It looks like the two images are mixed up at 4:41. the 100mm looks more like the 200mm should look. The Canon 100mm L macro is super too, probably a lot sharper than the 70 - 200.
Hugh Sweeney I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the 2 focal lengths were flopped! I bought the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Mark II last fall and it is amazingly sharper compared to my previous three 2.8 versions. Is it prime sharp? Maybe not, but it's so damn close! Not sure if this link will post: facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154291309640405&set=pb.184563975404.-2207520000.1404711099.&type=1&theater
Pretty sure you're getting mixed up with depth of field. With the same framing at 100mm vs 200mm you will have more depth of field at 200mm because the subject is further away. You also had the examples around the wrong way. This is why telephoto lenses can be better for portrait photography because you get more of your subject in sharp focus and less background for better separation.
So I looked it up and actually the depth of field on the subject is the same if the apertures are the same with the same subject framing. What I was trying to explain is that the 200mm effectively magnifies the background bringing it closer and making it look more blurred creating more separation. This graph shows what is going on: howmuchblur.com/#compare-1x-100mm-f2.8-and-1x-200mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject
Im agree with you at 4:48 the left imagage is at 200mm and the right is at 100mm definitely and without a doubt, is someone cant notice this, definitely dosnt deserve to be named as a pro photographer, you can see clearly at the left an aparentely closest background, more blur, and "bigger palm tree at the back
at 4:34 I think you accidentally changed the places of titles and pictures (because left one definitely looks like the 200mm and right one like 100mm), not the other way around. Am I correct??
Yes, you are right. You can go few seconds back and match, the one with two palm trees coming out of her head is @ 100 mm. and not the other way around.
Zoom lenses are more forgiving. I find it harder to have bad photos. Many of them are good photos. Prime lenses require a lot of shots. The awful ones are terrible. However, when you nail a shot with a prime lens, it looks amazing. The clarity of the focus is unmatched in a zoom lens.
Hi Matt. At about 4:40 on this video you're comparing 100mm and 200mm shots, but it looks like the shots are swapped. The 100mm shot has the more compressed background like a 200mm would be.
One thing you did not discuss is what is the best type of bokeh Eg the palm trees Where you can make out the palm trees? Or where they are just a blur Which would win a photo competition?
Yes, I own both and I do shoot a lot of portrait. You may combat the camera/lens shake with IS/VR/VC or whatever but you can't combat motion blur if you are shooting at 1/60 or slower. Also, like what was covered here, you can create something special with 1.2/1.4. Trust me, you will be shocked to see the difference in background rendering. I use 70-200 mostly but for a dedicated portrait session, 85 wins all the time.
Hi Matt, you labelled the images incorrectly at 4.39. The 200mm both has a shallower DOF (as per your calculations beforehand) and brings the background elements closer. The model stays the same size because you doubled the focal length and doubled the distance. However, in relation to the background you moved a neglible amount backwards and doubled the lens, effectively magnifying the background (making it appear closer)
It is not the issue of the focal length, but *how the lens was designed*. Those boring 3x zooms have too many optical elements in them; in other words, too much glass, and produce boring and flat images, with zero character. You see one, you see them all. It is visual confectionery. On the other hand, there is visual art. A well-designed prime lens will have less elements, far better optical glass, and may render astonishingly beautiful 3D image, or, enhance some other optical quality of the photograph, like micro-contrast and colour, the way bohkeh is rendered, etc. which lens designer has chosen as a goal. Take a portrait with Leica's 75mm Cron lens, or Pentax's 77mm designed by Jun Hirakawa, and then use 70-200 at 75 or 77 mm; print photographs and you will never touch 70-200 again.
Just for portraiture the 85 mm (1.2, 1.4 or 1.8) is a step up in quality that you can achieve. The isolation and contrast is superb, but 70-200 is also a very good lens, also did some portrait work with it. It's great allrounder, much more you can do than with 85 mm. However just for portrait 85mm is a great lens (on FF and on crop).
