 135mm f2.0 L, which is very similar to the 2.8L. I would love to see a comparison video with the 135mm L and that lens.
I really like the 2.8 much better, for the way it made the model look, soft and natural. I loved the background with the 2.8, not too blurry that you think the shot is bad somehow… I am awaiting a rokinon cine ds 33mm, my second lens!
Nice short, sweet interesting video J.. I can see the fall off is much better as should be... can also see the f2.8 she looks a foot or so closer to the camera.
an excellent video - Jason is clear and concise and I think even beginners can appreciate and learn from his videos- very generous with his information....
sometimes it's those one or two things that can really separate your work from the pack. The 1.8 has better and more discernably smooth rendering. That's just a fact. The only question is, does you work need that extra edge?
Both are nice.. but I prefer the 2.8.. because the background looks more colorful rather than just blank out. The Bokeh on 2.8 are already plentiful. And I like it. Also if the background are very far..(3:30 onwards) the background blur become quite similar.. both will just blow the background away.. So in this case. Ima still gonna go with the lighter n smaller n probably cheaper 2.8 too. Nice video nonetheless.. Really love to see video like these.. it also help people to decide n know what they may be getting into before actually buying. Hope to see more of this kind of video! Instead of just 1 lens n a shootout..
Great vid, Jason! Do you prefer to use primes only? ie. the canon 200mm f2.8 prime or the canon 70-200 f2.8 zoom - The zoom gets good reviews but the primes get amazing reviews.
Thanks, Jason! Many people have made great points, with some agreeing and some disagreeing. I think we need to remember that Jason has positioned himself and his work at the highest level. He's not trying to do just a "great" job. Rather, he's aiming for perfection. The versatility of being able to shoot at a 1 1/3 stops wider aperture is a huge advantage when you are aiming for results that are second to no one's. Granted that for photographers with normal or high-level technical aspirations, having 133% more light, a significantly greater ability to isolate a part of a face and blur the rest -- or just to blur the background -- may not be worth the extra expense and heft. The only questions are (1) how you view the results of that cost vs. benefit for *your* work and (2) what kind of photographer you are aiming to be.
Hmm, it's not that simple because there are other factors. Personally I wouldn't want to be at 200mm at all because it's harder to make a connection with your subject, which for me is an important part of portrait work. I'd settle for a 135 f2 or 85 f1.4 any day. Even comparing the two 200mm, having a smaller lens can be beneficial just because it can be easier to move around and change angles more quickly and easily, thus getting a better variety of shots in a shorter time.
All good points. I also prefer less obtrusive equipment (and thus shoot mirrorless). I'd still like to use a lens like the f/1.8 200mm for some shoots. In this case Jason had a lot of helpers to aid with whatever else he needed, be that communication or positioning of lighting elements, etc. Here's Rich Legg's comparison of the relationships between his lenses' focal lengths and their distortion, and I prefer the 200mm to the rest: pbs.twimg.com/media/B4XPTlnCEAAez5x.jpg:large
I understand the value of large apertures in portrait photography.. but you're shooting in such gorgeous locations, why not shoot f/4 (ish) so people get a hint of landscape but not too much to take the focus away?
I like how you continue to use Canon glass on your Sony cameras @Jason Lanier. Shows just how much you have no brand bias :D. I still haven't been able to dive in to A-mount myself I need fast autofocus too much (weddings) and I can't part with my L Canon glass.... :(
Good review Jason, but what has happened to this lens now? it would be really nice to see an update or simply your thoughts. Do you still have it? what about canon EOSr, how does it function with that and thoughts on these type of lenses and IBIS?
A 70-200 f2.8 IS lens (V I-III) is a far better investment and much more practical lens. Sharper, adds IS, 1/3 the weight, 1/4 to 1/2 the cost. Even here side by side (with the old 200mm f2.8 prime) there is not much difference.
