The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The New and Improved Fun with Nikon Images!

Lloyd

Active member
Thought I'd start this out with some more shots of my niece from our Senior Portrait shoot last Friday. BTW, she's the youngest of my brother's four daughters. Every one of them is a beauty!

All with the D3, 70-200 VRII combo:










 

shtarka1

Active member
Osman.....These Are So Rich In Color & IQ!





[/QUOTE]
(Transferred These Over From Other Nikon Post Thats Filled To The Rim!)
Didn't Want These Wonderfull Images From Osman To Get Lost!
 

panda81

New member
Lloyd, your niece is beautiful, and you did a fantastic job with creating these portraits for her!

Do you happen to have any personal experience with the 200 f/2 VR? I'm considering selling the 200 f/2 VR and replace it with the 70-200VR2 so I can free up some money. I've read a lot about the 70-200VR2 performance, but the one detail I'm interested in is how the bokeh compares between the two lenses. The 200 f/2 VR bokeh is almost a modern legend, but I'm not sure how the 70-200VR2 is in comparison? I really like the bokeh in the shots you showed above though!
 

Lloyd

Active member
Lloyd, your niece is beautiful, and you did a fantastic job with creating these portraits for her!

Do you happen to have any personal experience with the 200 f/2 VR? I'm considering selling the 200 f/2 VR and replace it with the 70-200VR2 so I can free up some money. I've read a lot about the 70-200VR2 performance, but the one detail I'm interested in is how the bokeh compares between the two lenses. The 200 f/2 VR bokeh is almost a modern legend, but I'm not sure how the 70-200VR2 is in comparison? I really like the bokeh in the shots you showed above though!
Yes, I owned one of the first copies of the 200/2 to come out, and frankly, I loved it. But... I found that I simply didn't use it as much as the 70-200 (that was the original version), and I needed some $$ for something else. Now, with the new 70-200 VRII, well, I just don't think I'd get another 200/2, as the differences, while they exist, are even smaller. I worked with a friend shooting the Boston Marathon, and he had his 200/2 with him, but it came out of the bag exactly once the entire week. He's one of the top event shooters in the world, and told me that with the new 70-200 VRII, he thinks for him, the 200/2 is essentially a duplication, with less utility.

That said, if you've seen, for example some of Steve's or Osman's images here, and since you own one, you know that the bokeh with that lens is something special. As for the bokeh in my shots, that's just what the lens gave me, and I'm very happy with it. Don't know if that helps, but there you go.
 

Lloyd

Active member
Lloyd: +1. The master of portraiture strikes again. Color, composition, poses, all beautiful. I guess they don't use those little booths anymore? Cheers, Matt.

http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
Thanks Matt. Yeah, they still take those cattle call shots at the schools, but the kids don't want those. She had me take these to send out with her graduation announcements... and for her Facebook.
 

m_driscoll

New member
Osman.....These Are So Rich In Color & IQ!



(Transferred These Over From Other Nikon Post Thats Filled To The Rim!)
Didn't Want These Wonderfull Images From Osman To Get Lost![/QUOTE]
Osman: You're too modest. Your photos are among the best here and alway a treat to see. These are really striking. I don't think, I've seen this many red poppies before. Certainly not around here. When can you harvest them?:LOL:

Cheers, Matt

http://[email protected]
 

m_driscoll

New member
Yes, I owned one of the first copies of the 200/2 to come out, and frankly, I loved it. But... I found that I simply didn't use it as much as the 70-200 (that was the original version), and I needed some $$ for something else. Now, with the new 70-200 VRII, well, I just don't think I'd get another 200/2, as the differences, while they exist, are even smaller. I worked with a friend shooting the Boston Marathon, and he had his 200/2 with him, but it came out of the bag exactly once the entire week. He's one of the top event shooters in the world, and told me that with the new 70-200 VRII, he thinks for him, the 200/2 is essentially a duplication, with less utility.

That said, if you've seen, for example some of Steve's or Osman's images here, and since you own one, you know that the bokeh with that lens is something special. As for the bokeh in my shots, that's just what the lens gave me, and I'm very happy with it. Don't know if that helps, but there you go.
Panda81: I'd second what Lloyd said. I had a 200 f/2 and also sold it. I miss it, occasionally; but, I wasn't using it as much as the 70-200mm VRI. The new 70-200 VRII is almost the 200 F/2's equal and is lighter , less expensive, and more versatile.