Dear Matt! I bought the 70-200 f4, for my NIKON D800 and I LOVE IT!! Also for portraits! I've seen many reviews with the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200f4 and some primes (NIKON). The 70-200 f4 came out as TEST WINNER! So I bought it! Btw, I LOVE your work! You inspire me enormously! I check you website (s) every day! Please keep up the GREAT work! You reallllllly inspire me!!!! Best of greetings from the Netherlands (Eindhoven). Vincent Pothuizen
Just a suggestion. You either need to get a cameramen who understands the basics of composition and not compose center shot like a tourist, or not allow this footage to see the light of day. It kills your credibility when you allow standards to be this low. Makes it hard to see you and your work as professional. Just saying.
Reshoot or take it down, otherwise it represents his brand. If he has learned to do better, post better, remove this. It all represents his brand and the credibility of that brand.
And that is why most business people never start marketing, because they listed to idiot advice for the 1% and can NEVER get it perfect. 1M views says it's good enough. If Matt wants to do a followup in 2016 or 2017 he can
Matt you rock..Big fan of yours from Ireland! Canon or Nikon, your videos are great. I shoot Canon and still watch all your videos. Keep up the good work man, These guys are just key board warriors, it shouldn't matter what you shoot with, photography is what you make it.
Hi Matt. It appears that you switched the images at 4:34. Photo on the left is probably taken at 200mm. Great comparison, though. And perfect timing. I own 70-200 f/2.8 and I'm thinking about purchasing the 85mm 1.4 from Sigma (f/1.2 from Canon is little bit expensive for me).
Can anyone verbalize the difference of bokeh between 85 prime and 70200@85 (both F 2.8)? I didn't see much other than the color rendering and I think Matt didn't specify much about it.
70-200 is a big heavy lens for portraits. The 85 will be a lot less weight and bulk if portraits are your purpose. What about the 24-70mm zoomed all the way in?
7 ปีที่แล้ว +1
son 2 lentes totalmente diferentes, uno tiene la virtud de la luminosidad, pero es fijo y poca construcción que lo hace muy exacto en enfoque. , el otro es un zoom que ahorra movimientos. el boké de las fotografías pueden ser parecidos, en 85 1.8 y 200 2.8, pero sin duda lo que cambia es el fondo de lo desenfocado. en 200, el objeto desenfocado es mas grande que en 85
I was thinking about getting the (canon) 85 f1.8 to use alongside my 70-200 for weddings (I shoot 2 bodies). Good idea? Too specialist? I thought it would be great for the end of the night when your arms are about to fall off too!
What is that camera strap that you are using on your 1D-X? It looks so much better than the normal strap, and I would love one like that for event shoots.
Who was your DOP today Matt? A little struggle with the AF me thinks... Video> steadycam>manual focus...or a tripod! I'm happy to see you two beautiful creatures on a locked off. (Can I come to Oz and work for you?)
I saw you were shooting with Canon 70-200mm lens. For most people Matt Granger says the 70-200mm is best choice. I agree it's more flexible with focal lengths and the narrow field of view works really well for head shots. Plus 70-200 gives the background more compression which I really like. Cannon at 200mm is great for head shots.
since i'm doing video, i just got a Canon 70-200 f.2.8 (non IS) and an Rokinon 85mm T.1.5 (manual focus, cine lens) and i'm very happy with both. The 85mm at T.1.5 (f.1.4) is perfect for interviews (and i guess portraits) when you want to really isolate your subject, meanwhile the 70-200 at 135 or 200mm gives me greater compression and is also great for pictures (since its got autofocus). I'd say get both, you'll find use for it. A cheaper alternative would be the Canon 85 f.1.8 (around $400)
two things. first, it's good you addressed subject magnification wrt to DoF even if you didnt get into it that much. the second is that I cannot agree with your assessment regarding the sharpness / fine detail reproduction of the 70-200 f2.8 gen 2 lenses compared to 85s. The zooms take it at all equivalent apertures. they carry contrast to finer resolutions considerably better. Not that it matters. I would like to see you buy/borrow/rent a 135 APO sonnar and compare it to the 85L for a video.
