The Canon 200mm F1.8L may be over 30 years old, but the fact that it still keeps up with the newest high resolution sensors is a testament to its design. Featuring guest photographer Irene Rudnyk.
I bought this lens a year or two ago. My business involves grinding and polishing "hard" materials (i.e anything harder than glass). So, I found it interesting to hear that this lens was one of the last to be polished using pitch polishing. Most polishing these days seems to be done using a polyurethane pad in a mold the desired shape of the final optic. Pitch, however. since it is soft, will conform to the existing geometry and only improve the surface finish for the most part. I believe I heard that the use opf pitch stopped because of safety issues(?) perhaps the epitch was a health threat to the operators(?) Anyway, going from that to wha they are doing know, as near as I can tell, is a step down in the end product's quality albeit barely noticeable. Again, a lot of what I am saying is based on rumors, so if anyone has a more solid source, I'd love to hear it.
Nice review but is anyone surprised that there are over 30 year old lenses that are very sharp I still regularly use lenses that age and much older on my canon 5dsr and don’t see any lack of sharpness,,contrast, etc. don’t get caught by new gear hype it was around back then as much as it is now!
Glad to see this reposted in honor of one of the very finest lenses ever made IHMO Gave up my F2 for this, it has something special about how it renders. Will never sell mine :)
What is surprising about a relatively recent Canon lens that can create amazing images? Cinematographers would claw each other to pieces for the chance to use Canon's K35s and they were produced almost 50 years ago. You people need to get out more.
For years, there was a program "The Making of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. It looked like the 300 f/2.8, used wide open, was the portrait lens used. The last time I watched, it looked like that lens had been replaced there by the 200 f/2.
Why suddenly featuring this on frontpage again? Coincidence, or is there a hidden message (hint) of DPreview having knowledge of a new big white coming from Canon? There's a rumour a new super-tele for RF mount coming in probably Q1: https://www.canonrumors.com/a-new-super-telephoto-lens-will-be-announced-soon/
The illuminati have been secretly infiltrating DPR for years, financed by the Rothschilds. Look for the symbols on the lens test target picture, they're all there.
@WastingTime Oh, I didn't notice that. What does it mean, are we all dead now?
But seriously, DPR has obviously been hinting new releases recently by re-posting "classics" in their articles feed. This one is more subtly though, because it's only in the (always rotating) header, not in the articles list. So maybe means nothing. Just having fun speculating.
This is an odd review because we all know that quality glass will always be quality glass. When the Hubble Telescope gets retired and is considered a relic the Zeiss glass in the telescope will still be amazing glass.
I get what you are trying to say, but the Hubble telescope's glass isn't optically perfect which is why they launched a space shuttle mision in 1993 to give it "glasses" (=COSTAR)
i owed the newer F2.0 version a while back. it was fantastic. Yesterday I just received my sigma 135 f1.8. When I look through my 70-200mm zoom lens at 135 then 200, it's not that much of a difference, but in lens design terms, it's a huge difference!
I'll use my 135 f1.8 mostly for weddings and portraits of my 18 month old son.
I find it curious to watch many online photographers, including your guest shooter, use a rear LCD screen to compose photos while holding a camera at arm’s length. Even though she used a monopod and took advantage of the R5’s internal stabilization, it seemed that she had some trouble controlling the framing of her shots because of the weight of the lens. Using the camera’s eyepiece instead would have allowed her to control that weight more successfully, I think. Apparently the technique works for her and for many others, and you can’t argue with success, I guess, but it should be noted that the eyepiece has its uses.
There are some instances on a DSLR where it makes sense to use the Live View - such as magnified-focusing with manual glass or if you are shooting from a weird viewpoint - but on mirrorless- what you see is what you get - whether through the viewfinder or the rear LCD.
I picked up on that as well. But as she said, the lens is much larger than what she normally uses (85mm?). So I suspect she's simply adapting her normal technique to an atypical situation. If you throw a 7 lb lens at somebody and film them use it for the first time, don't expect perfect form.
Live View can be a useful option for many reasons. I mainly use the viewfinder in bright light. In poor light live view can be an excellent option. Especially but not only with a monopod, I have no problem framing with a 300mm with any of my 3 Canon DSLRs. If you haven’t tried you should practice. The photo is what counts. Not how you think someone else should work. This criticism of a woman photographer obviously comes from people who think they know better when the story is about a lens.
@grahamho - what's the photographer's gender got to do with it?
And as I shoot mirrorless, I am fully aware of how useful the backscreen can be on occasion. It's fine on DSLR, but takes extra time to flip the mirror up, that delay can ruin getting the shot.