Cheers, Matt

http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
 

m_driscoll

New member
Here's a couple from last night (same two posted earlier except in B&W or color). That hot spot in the lighting was killing me (squinting woman on left). I just checked and I didn't have Active-D Lighting on at all. That probably would have helped? Thanks for looking. Cheers, Matt

1. D3s; 24-70mm f/2.8; 38mm; 1/50s @ f/3.5; ISO 9000


2. D3s; 24-70mm f/2.8; 70mm; 1/50s @ f/3.5; ISO 5000


http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com

PS: Just read a little more. ADL appears to be moot because I shoot raw and import through Lightroom 2 and not Capture NX2.
 
Last edited:

shtarka1

Active member
Here's a couple from last night (same two posted earlier except in B&W or color). That hot spot in the lighting was killing me (squinting woman on left). I just checked and I didn't have Active-D Lighting on at all. That probably would have helped? Thanks for looking. Cheers, Matt

1. D3s; 24-70mm f/2.8; 38mm; 1/50s @ f/3.5; ISO 9000


2. D3s; 24-70mm f/2.8; 70mm; 1/50s @ f/3.5; ISO 5000


http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com

[/I]
There's something about that Red Dress Matt...:rolleyes::cool:!
Nice Pair!
 

etrigan63

Active member
Here's a couple from last night (same two posted earlier except in B&W or color). That hot spot in the lighting was killing me (squinting woman on left). I just checked and I didn't have Active-D Lighting on at all. That probably would have helped? Thanks for looking. Cheers, Matt

http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com

PS: Just read a little more. ADL appears to be moot because I shoot raw and import through Lightroom 2 and not Capture NX2.
Not so ADL as probably using center-weighted metering. Matrix metering gets a little out of whack onstage due to the tremendous uneveness of the lighting (unless the lighting director is very, very good).

I usually spot meter with the camera on manual and let the auto-ISO range up and down.
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Well, there's a lot to catch up with after being away for a week or so... even our good ol' thread is gone. :(

Long live the new one!

Incredible talent as usual, too many great photos and inspiration to comment, between Lloyd's splendid portraiture, Matt's wanderings (and interesting dress, indeed! :p), great stuff from Tim, Steen, Jorgen, Osman, Alex... well all of you guys. :thumbup:


I plan to resume a regular activity here soon, allowing more specific comments.

One thing though: Steve, after seeing your timeless baseball action art... now i want a 300 2.8, too. :mad:
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Yes, I owned one of the first copies of the 200/2 to come out, and frankly, I loved it. But... I found that I simply didn't use it as much as the 70-200 (that was the original version), and I needed some $$ for something else. Now, with the new 70-200 VRII, well, I just don't think I'd get another 200/2, as the differences, while they exist, are even smaller. I worked with a friend shooting the Boston Marathon, and he had his 200/2 with him, but it came out of the bag exactly once the entire week. He's one of the top event shooters in the world, and told me that with the new 70-200 VRII, he thinks for him, the 200/2 is essentially a duplication, with less utility.

That said, if you've seen, for example some of Steve's or Osman's images here, and since you own one, you know that the bokeh with that lens is something special. As for the bokeh in my shots, that's just what the lens gave me, and I'm very happy with it. Don't know if that helps, but there you go.
This part (and Matt's a couple of posts below) is a little bit of a surprise for me. As good as some results from the 70-200 VRII are, from what i can see here and there along with the few RAW files i could handle myself, in my eyes the 200/2 has still an edge AFA pure IQ is concerned. Of course for action (race shots you've mentionned) use it clearly doesn't have the same versatility and it's understable that it'd stay in the bag.

I'll have to study this more before taking a final decision. Guess i'm partial though, not using zooms since a long time and developping a calmer shooting practice, no sports, no fps sweat (usually shooting a single shot, up to 3 max except products in studio but no reactivity nor weight issues involved there)... and being quite sensitive to the bokeh magic of the 200.
Hmm. On the fence, once more :eek:
 
Top