just one point about the relative DoF.. You say they're 'pretty similar' 6cm vs 4cm but that's a 50% difference the way I view it and Very significant ----
This was not his best work - obviously too shaky and missed focus. We had a mix up and no one brought stabiliser and this was first time using this camera. We have shot since with his own camera and rig and results are much better. Apologies for this one
any plans on reviewing the 135L? Curious to hear your opinion against the 85L. For portrait I use a Sigma 50 and 135L combo, have the X100s if I really need to shoot 35mm
Hi Matt, I think there is a mistake @ 4:38 if we consider the background : Your calculator says DOF is 0.04m @ 200mm & 0.06 m @ 100mm. So, look at the background, the bokeh of the shot on the left looks more diffused, more blurry and compressed than the one on the pict on the right. So ... wouldn´t be the contrary, @200mm on the left and @100m on the right ? Kind regards.
Great videos as always. But Help.! I have Nikon D7000 ( with Nikon Grip ); Nikon 50mm 1.8 and Sigma 17-70 f2.8 - 4 looked at buying Nikon D600; but glass I own would not do justice ( or would it ) or buy . Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 O/S or Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC. Would like to shoot portraits and possibly fashion portraits inside and out .. Do I cut losses; sell gear and buy Nikon D600 with the 24-85mm kit lens.Or D600 body and 2nd hand 85mm or Samyang 85mm f1.4 Any suggestions greatly received.
It is said that 135 often misses the focus, I was not advised to buy it, I have the 70-200 2.8 with a stabilizer and happy ochen.No 85 1.2 also really want a very good lens
consider getting a second hand higher end model, like the d7000 or d300 i think. I started entry level but soon moved to second hand semi-pro camera cos the handling, af and fps is so much better....
Hello. I make a living with real estate and interior design photography. Occasionally, I provide head-shots for my cleints, cover events etc... I currently have the 14-24 2.8 and 24-70 2.8. Which lens makes the best business sense to own. I'm considering the versatility of the focal range and its aperture. At first I thought of acquiring the 85 1.8 rather than sinking four times as much on the 70-200. But I think that the 85mm is extremely specialized. Not only that, given that I shoot on location, I have to adapt the various spaces provided by the client. Essentially, the 85mm might be too long for tight spaces. Is having the 70-200 the smartest purchase? PS, this is going on a D800. Thanks in advance for feedback.
I like the 85 mm, but it really takes a while to learn how to handle this lens. The first few shots I got many miss focus just because I was breathing when I press the shutter, the DOF is very shallow. But as soon as I can handle it, the results and the bokeh are so dramatic...
@thatnikonguy it seems like you accidentally mixed up the 100mm / 200mm shots at around 04:35 (more compression on the left one, but the title says "@100mm", etc.).
yes, pretty much. on canon you'd have 80mm, on nikon 75mm. but buying an 1.4 doesn't give you 1.4 on a crop sensor, it gives you something around 2.1-2.2 (full frame equivalent). you should take that into account.
Something to concider for portraits is that the 70-200's all come with VR/VC/IS, and you can make up for the lack of light vs a 85 prime with a slower shutter, and still keep sharp shots! This becomes even more of a benifit when you want to keep some DOF in your shots and shoot at say 5.6. I've taken shots as low as 1/6th with the VRII (something I didn't think was possible). While I'd love to have an 85mm, I just can't find a way to justify it.
One diffrence is, there is a subtle olor-shift and the 70-200mm seems a touch "warmer/ magenta" wheras the 85mm is a touch cooler/ neutral. Assuning that you are on a tripod nd keeping the exact same distance at least (camera angles are a touch off) the 70-200mm has a much more pronounced "flattening" of the perspective. It's an interesting comparison for sure but I generally prefer an 85mm for a 3/4 style portrait and a 100mm for a headshot.
Thank you for the video... Very informative. I've been looking for a good camera sling and notice you're using one. What brand are you using (holding the 70-200mm) and are you satisfied with the quality. Thank you in advance.
the 85mm 1.8G nikon is way cheaper than 70-200mm 2.8 SIGMA (& of course any other brand). I am shooting mostly events indoors, but occasionally portrait. So which lens do you suggest for me Matt Granger ? .. cheers..