Wondering what your current thoughts are Canon bodies, especially now that you are using some of the big Canon glass. Of course I know there is potential for the overall Sony system to be smaller even when occasionally mounting a large third party lens. And there are huge benefits to the live view, eye focus etc. But wondering, if you start regularly using big Canon glass on a monopod, whether that size difference would matter as much and if you'd be better off with a pro Canon body in the mix. I have no particular bias, shooting an A6000 and 6D. Just wondering if you may get to a point where something like 5dsr brings enough advantages that you can overlook some of the (clear) advantages of the A7Rii, e.g.
Great comparison! I have heard that an adapter, like a telextender, adds a stop or two to a lens. In the vid BOTH lenses are on an adapter. I would have liked to see a comparison between the f/1.8 with adapter and a native sony 200mm f/2.8 WITHOUT AN ADAPTER. To see how aperture is really affected by a converter/telextender. 1. Will the 200 f/1.8 be even more creamy on a native canon body? 2. will the OOF background created by the 200 f/1.8 on a sony + adapter be the same as with a Canon f/2.8 on a Canon body (sans adapter). Does the change in aperture caused by an adapter affect ONLY the needed shutter speed, and give the same results otherwise?
Such a beautiful location - an everything gets completely blurred. I know this is a comparison video, but i can imagine how your pics will look like for the next couple of weeks 😋
The difference is astounding. The 200 1.8 is indeed a rare find, giving a whole different level of light and color control over any other lens class, be it 200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 L ii etc.
Finally; I found this video of yours; I was thinking that why don't you shoot with this beautiful lens on SONY, I have been thinking that its not as good with focusing reliability or speed as SONY 70-200. Please can you make video showing how face detection works with this lens; and which converter you are using with this lens?
Jason, love your info you share on your videos. May I ask a quick question on regards to your videographer Jason C. Can you share what video camera, lens and resolution this video is shot in? Thanks a million!!!
If it's that important, select the background in post and add a feathered touch of gaussian blur to the f/2.8 lens. You'll quickly reach a point where a blind A/B comparison between the two lenses would fail to distinguish one from the other at a statistically significant level.
The 135 f/1.8 has similar background blur with the 200 f/2.8. (I said "similar", I didn't say "identical") I am wondering how the 200 f/1.8 would compare against a 300 f/2.8?
slimsloppy I am currently using the 135 f/1.8, which is really a good lens. However sometimes in scenarios when I have to be quite distant from my subject I really want to consider a longer lens. As for the a7R2, it is indeed a good camera, and I really consider buying its future version because I hope to use a camera with dual SD card.
I saw a difference. The 2.8 had more detail in the background compared to the 1.8. There will be less of a difference if the background is very close (inches) or very far (100s of feet) to the focal plane.
Hi Jaison, does canon 200 f2.8 L ii USM suffers from focus breathing, is it equal to 200mm f1.8 in focus length or canon 200 f2.8 L ii USM is shorter than 200mm focal length due to focus breathing. if you reply to this question I highly appreciated that so that I can save some money to not investment in canon 70-200 f2.8 L ii is usm.
Very interesting Of course it renders the background softer but is it worth the 5 k$ difference ? This lens is great tough for wildlife with a 2x extender. If I would shoot moer portraits I would buy the ef 85 f1.2 .
Sorry Jason, I get what your doing, but when you keep using beautiful models like you have been, the background blur is secondary...Maybe try a model train next time!
I think the 2.8 is better than the 2.8. However, the 2.8 is also good, but just not as good as the 2.8. I'm waiting for the 2.8 version to come out to replace my 2.8
well guys you can get %85 of that in PS! also you will need to add heavy tripod to your carrying stuff which already contains that super heavy glass... this is just killing joy of photography :-(
Waseem Asmar sorry, but the joy of photography is lugging all that gear, not sitting in front of PS for hours. Getting it right, in camera and not correcting mistakes afterwards. For me, anyway.
