Menu
What's new
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!

Nikkor 200mm f/2 for beauty and fashion?

D

dennishuang

New member
Hello all,

I am considering buying the Nikkor 200mm f/2 for beauty and fashion photography. I already have the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 and Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8.

I'd appreciate hearing about any experiences people have had with this lens for beauty and fashion.

Thanks,

Dennis
 
L

Leigh

New member
dennishuang said:
I'd appreciate hearing about any experiences people have had with this lens for beauty and fashion.
Click to expand...
Isn't your question rather severely biased?

How about people who do NOT use that lens for that purpose because they feel it's not appropriate?

- Leigh
 
dogstarnyc

dogstarnyc

Member
Hi Dennis,

I shoot fashion and as we all know this lens is stellar, very heavy and very expensive. Are you shooting fashion for fun or professionally...?

Personally I don't think it's a fashion photographers first choice lens, in fact I don't know many that use it a lot, if at all. If we want that long lens 'pulled in' look, we hire a 300mm 2.8 and be done with it. for beauty a macro lens is often used, the 105's or the Sigma 150mm, these let you compress perspective a bit and allow you to go in close without cropping the file afterwards

The 200mm f2 is killer sharp and for beauty it's perhaps too sharp, most clients/editors/CD's etc are not bothered about the difference between your 70-200 2.8 at 200mm compared to the 200mm f2.
They are looking at the styling of the shoot, model choice, product info, quality of the hair and make up etc.... Don't get me wrong, a lot of creatives are keen snappers and appreciate quality but we are comparing high quality lenses and beyond a certain point the contents of your shoot are more important that what you shot it on.

In a nutshell, buying this lens will not further your career one jot, investing the money in shooting fresh work for your book, on location, with high quality models, a decent (expensive) stylist and hair and make up team will get you much further.

You already have 'industry standard' high end lenses in the two you mentioned, you don't need anything else, 'cept maybe for the 50mm 1.4/1.8

Steve
 
Last edited:
dogstarnyc

dogstarnyc

Member
@Leigh,

I was bemused by your response to Dennis' post... And wonder if you could expand a little on your point of view....?

I thought it was ok that Dennis posted a little bit about what he was intending to use the lens for and wanted responses from those in that field, the 200mm f2 is a very famous lens so all the data is out there, wasn't he just asking how it rendered/worked for specific applications...?

If I was buying a lens specifically for macro work I could see how a response from a say wedding photographer or landscape photographer wouldn't be relevant, what do you think...?

S
 
Last edited:
F

fotografz

Well-known member
dennishuang said:
Hello all,

I am considering buying the Nikkor 200mm f/2 for beauty and fashion photography. I already have the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 and Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8.

I'd appreciate hearing about any experiences people have had with this lens for beauty and fashion.

Thanks,

Dennis
Click to expand...
I used that lens for doing wedding "fashion" and portrait work. Like the Leica 180/2 it is in a class of its own. It renders like no other Nikon lens IMO. The gentle roll off from the subject to the creamy background is to die for.

While big, it can be managed by including a Kirk Lens Grip with ARCA style QR in conjunction with the VR … and/or … using a QR system for mono-pod use with a RRS HD Mono-Pod head. Most of the time I used it without the giant lens hood which at least makes it look a bit smaller:)

BTW, it is super-sonic fast and very accurate.

After I got the 200/2, I never used my 70-200/2.8 again.

- Marc
 
D

dennishuang

New member
RVB said:
Dennis,the only real drawback is the weight at 2.9kg...
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input.

It may be too heavy for me to use hand held. If it is then I'd have to use my tripod.

I am also not sure if the minimum focus distance of 2 meters will work for me for beauty for close-ups.

I can find out these things if I rent it.
 
D

dennishuang

New member
dogstarnyc said:
Hi Dennis,

I shoot fashion and as we all know this lens is stellar, very heavy and very expensive. Are you shooting fashion for fun or professionally...?

Personally I don't think it's a fashion photographers first choice lens, in fact I don't know many that use it a lot, if at all. If we want that long lens 'pulled in' look, we hire a 300mm 2.8 and be done with it. for beauty a macro lens is often used, the 105's or the Sigma 150mm, these let you compress perspective a bit and allow you to go in close without cropping the file afterwards

The 200mm f2 is killer sharp and for beauty it's perhaps too sharp, most clients/editors/CD's etc are not bothered about the difference between your 70-200 2.8 at 200mm compared to the 200mm f2.
They are looking at the styling of the shoot, model choice, product info, quality of the hair and make up etc.... Don't get me wrong, a lot of creatives are keen snappers and appreciate quality but we are comparing high quality lenses and beyond a certain point the contents of your shoot are more important that what you shot it on.

In a nutshell, buying this lens will not further your career one jot, investing the money in shooting fresh work for your book, on location, with high quality models, a decent (expensive) stylist and hair and make up team will get you much further.

You already have 'industry standard' high end lenses in the two you mentioned, you don't need anything else, 'cept maybe for the 50mm 1.4/1.8

Steve
Click to expand...
Hi Steve,

I'm shooting beauty and fashion for fun.