An 85mm 1.2 is 2k, that's what I paid for my 70-200 2.8, so you still pay for that extra 2 1/2 stops, in dark areas where you need to freeze action thats very handy, but since the video was talking portraits where the subject is normally still I didn't think it applied. Yes they do different things, I'm just pointing out that the 70-200 has some very useful portrait features that an 85 lacks.
Matt, at 4:35, the 100mm and 200mm label should be swapped. The photo on the left is shot at 200mm and the one on the right is 100mm because you definitely see a wider angle as shown by more background coverage. Please check your metadata and somehow correct this video.
what about 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikon lens? I mean I'm not one to argue about this but it all just seems effortless with that lens. It feels like that one lens you'd take with you if you had to pick only one while on an adventure. Although it is nearly 2 thousand dollars...
@4:40 the left image is taken at 200 and the right one at 100. Simply look at the background
Liciu SVisual Exactly what I was about to point out but you had already mentioned it. Thanks :)
It looks like the two images are mixed up at 4:41. the 100mm looks more like the 200mm should look. The Canon 100mm L macro is super too, probably a lot sharper than the 70 - 200.
Hugh Sweeney I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the 2 focal lengths were flopped! I bought the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Mark II last fall and it is amazingly sharper compared to my previous three 2.8 versions. Is it prime sharp? Maybe not, but it's so damn close! Not sure if this link will post: facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154291309640405&set=pb.184563975404.-2207520000.1404711099.&type=1&theater
cool, I'd love one of those lenses too.
Hugh Sweeney I want to take professional quality photography but does this mean I have to buy a red ring lens?
No, it means you have to be good!
Your lens matches her sweater
at 4:33 min during shots comparision, 100mm shot has been swapped with 200mm shot. mistake while editing the video
I noticed that as well
Three years ago and still vitally relevant! Thank you Matt
6:43, yep totally looking at her face.
Do you have it in f/16?
yup looking at the face lol haha
how are you taking a naked shot in a law library??????
The focal length of the photos in 4:49 were wrongly state,@100mm should be the effect of 200mm and vise versa.
that deep throat
+Crimson tiger nice avatar bruh
+Crimson tiger hahahaha I thought what the hell is going on there?! :D
lol
OK no one else like this comment because it now has 69 likes and I think that is perfect
Octahedron lol thanks
Pretty sure you're getting mixed up with depth of field. With the same framing at 100mm vs 200mm you will have more depth of field at 200mm because the subject is further away. You also had the examples around the wrong way.
This is why telephoto lenses can be better for portrait photography because you get more of your subject in sharp focus and less background for better separation.
Hi Sigma, no, you get less dof with the 200mm and reframing farther.
So I looked it up and actually the depth of field on the subject is the same if the apertures are the same with the same subject framing. What I was trying to explain is that the 200mm effectively magnifies the background bringing it closer and making it look more blurred creating more separation.
This graph shows what is going on:
howmuchblur.com/#compare-1x-100mm-f2.8-and-1x-200mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject
Hi Sigma, i check on the link very nice tool, yes the back gets closer.
Yes
Im agree with you at 4:48 the left imagage is at 200mm and the right is at 100mm definitely and without a doubt, is someone cant notice this, definitely dosnt deserve to be named as a pro photographer, you can see clearly at the left an aparentely closest background, more blur, and "bigger palm tree at the back
at 4:34 I think you accidentally changed the places of titles and pictures (because left one definitely looks like the 200mm and right one like 100mm), not the other way around. Am I correct??
+Rosumisorimu Yes you are!
Yes, you are right. You can go few seconds back and match, the one with two palm trees coming out of her head is @ 100 mm. and not the other way around.
Zoom lenses are more forgiving. I find it harder to have bad photos. Many of them are good photos. Prime lenses require a lot of shots. The awful ones are terrible. However, when you nail a shot with a prime lens, it looks amazing. The clarity of the focus is unmatched in a zoom lens.
Hi Matt. At about 4:40 on this video you're comparing 100mm and 200mm shots, but it looks like the shots are swapped. The 100mm shot has the more compressed background like a 200mm would be.
wow and i thought that i got it wrong, but i was right! they really are swapped !