Calvin Chann my friend.. getting nice results from beautiful 2.8 needs 5 minutes max on PS to meet %85 of 1.8 and save you thousands $.. you can invest those thousands in Safari trip for example ;-)
Hmm. But when you're outdoors with plenty of available light, isn't that missing the point of a wider aperture? Sure both lenses look fine when conditions are great. What about indoors, or early morning, when lighting conditions are less advantageous? Harumph.
Hilarious looking at all the comments defending not spending the extra money for the 1.8. You get canon extenders and the 1.8 is literally 3 lenses in one. A 200mm f 1.8, a 280mm f2.5 and a 400mm f3.6. It is the Swiss army knife of the white L lenses. The shallower depth of field is also going to give you the ability to crop tighter without losing that depth of field as much.
He he, maybe you inspired about my comment. 😅😅 the 2.8 Lens not bad. If you have a long distance between the model and Background the difference is small. I would buy the 2.8 lens and save 3500 Dollars/Euros
Exactly. Personally I prefer the 2.8. I don't see much of difference in skin tone. Yes, the 1.8 in low light has an advantage, but is it the case on a tripod??? I doubt. Quality/price, the 2.8 is definitely the big winner to my opinion. I wished if he showed the 1.8 and 2.8 pictures side by side.
hmm the next question will be going into a smartphone then Samsung Galaxy S9 says it shoot at f/1.5, while having only a very small bokeh and a very small front diameter the question would be how many shutter speed you get from the phone
Do any of your clients really give a shit about how much the background is more smooth wit h the F1.8 than the f 2.8? It sounds like fishing for reasons tp justofy pzying X10 the price of the F2.8. I dont use Canon sobit makes no difference to me, jusy saying.
Ok, so she's not an actress. Lovely model though. Oh, nice video too. makes it easy to see the difference, but dang, that's a lot of hardware for an extra stop.
I think the video was a waste of time. You could have put it up against the 200-400 F4 at 200mm, unless the images were side by side, you cannot remember the difference especially since the images were moving (gradually zoomed in). Unless you were trying to show there was virtually no difference at large distances. The whole reason to get one is not to put a ton of distance between subject and background, point is if the background is close and you have no choice but to put the subject against a shortened background distance so make the background less busy/distraction. Probably not an issue when you are shooting models, just move the models location, but when shooting location based sports or wedding where it makes a difference because you may not have the option to move the subject or select a background that is not busy .. Thumbs down. But I did not click the thumbs down button because I like your videos otherwise.
*Would have been nice if you placed the images side by side. Finding it difficult to notice that much difference*
yep, side by side would have been perfect.
My only thought would be that if you blur the background too much, what's the point of going on location.
That's the good and the bad. You can blur out boring backgrounds at F1.8 and beyond, but then you start losing the atmosphere of where you are shooting.
Why the hell do you gotta fucking go anywhere if you're going to blur the background you could have everything in focus and still have a good model shots.
SAME!!!! I agree 100%
F0.1 is the best for background blur 😛
Funnily enough, in most of the cases I preferred the 2.8, as the 1.8 blurs the background so much as to make it almost irrelevant what is back there. May as well have a blank wall.
Robert Kwolek exactly... it's like putting a green fabric instead of natural grass for example!
I must say I agree. The first spot on the grass. I liked the 2.8 more. With the rocks i did love the 1.8 over the 2.8, but cant you get the same thing by moving the model even further from the background? At the third spot it wasn't too much of a difference.
But as Jason said, low light i guess that's ware the difference really comes into play.
Robert Kwolek Same here. I like that the subject looks sharper on the F/2.8 lens. The background looks better too, as it is not harsh at all and you can still make out what it is. I wonder how the Sony Zeiss 135 f/1.8 and Samyang 135 f/1.8 compares.
Agree here also.
As Jason stated the benefit might be more useful in lower light situations were you gain with the speed that you shot at or the ISO. I don't know what the closest focus distances are for the lens but the fall off might be important for the shot. If you don't need the F1.8 then don't buy it. I want one but don't need it so I won't be buying one. The wife will just buy new shoes and hand bags instead.!!!!!