PhotosByHall If the time it takes to push the live view button spoils the shot you haven’t done any planning or anticipation.I’m not joining the mirrorless/ DSLR discussion. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. You should plan your shooting in advance and configure your camera accordingly. Photographer Irene Rudnyk in this instance may have chosen to use live view so she could more easily converse with her subject, and also so she could be seen in the images of her working used in this story. She was likely using both available viewfinder options as I do. You tell me why some readers of this article are criticising the technique of a photographer of female gender when the story is about a lens, not the photographer and not their technique. Mansplaining is a term used to describe a man explaining something to a woman in a condescending often inaccurate manner.
@grahamho- I'm not getting into the gender politics, so my final word is how I see the facts :)
Using Live view to compose is an unorthodox technique that delivers no additional benefits on mirrorless. I would have mentioned it a had a photographer of any gender used it. I think Irene's work here (and other places) is great and she gets results, that doesn't mean people can't comment on her technique.
On DSLR it can be a distinct disadvantage depending on what you are shooting. You would be amazed how that extra 1/30 of a second to flip the mirror up can affect the shots of easily distracted children \ wedding parties \ fast moving subjects.
As Smashooter stated as well, it's accepted technique that using the viewfinder helps stablility as you brace against your eye - important on a heavy long lens.
As a result, I would expect people to comment on her technique. I would mention it as a curiosity, if you see gender malice in other comments here, feel free to call it out.
@grahamho - I'd also just like to add that I used to use (and love) the Nikon 1 system.
The J5 has no viewfinder, so requires composition with the back screen. For certain long lenses and certain subjects, this was a nightmare - and one of the reasons I moved my mirrorless system back to Canon M.
@grahamho, "This criticism of a woman photographer"
You're the only one bringing gender into the discussion.
"You tell me why some readers of this article are criticising the technique "
At 6:05 in the video you can see the camera sway back and forth. I picked up on that only because *I've* had to work through similar issues when using a monopod. Monopod technique is of interest to me, far more of interest than the performance of a lens I'll never own.
With F1.8, daylight, and the giant reflector that is snow, the swaying should cause no issue. But reduce the lighting and that swaying can effect the focus/sharpness. A monopod is not a tripod, but when braced against your eye, your legs and the monopod effectively creates a tripod.
I still regret selling my Nikon 200/2 AI and came close this weekend to replacing it. Would love to see it on the 5DSR. The EF versions are too expensive for my wallet.
I too would like to have seen a side by side comparison to the EF 200/2 and EF 200/2.8.
Yes it had CA, but these days CA is easily corrected in post processing. I have bought a brand new lens that is far worse than the 200/2 AI. Most vintage manual focus lenses do have some CA.
I have the 200 2.8. It's a great small option. On my R6 (i.e. with ibis) it balances great I can handhold to 1/15 no problem for static subjects, even zoomed to 100%. On my 5D4 I prefer to be 1/1000 or over though, 1/2500 for sports.
Regarding optics, I believe its like a 70-200 2.8 ii but with more (easily corrected in post) fringing. Looks sharp as a tack wide open on my 5d4, haven't got a higher res body to test.
It's really a very different proposition to the f2 though, which is big and heavy edit (and white!) like a 300 2.8.
Dreamy lens, dreamy pictures and well framed by the photographer....
I also notice the bleeding heart social progressives are out in force complaining about girls and boys.. We are nearing the stage where every tv show or news service will need a mandatory representative from every gender and every ethnic group.
"Comments on this article may be moderated before they are made public. Please keep your contributions constructive and civil."
Filtering out all the sexism and misogyny? Can't much imagine what the issue would be otherwise, except most of the cranky old dudes on DPR hate videos and hate people not being dry as dust and boring.
God forbid someone posts sexist comments, may lightning strike those heretics down!! Now seriously, moderators do an important job that's a little more complicated than "filtering out all the sexism and misogyny". As a matter of fact, a good moderator shouldn't filter out ALL comments of a certain type, unless those comments are meant to harm or extremely out of place. I really wonder why you though this particular article required moderation regarding sexism and misoginy?
It’s on every article but only as of about a week ago. I guess it’s a disclaimer that they can put users on moderation status. (A capability they have had for a while I believe as I have occasionally seen messages “pop-up” as if they were written earlier, and posted later. It’s good DPR is continuing to work on improving the experience in the comments section.
Gaston, I really wonder why you would think I would reply to such an aggressive person? And, anyhow, if it has to be explained to you, you would just react as aggressively to the explanation as to my first comment.