I noticed this too. I was trying to figure out why I thought I was wrong, but it turns out I'm not the only one.
ZyklonB95 PS, I love Tina!!!
One thing you did not discuss is what is the best type of bokeh
Eg the palm trees
Where you can make out the palm trees?
Or where they are just a blur
Which would win a photo competition?
Yes, I own both and I do shoot a lot of portrait. You may combat the camera/lens shake with IS/VR/VC or whatever but you can't combat motion blur if you are shooting at 1/60 or slower. Also, like what was covered here, you can create something special with 1.2/1.4. Trust me, you will be shocked to see the difference in background rendering. I use 70-200 mostly but for a dedicated portrait session, 85 wins all the time.
Hi Matt, you labelled the images incorrectly at 4.39. The 200mm both has a shallower DOF (as per your calculations beforehand) and brings the background elements closer.
The model stays the same size because you doubled the focal length and doubled the distance. However, in relation to the background you moved a neglible amount backwards and doubled the lens, effectively magnifying the background (making it appear closer)
It is not the issue of the focal length, but *how the lens was designed*. Those boring 3x zooms have too many optical elements in them; in other words, too much glass, and produce boring and flat images, with zero character. You see one, you see them all. It is visual confectionery.
On the other hand, there is visual art. A well-designed prime lens will have less elements, far better optical glass, and may render astonishingly beautiful 3D image, or, enhance some other optical quality of the photograph, like micro-contrast and colour, the way bohkeh is rendered, etc. which lens designer has chosen as a goal.
Take a portrait with Leica's 75mm Cron lens, or Pentax's 77mm designed by Jun Hirakawa, and then use 70-200 at 75 or 77 mm; print photographs and you will never touch 70-200 again.
I challenge you too look at my photos from my 5 D Mark IV and 70-200 2.8 L II and say that drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B37AT6vo9v9uY0pVWVBXR09qSE0
Zvonimir Tosic
I love your model's sense of humor!
oh my god, she is the cutest model ever, i love her!!
how about a 100 or 200 macro for portrait?
Just purchased a rokinon 85mm f1.4 manual focus, the sharpness is amazing. Cost under $300 on amazon
Have to leave a compliment. Probably you are one of the best reviewing lenses. Love the real world approach. That's what counts
Just for portraiture the 85 mm (1.2, 1.4 or 1.8) is a step up in quality that you can achieve. The isolation and contrast is superb, but 70-200 is also a very good lens, also did some portrait work with it. It's great allrounder, much more you can do than with 85 mm. However just for portrait 85mm is a great lens (on FF and on crop).
Dear Matt!
I bought the 70-200 f4, for my NIKON D800 and I LOVE IT!! Also for portraits! I've seen many reviews with the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200f4 and some primes (NIKON). The 70-200 f4 came out as TEST WINNER! So I bought it!
Btw, I LOVE your work! You inspire me enormously! I check you website (s) every day! Please keep up the GREAT work! You reallllllly inspire me!!!!
Best of greetings from the Netherlands (Eindhoven).
Vincent Pothuizen
At 4:43 when comparing the 100mm and 200mm pictures; It's pretty evident you've switched the labeling of the images on accident. Oops!
+Nicholas Thon My thoughts exactly!!!!
+Nicholas Thon lol
nice point
Just a suggestion. You either need to get a cameramen who understands the basics of composition and not compose center shot like a tourist, or not allow this footage to see the light of day. It kills your credibility when you allow standards to be this low. Makes it hard to see you and your work as professional. Just saying.
Are you suggesting Matt get a cameraman as per the requirements you outlined, then travel back in time to 2013 to refilm this?
Reshoot or take it down, otherwise it represents his brand. If he has learned to do better, post better, remove this. It all represents his brand and the credibility of that brand.
This video is a casual tutorial, not art. If someone left this video with more knowledge than when they arrived, then the video served it's purpose.