It would have been great to see the 1.8 and 2.8 pictures side by side for an actual real-time comparison.
Thanks you so much JL
You are welcome!
Great video, Jason, you made some great points. Depending on the distance between your subject and the background, to my eye, the 200mm 2.8 L looked just as amazing. I think that the fact the f1.8 L sometimes needs a tripod and is far less compact and heavier, kind of makes the 2.8 L the clear winner in terms of practicality and ease of use. I don't own either of these lenses, but I do own the EF 135mm f2.0 L, which is very similar to the 2.8L. I would love to see a comparison video with the 135mm L and that lens.
I really like the 2.8 much better, for the way it made the model look, soft and natural. I loved the background with the 2.8, not too blurry that you think the shot is bad somehow… I am awaiting a rokinon cine ds 33mm, my second lens!
I do agree. I prefer the 2.8
The 1.8 is a legend! I wish a friend had one I could borrow. But the 70-200 F2.8s are real work horses that are SO much more versatile.
Nice short, sweet interesting video J.. I can see the fall off is much better as should be... can also see the f2.8 she looks a foot or so closer to the camera.
an excellent video - Jason is clear and concise and I think even beginners can appreciate and learn from his videos- very generous with his information....
sometimes it's those one or two things that can really separate your work from the pack. The 1.8 has better and more discernably smooth rendering. That's just a fact. The only question is, does you work need that extra edge?
Both are nice.. but I prefer the 2.8.. because the background looks more colorful rather than just blank out.
The Bokeh on 2.8 are already plentiful. And I like it.
Also if the background are very far..(3:30 onwards) the background blur become quite similar.. both will just blow the background away..
So in this case. Ima still gonna go with the lighter n smaller n probably cheaper 2.8 too.
Nice video nonetheless.. Really love to see video like these.. it also help people to decide n know what they may be getting into before actually buying.
Hope to see more of this kind of video! Instead of just 1 lens n a shootout..
Great vid, Jason! Do you prefer to use primes only? ie. the canon 200mm f2.8 prime or the canon 70-200 f2.8 zoom - The zoom gets good reviews but the primes get amazing reviews.
I have loved my 1.8 lens for the past 15 years
Thanks, Jason! Many people have made great points, with some agreeing and some disagreeing. I think we need to remember that Jason has positioned himself and his work at the highest level. He's not trying to do just a "great" job. Rather, he's aiming for perfection. The versatility of being able to shoot at a 1 1/3 stops wider aperture is a huge advantage when you are aiming for results that are second to no one's. Granted that for photographers with normal or high-level technical aspirations, having 133% more light, a significantly greater ability to isolate a part of a face and blur the rest -- or just to blur the background -- may not be worth the extra expense and heft. The only questions are (1) how you view the results of that cost vs. benefit for *your* work and (2) what kind of photographer you are aiming to be.
Hmm, it's not that simple because there are other factors. Personally I wouldn't want to be at 200mm at all because it's harder to make a connection with your subject, which for me is an important part of portrait work. I'd settle for a 135 f2 or 85 f1.4 any day.
Even comparing the two 200mm, having a smaller lens can be beneficial just because it can be easier to move around and change angles more quickly and easily, thus getting a better variety of shots in a shorter time.
All good points. I also prefer less obtrusive equipment (and thus shoot mirrorless). I'd still like to use a lens like the f/1.8 200mm for some shoots. In this case Jason had a lot of helpers to aid with whatever else he needed, be that communication or positioning of lighting elements, etc. Here's Rich Legg's comparison of the relationships between his lenses' focal lengths and their distortion, and I prefer the 200mm to the rest: pbs.twimg.com/media/B4XPTlnCEAAez5x.jpg:large
I understand the value of large apertures in portrait photography.. but you're shooting in such gorgeous locations, why not shoot f/4 (ish) so people get a hint of landscape but not too much to take the focus away?
