01-18-2011, 04:44 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295362555' post='5626']
Have to keep reminding myself what a heavy pigs this Nikon and its Canon counterpart are (besides being very expensive also). Because I would love to have one for my photography.[/quote]
The Canon's easier to hold because it's a bit lighter and not as front heavy. Also the IS is to die for... 1/15 is not an issue if the mirror slap isn't strong. I'm sure the VR II has caught up in this regard but I've yet to see VR that's as good as IS <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295362555' post='5626']
One comment about your review, though... although the bokeh is quite nice. Blurry, yes... it is f2 at 200mm after all. Dreamy, maybe yes. But creamy? A word too often used for lenses that do not really excel in bokeh quality.[/quote]
Yeah fast lenses get to cheat but bokeh testing is not standardised anyway. I mean, I've rarely seen people proportionally vary distances, etc. to keep the background blur amounts the same when comparing bokeh across different apertures and lenses, etc.
Also, just like how we frame the subject equally even when using lenses of different focal lengths, it's fair to say that a fast lens produces smoother backgrounds for a particular framing than a slower one, even if the slower one is actually/scientifically a better bokeh lens, don't you think?
GTW
Have to keep reminding myself what a heavy pigs this Nikon and its Canon counterpart are (besides being very expensive also). Because I would love to have one for my photography.[/quote]
The Canon's easier to hold because it's a bit lighter and not as front heavy. Also the IS is to die for... 1/15 is not an issue if the mirror slap isn't strong. I'm sure the VR II has caught up in this regard but I've yet to see VR that's as good as IS <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295362555' post='5626']
One comment about your review, though... although the bokeh is quite nice. Blurry, yes... it is f2 at 200mm after all. Dreamy, maybe yes. But creamy? A word too often used for lenses that do not really excel in bokeh quality.[/quote]
Yeah fast lenses get to cheat but bokeh testing is not standardised anyway. I mean, I've rarely seen people proportionally vary distances, etc. to keep the background blur amounts the same when comparing bokeh across different apertures and lenses, etc.
Also, just like how we frame the subject equally even when using lenses of different focal lengths, it's fair to say that a fast lens produces smoother backgrounds for a particular framing than a slower one, even if the slower one is actually/scientifically a better bokeh lens, don't you think?
GTW