And that is why most business people never start marketing, because they listed to idiot advice for the 1% and can NEVER get it perfect. 1M views says it's good enough. If Matt wants to do a followup in 2016 or 2017 he can
I totally agree with you Aaron.
Matt, I think the photos at 100 mm and 200 mm by 70-200 interchanged. From around 4:01 minutes to around 4:46 minutes. Kindly recheck.
Matt you rock..Big fan of yours from Ireland! Canon or Nikon, your videos are great. I shoot Canon and still watch all your videos. Keep up the good work man, These guys are just key board warriors, it shouldn't matter what you shoot with, photography is what you make it.
Hi Matt. It appears that you switched the images at 4:34. Photo on the left is probably taken at 200mm.
Great comparison, though. And perfect timing. I own 70-200 f/2.8 and I'm thinking about purchasing the 85mm 1.4 from Sigma (f/1.2 from Canon is little bit expensive for me).
1:50 "...deepthroat it or something..." You just threw it out there. lol
Can anyone verbalize the difference of bokeh between 85 prime and 70200@85 (both F 2.8)? I didn't see much other than the color rendering and I think Matt didn't specify much about it.
6:57 her face when she finds out the price haha :')
Sarah Buxton OMG yes! she said "give me that!"
At 7:35 she is like why the hell does this piece of glass cost 2000 bucks 😂
I have been shopping around for a 85mm lens; hopeful I can get mine before Christmas.
glad you can see the quality is going up!
What focal length provides the most flattering compression of facial features in head & shoulder shots and also group shots?
70-200 is a big heavy lens for portraits. The 85 will be a lot less weight and bulk if portraits are your purpose. What about the 24-70mm zoomed all the way in?
son 2 lentes totalmente diferentes, uno tiene la virtud de la luminosidad, pero es fijo y poca construcción que lo hace muy exacto en enfoque. , el otro es un zoom que ahorra movimientos.
el boké de las fotografías pueden ser parecidos, en 85 1.8 y 200 2.8, pero sin duda lo que cambia es el fondo de lo desenfocado. en 200, el objeto desenfocado es mas grande que en 85
I was thinking about getting the (canon) 85 f1.8 to use alongside my 70-200 for weddings (I shoot 2 bodies). Good idea? Too specialist? I thought it would be great for the end of the night when your arms are about to fall off too!
What is that camera strap that you are using on your 1D-X? It looks so much better than the normal strap, and I would love one like that for event shoots.
Who was your DOP today Matt? A little struggle with the AF me thinks... Video> steadycam>manual focus...or a tripod! I'm happy to see you two beautiful creatures on a locked off. (Can I come to Oz and work for you?)
This is a superb video, well structured, interesting, everything. Thanks!
I saw you were shooting with Canon 70-200mm lens. For most people Matt Granger says the 70-200mm is best choice. I agree it's more flexible with focal lengths and the narrow field of view works really well for head shots. Plus 70-200 gives the background more compression which I really like. Cannon at 200mm is great for head shots.
I made the same choice after owning both 85L ii and 70-200 is II. This is an awesome comparison. Excellent job!!!
ha ha. love the outtake at the end!
have 70-200 2.8 L IS Canon but would still like a 85 if I had the money.
since i'm doing video, i just got a Canon 70-200 f.2.8 (non IS) and an Rokinon 85mm T.1.5 (manual focus, cine lens) and i'm very happy with both. The 85mm at T.1.5 (f.1.4) is perfect for interviews (and i guess portraits) when you want to really isolate your subject, meanwhile the 70-200 at 135 or 200mm gives me greater compression and is also great for pictures (since its got autofocus). I'd say get both, you'll find use for it. A cheaper alternative would be the Canon 85 f.1.8 (around $400)
Which one give more sharp result of a picture at F4 ??? Canon 85mm f1.8 or temron 70-200 non VC.
Have you ever used a 135 f1.8 for portraiture? I own one and it's my favorite lens for that purpose (used wide open, of course).
two things. first, it's good you addressed subject magnification wrt to DoF even if you didnt get into it that much.
the second is that I cannot agree with your assessment regarding the sharpness / fine detail reproduction of the 70-200 f2.8 gen 2 lenses compared to 85s. The zooms take it at all equivalent apertures. they carry contrast to finer resolutions considerably better. Not that it matters.