Low light is a definite plus, thus why I want one, but more for shooting stars
Wish I had 6 grand.. more like 500 for an f1.8 12mm
I like how you continue to use Canon glass on your Sony cameras @Jason Lanier. Shows just how much you have no brand bias :D. I still haven't been able to dive in to A-mount myself I need fast autofocus too much (weddings) and I can't part with my L Canon glass.... :(
Good review Jason, but what has happened to this lens now? it would be really nice to see an update or simply your thoughts. Do you still have it? what about canon EOSr, how does it function with that and thoughts on these type of lenses and IBIS?
So 2.8 is more "focused"?
how's the AF with the 200mm F1.8? (I'm assuming you're using a Metabones adapter?). But when I say AF, I mean moving subject, not static subject
This was very helpful
I can live with the 2.8!
I have a question, know this is an old video, thoughts on cannon m50 and viltrox adaptor making the 200mm 2.8 a 2.0. I wonder what your thoughts
A 70-200 f2.8 IS lens (V I-III) is a far better investment and much more practical lens. Sharper, adds IS, 1/3 the weight, 1/4 to 1/2 the cost. Even here side by side (with the old 200mm f2.8 prime) there is not much difference.
Wondering what your current thoughts are Canon bodies, especially now that you are using some of the big Canon glass. Of course I know there is potential for the overall Sony system to be smaller even when occasionally mounting a large third party lens. And there are huge benefits to the live view, eye focus etc. But wondering, if you start regularly using big Canon glass on a monopod, whether that size difference would matter as much and if you'd be better off with a pro Canon body in the mix. I have no particular bias, shooting an A6000 and 6D. Just wondering if you may get to a point where something like 5dsr brings enough advantages that you can overlook some of the (clear) advantages of the A7Rii, e.g.
Great comparison!
I have heard that an adapter, like a telextender, adds a stop or two to a lens. In the vid BOTH lenses are on an adapter. I would have liked to see a comparison between the f/1.8 with adapter and a native sony 200mm f/2.8 WITHOUT AN ADAPTER. To see how aperture is really affected by a converter/telextender.
1. Will the 200 f/1.8 be even more creamy on a native canon body? 2. will the OOF background created by the 200 f/1.8 on a sony + adapter be the same as with a Canon f/2.8 on a Canon body (sans adapter).
Does the change in aperture caused by an adapter affect ONLY the needed shutter speed, and give the same results otherwise?
This is the stuff dreams are made of!
Such a beautiful location - an everything gets completely blurred. I know this is a comparison video, but i can imagine how your pics will look like for the next couple of weeks 😋
I agree. I definitely appreciate the demo and the knowledge, but why shoot at such gorgeous locations to blur it all out?
Can you compare 200mm f1.8 and 200mm f2 please :(((
The difference is astounding. The 200 1.8 is indeed a rare find, giving a whole different level of light and color control over any other lens class, be it 200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 L ii etc.
Finally; I found this video of yours; I was thinking that why don't you shoot with this beautiful lens on SONY, I have been thinking that its not as good with focusing reliability or speed as SONY 70-200.
Please can you make video showing how face detection works with this lens; and which converter you are using with this lens?
Jason, love your info you share on your videos. May I ask a quick question on regards to your videographer Jason C. Can you share what video camera, lens and resolution this video is shot in? Thanks a million!!!
Thanks so much for doing this!
If it's that important, select the background in post and add a feathered touch of gaussian blur to the f/2.8 lens. You'll quickly reach a point where a blind A/B comparison between the two lenses would fail to distinguish one from the other at a statistically significant level.
Looks an excellent lens but what tripod are you using to hold it?
First and second shot i like 1.8 really but in 3rd shot there is no difference o think
Nice review! I'm guessing you were shooting each at their widest apertures...? You should have compared some other apertures too :)
The price and the size I think I prefer 2.8.
