I¡¯d never even considered using the 200mm f/2 for a portraiture. ?You¡¯ll need a fair amount of distance from the subject, but that¡¯s got to be some sweet DOF, and really isolate the subject. ?Sorry to hear about the motor, that can¡¯t be an easy lense to get fixed. ?I think I¡¯ve only ever seen one copy for sale.
A further note on the 105mm. ?I¡¯d avoided buying the 105mm f/2.8G VR, as the common wisdom on this list has always been that the 2.8D is the sharper lens. Last year I got a chance to pick one up for almost nothing. ?I¡¯m glad I did. ?That VR is handy.
Zane
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jan 15, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Dane Robison via groups.io <macdane@...> wrote:
I'm a guy who leans toward longer focal lengths for portraits so 85 would be my minimum. I had a bad copy of the 80-200 years ago but have been fortunate to own the 200/2 and that's the best portrait lens I've ever used. When I needed flexibility, I've leaned on the 70-200 and been happy.Now that I've switched to mirrorless, the Z-mount 70-200 is even sharper than its predecessors so it continues to fill that role. In a recent development, the focusing motor on my 200/2 has finally died and I haven't found anyone with parts to fix it. So it looks like I suddenly have a fantastic manual focus lens which is not something I really want. :-/
I'm currently fighting the temptation to order the 135/1.8 Plena after having a chance to use one at a recent basketball game. It may be able to fill in for the 200/2 for both portraiture and indoor sports, so it's easy to justify. And the images are nothing short of amazing.
Dane