I would like to see you buy/borrow/rent a 135 APO sonnar and compare it to the 85L for a video.
just one point about the relative DoF.. You say they're 'pretty similar' 6cm vs 4cm but that's a 50% difference the way I view it and Very significant ----
hi matt i have a question wich one should i buy for wedding shoots canon 50mm 1.2 L or canon 70-200 f2.8 ii..cheers
This was not his best work - obviously too shaky and missed focus. We had a mix up and no one brought stabiliser and this was first time using this camera. We have shot since with his own camera and rig and results are much better. Apologies for this one
all you need now is a camera person who can hold the bloody camera still.
that aspect of the vid is painful
it almost seemed like the vid was shot in AF.
John MacLean Almost?
It is purposeful, to show contrast between his photos and some pleb's basic videography.
And it doesn't fucking focus on the host 90% of the time
yeah i think hes a landscape photographer ( with a love for framing trees) and a drink problem
Yes Matt is really doing a great job, reinventing tutorials in a slightly different way! Thumbs up big time!
any plans on reviewing the 135L? Curious to hear your opinion against the 85L.
For portrait I use a Sigma 50 and 135L combo, have the X100s if I really need to shoot 35mm
Hi Matt, I think there is a mistake @ 4:38 if we consider the background : Your calculator says DOF is 0.04m @ 200mm & 0.06 m @ 100mm.
So, look at the background, the bokeh of the shot on the left looks more diffused, more blurry and compressed than the one on the pict on the right.
So ... wouldn´t be the contrary, @200mm on the left and @100m on the right ?
Kind regards.
What camera did you use to shoot this episode? Image looks very nice!
cual de los dos es el mejor 85mm o el 70-200mm
que diferencia hay entre el 70-200mm y 70-300mm
muchas gracias por su respuesta
Hi, are you enjoying your new canon gear and do you prefer anything about it compared to the nikon stuff? Cheers
This was the perfect video I needed to make the decision on which one I was going to buy. Now I picked the right one! Thank you!!
Which one is best for full body portraits?
0:32 when you go dressed as the lens...
Thanks Matt! Excellent video!
You flip flopped the labels of the 100mm and 200mm photos. The field of view is narrower on the 200mm.
What camera did you shoot this with? The sharpness is great
my smc takumar 85mm 1.8 is one of my favorite lenses
Great videos as always. But Help.! I have Nikon D7000 ( with Nikon Grip ); Nikon 50mm 1.8 and Sigma 17-70 f2.8 - 4 looked at buying Nikon D600; but glass I own would not do justice ( or would it ) or buy . Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 O/S or Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC. Would like to shoot portraits and possibly fashion portraits inside and out .. Do I cut losses; sell gear and buy Nikon D600 with the 24-85mm kit lens.Or D600 body and 2nd hand 85mm or Samyang 85mm f1.4 Any suggestions greatly received.
hey the video guy, hold your videocam steady and learn some composition ok?
It is said that 135 often misses the focus, I was not advised to buy it, I have the 70-200 2.8 with a stabilizer and happy ochen.No 85 1.2 also really want a very good lens
great video for me like getting to buy either one
Thanks mate, your videos are great and cover a wide range of topics. keep em coming. cheers
hi is the berlin photowalk coming out soon?
Wait - "that Nikon guy" with a Canon? Good for you!! Welcome to the light side, we have cookies!
consider getting a second hand higher end model, like the d7000 or d300 i think. I started entry level but soon moved to second hand semi-pro camera cos the handling, af and fps is so much better....
Thanku so much sir..u hav done some amazing comparison videos n those are such informative n very helpful for beginners..loved ur work♥️🙏
Good comparison and explanation. Thanks
Hello. I make a living with real estate and interior design photography. Occasionally, I provide head-shots for my cleints, cover events etc... I currently have the 14-24 2.8 and 24-70 2.8. Which lens makes the best business sense to own. I'm considering the versatility of the focal range and its aperture. At first I thought of acquiring the 85 1.8 rather than sinking four times as much on the 70-200. But I think that the 85mm is extremely specialized. Not only that, given that I shoot on location, I have to adapt the various spaces provided by the client. Essentially, the 85mm might be too long for tight spaces. Is having the 70-200 the smartest purchase? PS, this is going on a D800. Thanks in advance for feedback.