The 135 f/1.8 has similar background blur with the 200 f/2.8. (I said "similar", I didn't say "identical") I am wondering how the 200 f/1.8 would compare against a 300 f/2.8?
or 1200 5.6
For that 1200mm you need a megaphone to communicate ... :)
slimsloppy I am currently using the 135 f/1.8, which is really a good lens. However sometimes in scenarios when I have to be quite distant from my subject I really want to consider a longer lens. As for the a7R2, it is indeed a good camera, and I really consider buying its future version because I hope to use a camera with dual SD card.
Looks the same to me. I cannot tell the diff.
thanks bro you rock
great work
I wonder if its possible to add the link to your models in your description.
Jason, amazing photos but I can't see any difference in bookeh quality between 1.8 and 2.8. Might be youtube compressing issue?
I saw a difference. The 2.8 had more detail in the background compared to the 1.8. There will be less of a difference if the background is very close (inches) or very far (100s of feet) to the focal plane.
Me too, but look at his hompage, you can find the pics there and then the difference is more than obvious.
Hi Jaison, does canon 200 f2.8 L ii USM suffers from focus breathing, is it equal to 200mm f1.8 in focus length or canon 200 f2.8 L ii USM is shorter than 200mm focal length due to focus breathing. if you reply to this question I highly appreciated that so that I can save some money to not investment in canon 70-200 f2.8 L ii is usm.
I would have love to see some side by side images to compare the OOF areas...
not a noticeable difference between the two, except in price, woof!
What camera did you use in recording this vid?
Very interesting
Of course it renders the background softer but is it worth the 5 k$ difference ?
This lens is great tough for wildlife with a 2x extender.
If I would shoot moer portraits I would buy the ef 85 f1.2 .
I have the Nikon version and it worth every little penny of it.
Parabéns Parabens
Sorry Jason, I get what your doing, but when you keep using beautiful models like you have been, the background blur is secondary...Maybe try a model train next time!
Man this is the best ever review that i had seen. U r really funny guy. I like the way u review. Best and at top of all
great tutorial....but i must ask; is there color management in the overall post video?
if not i might have to re-check my color profile....thanks.
R. Ran m
This is why I’m so glad I’m within reach of renting these monsters!!
Good Man, good job..Thanks!!!
Love the 200mm f2.8 over the 200mm f2.8. I think the 200 f1.8 has better skin tones over the 200 f2.8 thanks for the comparison :
I think the 2.8 is better than the 2.8. However, the 2.8 is also good, but just not as good as the 2.8. I'm waiting for the 2.8 version to come out to replace my 2.8
Please compare this of iso different in low light
do the big canon lens if set to 2.8 deliver the same shutter speed as the small canon lens at 2.8 ? and is the bokeh equal ?
I preferred the f2.8. Unless you are a billionaire then the f1.8 is not worth it. Why not move a little closer and shoot with the Canon 85mm f1.2?
Nice demonstration! The Bokeh is too big that I can't tell anything about the surrounding. I guess I will just use my 70-200 f2.8 anyway.
well guys you can get %85 of that in PS!
also you will need to add heavy tripod to your carrying stuff which already contains that super heavy glass... this is just killing joy of photography :-(
Waseem Asmar sorry, but the joy of photography is lugging all that gear, not sitting in front of PS for hours. Getting it right, in camera and not correcting mistakes afterwards. For me, anyway.
Calvin Chann my friend.. getting nice results from beautiful 2.8 needs 5 minutes max on PS to meet %85 of 1.8 and save you thousands $.. you can invest those thousands in Safari trip for example ;-)
Does eye autofocus work with these lenses ?
Brendan Daly Yes, with the right adapters only.
Mc-11 or metabones V?
Love the video and I'm sure if you stopped photography you could do stand up, so funny thank you 😊 👍 👏
sick outro
Hmm. But when you're outdoors with plenty of available light, isn't that missing the point of a wider aperture? Sure both lenses look fine when conditions are great. What about indoors, or early morning, when lighting conditions are less advantageous? Harumph.