Thanks for the information about the lenses. I do have the Nikon 105 f/2.8.

I haven't really looked at Sigma so I appreciate you mentioning the Sigma 150. I'll read up on that Sigma. I don't have a Nikon 50mm but I do have the Nikon 58mm f/1.4.

I appreciate your insight about the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and the Nikon 200mm f/2 with regard to sharpness, clients, editors, etc. I also appreciate your recommendation about shooting with high quality models, wardrobe stylists, hair stylists, and makeup artists in a team. I do try to work with a team when possible.

For me the 85mm f/1.4's focal length is shorter than I would like for portrait and beauty but I want a faster lens than the 70-200 f/2.8 so that I can get the shallow depth of field I like for some beauty/portrait.

So I am looking at the Nikkor 200mm f/2 for shallow depth of field beauty/portrait. I don't know if the minimum focusing distance of 2 meters will let me get the close-ups I want. Because of that I've been thinking of moving to the Leica S system so I can use the S 120mm f/2.5 CS macro. I have posted on another forum about that lens.

Thanks for the insight and input you have provided. I appreciate your opinion especially since you shoot fashion.

Regards,

Dennis
 
D

dennishuang

New member
dogstarnyc said:
@Leigh,

I was bemused by your response to Dennis' post... And wonder if you could expand a little on your point of view....?

I thought it was ok that Dennis posted a little bit about what he was intending to use the lens for and wanted responses from those in that field, the 200mm f2 is a very famous lens so all the data is out there, wasn't he just asking how it rendered/worked for specific applications...?

If I was buying a lens specifically for macro work I could see how a response from a say wedding photographer or landscape photographer wouldn't be relevant, what do you think...?

S
Click to expand...
Hi Steve,

I couldn't have stated it any better.

Regards,

Dennis
 
D

dennishuang

New member
fotografz said:
I used that lens for doing wedding "fashion" and portrait work. Like the Leica 180/2 it is in a class of its own. It renders like no other Nikon lens IMO. The gentle roll off from the subject to the creamy background is to die for.

While big, it can be managed by including a Kirk Lens Grip with ARCA style QR in conjunction with the VR … and/or … using a QR system for mono-pod use with a RRS HD Mono-Pod head. Most of the time I used it without the giant lens hood which at least makes it look a bit smaller:)

BTW, it is super-sonic fast and very accurate.

After I got the 200/2, I never used my 70-200/2.8 again.

- Marc
Click to expand...
Hi Marc,

Thanks for the information and advice. I keep hearing good things about it so I keep thinking about getting one myself.

Regards,

Dennis
 
D

Dustbak

Member
I have both 70-200 as well as the 200/2.0 but mostly take the 70-200 with me. It is more flexible and lighter. The image quality is better with the 200/2.0 but the 70-200 is really good as well and it often allows me to shoot things which would be difficult with the 200/2.0 if only because the 70-200 handles more easily.
 
D

dennishuang

New member
dogstarnyc said:
Hi again Dennis,

Have a look on here at the 135mm f2 DC lens. jack I know has the 135mm he may have the 105mm version too.

Killer sharp, bokeh adjustment, not as big or expensive as the 200mm f2.

It could give you that look you want.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=n...qQ0AWsnYDoDw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1680&bih=939

S
Click to expand...
Hi Steve,

Thanks for the suggestion. I did look up a little information about that lens. I would like to have VR for that focal length since I don't usually use a tripod, but I'll look at that lens again.

Thanks,

Dennis
 
dogstarnyc

dogstarnyc

Member
Hi Dennis,
If you can, try both VR and non VR, some say the earlier non VR lenses re a tad sharper but I'm splitting hairs.

Steve
 
Guy Mancuso

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well it's probably the best lens Nikon ever made. It's just fabulous and owned it. It's amazing doing fashion and portraits with it. The biggest drawback is size and weight and you have to be really dedicated to the lens to even take it out of the house. Handheld it's tough on a monopod it's a joy as it holds the weight. Here is exactly why most buy it than in the end sell it for the simple reason they are not dedicated to dealing with it after a bit. The hood is a monster too. I never used it myself and I used a Dynalite flash head cover as the lens cap. Yea yellow and ugly but it worked great to protect the front element.

In the end the size and weight got to me and sold it.
 
T

thedruid

New member
Why not consider the lighter/cheaper Nikon 180mm F2.8 AFD? Fashion shooter Benjamin Kanarek uses it on a D800 and has made some very good Vogue covers...then again he was able to do this with a Pentax K-5 and some limited lenses, proving yet again that while gear is good vision is better.
 
Jorgen Udvang

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
thedruid said:
Why not consider the lighter/cheaper Nikon 180mm F2.8 AFD? Fashion shooter Benjamin Kanarek uses it on a D800 and has made some very good Vogue covers...then again he was able to do this with a Pentax K-5 and some limited lenses, proving yet again that while gear is good vision is better.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that Benjamin Kanarek's use of a lens says much about its qualities. He could probably shoot a Vogue cover with a shoebox. Apart from that, the 180/2.8 is a wonderful lens and an absolute bargain :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top