Are we going to get a video of that shoot in the library?
great upload matt!!!
still not used to seeing you with a non black barrel in your hands..
I like the 85 mm, but it really takes a while to learn how to handle this lens. The first few shots I got many miss focus just because I was breathing when I press the shutter, the DOF is very shallow. But as soon as I can handle it, the results and the bokeh are so dramatic...
Where can I get a camera strap like that?
@thatnikonguy it seems like you accidentally mixed up the 100mm / 200mm shots at around 04:35 (more compression on the left one, but the title says "@100mm", etc.).
i'm looking wide angle lens not just for landscape more about group, senior, family, wedding lens what you think what is best for me ? thanks
The question I have is would I buy the 50 mm for a crop sensor to make it close to the 85 fx type lens?
yes, pretty much. on canon you'd have 80mm, on nikon 75mm. but buying an 1.4 doesn't give you 1.4 on a crop sensor, it gives you something around 2.1-2.2 (full frame equivalent). you should take that into account.
Something to concider for portraits is that the 70-200's all come with VR/VC/IS, and you can make up for the lack of light vs a 85 prime with a slower shutter, and still keep sharp shots! This becomes even more of a benifit when you want to keep some DOF in your shots and shoot at say 5.6. I've taken shots as low as 1/6th with the VRII (something I didn't think was possible).
While I'd love to have an 85mm, I just can't find a way to justify it.
One diffrence is, there is a subtle olor-shift and the 70-200mm seems a touch "warmer/ magenta" wheras the 85mm is a touch cooler/ neutral. Assuning that you are on a tripod nd keeping the exact same distance at least (camera angles are a touch off) the 70-200mm has a much more pronounced "flattening" of the perspective. It's an interesting comparison for sure but I generally prefer an 85mm for a 3/4 style portrait and a 100mm for a headshot.
Thank you for the video... Very informative. I've been looking for a good camera sling and notice you're using one. What brand are you using (holding the 70-200mm) and are you satisfied with the quality. Thank you in advance.
are you shooting in FF?
Thank you for a good, straight forward discussion on the lenses.
Thank you Matt! Is that your favorite portrait lens with the 1.6 crop or full frame?
the 85mm 1.8G nikon is way cheaper than 70-200mm 2.8 SIGMA (& of course any other brand). I am shooting mostly events indoors, but occasionally portrait. So which lens do you suggest for me Matt Granger ? .. cheers..
Almost all of my favourite portraits I have taken with my 70-200 f2.8 L IS
An 85mm 1.2 is 2k, that's what I paid for my 70-200 2.8, so you still pay for that extra 2 1/2 stops, in dark areas where you need to freeze action thats very handy, but since the video was talking portraits where the subject is normally still I didn't think it applied. Yes they do different things, I'm just pointing out that the 70-200 has some very useful portrait features that an 85 lacks.
hello! im a novice to photography and I want to know what is the best intro-level DSLR, from Canon or Nikon. Thank
You!
Matt, at 4:35, the 100mm and 200mm label should be swapped. The photo on the left is shot at 200mm and the one on the right is 100mm because you definitely see a wider angle as shown by more background coverage. Please check your metadata and somehow correct this video.
what about 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikon lens? I mean I'm not one to argue about this but it all just seems effortless with that lens. It feels like that one lens you'd take with you if you had to pick only one while on an adventure. Although it is nearly 2 thousand dollars...
Amazing comparison - exactly what I needed to see!
lol the footage up to about 2min that i have seen, is shot all over the place ??? no tripod ?
Your explanation is really good ! you got your self a new subscriber ! Keep it up.
So if I am using a 75mm f1.8 on Olympus OM-D am I getting the compression of a 75mm lens or 150mm lens in full frame equivalent terms?
Great comparison Matt.