Hilarious looking at all the comments defending not spending the extra money for the 1.8. You get canon extenders and the 1.8 is literally 3 lenses in one. A 200mm f 1.8, a 280mm f2.5 and a 400mm f3.6. It is the Swiss army knife of the white L lenses. The shallower depth of field is also going to give you the ability to crop tighter without losing that depth of field as much.
He he, maybe you inspired about my comment. 😅😅 the 2.8 Lens not bad. If you have a long distance between the model and Background the difference is small. I would buy the 2.8 lens and save 3500 Dollars/Euros
Price, weight, hand-holding, theft, repair...the 2.8 definitely has some advantages.
Exactly. Personally I prefer the 2.8. I don't see much of difference in skin tone. Yes, the 1.8 in low light has an advantage, but is it the case on a tripod??? I doubt. Quality/price, the 2.8 is definitely the big winner to my opinion. I wished if he showed the 1.8 and 2.8 pictures side by side.
...and the winner is - f/2.8!
$3500 vs $750 lens. It's like comparing a ferrari vs. porsche.
Try the Canon 135mm f2.0
Absolutely! You have to go a long way to beat the 135mm f2.0! www.flickr.com/photos/gary99099/30955539056
hmm the next question will be going into a smartphone then
Samsung Galaxy S9 says it shoot at f/1.5, while having only a very small bokeh and a very small front diameter
the question would be how many shutter speed you get from the phone
thought the greenery in the background was a poster for a second. looks a little strange how the camera is movie in the beginning
now test the 1.2
Canon makes a 200mm f1.2?!!!!
1:54 3:04 3:47
The Eye of Sauron beats 'em all
It's one of those things.... while the f1.8 is clearly superior, 95% of us will never have an opportunity to use it.
I'm here now because of Nikon's 135mm 1.8s
Do any of your clients really give a shit about how much the background is more smooth wit h the F1.8 than the f 2.8? It sounds like fishing for reasons tp justofy pzying X10 the price of the F2.8. I dont use Canon sobit makes no difference to me, jusy saying.
well what i wanna see is like a 400mm f0.95 L lens. Then i will be happy
It would be so large and heavy, you wouldn't be able to pick it up, though! Lol
at a point that day she the modell felt on the rocks or something and got hurt in the elbow.
if I only had 6 large for the 1.8
Is that lens a 1.8 or 2.0 . I am baffled. I thought there was only a f2.0 . Please verify
Valbaun Galloway The 1.8 was discontinued in 2003, the 2.0 is the new replacement.
Thanks . I just realized . I went to have a look online (should have probably done that before posting the question). Thanks anyway.
Two examples in 8 minutes and not put side by side. Like 6 staff too.
first impression: photographer is a duche & no diff between f1.8 & f2.8
hot model = nice photograph
forget about the lenses..
I dont see much difference😢
No difference.. just the price 😂
The model got an injury on her elbow...
When you have money.
Interesting 10 times more expensive lens does better job...
Ok, so she's not an actress. Lovely model though. Oh, nice video too. makes it easy to see the difference, but dang, that's a lot of hardware for an extra stop.
I see absolutely no difference and I don't even know what to look for exactly
Its 1 1/3 stops.....
thank you
1.8 looks too fake, i prefer the 2.8 :)
I think the video was a waste of time. You could have put it up against the 200-400 F4 at 200mm, unless the images were side by side, you cannot remember the difference especially since the images were moving (gradually zoomed in). Unless you were trying to show there was virtually no difference at large distances. The whole reason to get one is not to put a ton of distance between subject and background, point is if the background is close and you have no choice but to put the subject against a shortened background distance so make the background less busy/distraction. Probably not an issue when you are shooting models, just move the models location, but when shooting location based sports or wedding where it makes a difference because you may not have the option to move the subject or select a background that is not busy .. Thumbs down. But I did not click the thumbs down button because I like your videos otherwise.