Mike, that explains it, then. I have not commented on an article in a while, so this is the first time I saw it. I guess I should not have jumped to conclusions, but I thought is was there because of course with a female photographer some people are going to straight to her looks rather than her work, and always comments like that are made about female models.
30 years old lens looks like a last year lens that means either Canon was way ahead of its time in designing the look of its lenses or they have never changed a thing over the past 30 years.
This was always a high end lens, and a really good one. Not surprising that it shows up well.
In a way, I would think it’s the cheaper lenses that more clearly show the advance of lens tech, because what they can achieve on a budget has improved over the last three decades.
There is a lie/myth getting spread that it is impossible to get vintage lenses repaired. Google vintage lens repair and you’ll see it wrong. And if you have a broken lens there are places willing to buy them usually.
A nice lens indeed. But be warned: Canon is not able/willing to do any repairs. If the AF fails (focus by wire!), the lens transforms to an expensive paperweight.
Great lens indeed. But, I don't understand the images. Are they fashion? Or are they portraits? Because if they are fashion, I am afraid they are not up to the standards expected in my metier. So, I will opt to assume that they are portraits.
Irene is more of a portrait photographer, Benjamin.
I think the 'longer range' shots here are meant to show that the bokeh that can be achieved using a longer portrait lens (135mm++) that can open wide. I know a guy who only shoots portraits, full length and 2/3 shots at 135mm f1.8 and his results are fantastic. Even busy urban backgrounds just melt away.
I would imagine that Irene would generally work closer at 50-85mm generally but she's showing off this 200mm.
Also important to remember that not all of us have access to the Paris agencies that you have access to :) which yes, makes me very jealous indeed! ;)
Once at my photography club, we had a Canon rep come off and show new lenses and bodies etc. He had with him the replacement to this lens. According to him the original was made for Olympic and other indoor photography needs but overwhelming feedback from their master user programme (whatever it’s called) a greater request for IS than F1.8 meant the replacement had that trade off :(
I remember a few years ago they also pulled all support for this lens so if your AF dies; you’re dead!
I owned that replacement lens for a few years: the 200mm f/2L IS - yes it went down to f/2 but the IS was top-of-the-line for the time, and worth 5 stops. It was a 2.5kg lens, but you could hand-hold it for a while. Mount it on a 1D Mark III or Mark IV, and you had a 4kg camera.
In the end, I just didn't use it enough to justify keeping it.
I believe it's still a current lens, so it can be repaired, unlike the 200mm f/1.8 for which Canon discontinued service some years back - they no longer make parts for it. I don't think I could handle the risk of owning a lens for which spare parts were not available.
The reason the new one isn’t f1.8 is because Canon were no longer allowed to use led in production and it made it more difficult at the time. But I’m sure the IS might be included in the reasoning.
I’ve owned the f2 twice, and yeah, the last thing on my mind was that it wasn’t a 1.8, it’s the coolest lens ever made.
I've heard the theory about lead before, but I've also read comments that this is a mislead - that leaded glass in camera lenses is not, and never has been, banned.
I suspect, however, that you are right about the possibility that they chose to go to f/2 to facilitate the high-powered IS system.
The lead is in the glass. Perfectly safe in a completed lens assuming you don’t eat the glass, but imagine being in the grinding factory when that lens is being made... no doubt a factor in this lens discontinuation.
To be fair - you could still use this manually for portraits (in the worst case scenario of it dying and you couldn't get it repaired anywhere) - a lot of my portrait glass is manual - if anything it slows me down.
A cheaper version of this ,could be the Sony 135mm F1.8 over the Sony 6600 . As a crop body the lens will become a F1.8 200mm too , maybe its not a bad combination
Yep if you’re talking about anything other than the math to calculate shutter speeds and ISOs you have to multiply the aperture by the cropping factor as well as the focal length to make comparisons.
can we please stop these crop factor calculations. And NO, you CANNOT magically turn a 135mm f/1.8 lens in a 200mm f/1.8 lens when putting it on a crop body because the aperture is135mm/1.8 on one lens and 200mm/1.8 on the other. And the crop factor is only relevant for getting more reach, when the megapixel count on a FF camera and a crop body is the same.
The 135mm f2.7 is relevant in terms of bokeh\DOF - this calculations do need to be done, as they are likely to be a consideration when selecting a background-isolating portrait lens like this is perfectly designed to be.
You still get f1.8 worth of speed though at your new effective 216mm focal length though. In low light this is a consideration.
I would imagine as well, the lens is SO long that f2.7 @ 216mm will still give excellent subject-background separation
I'm shocked how well this lens did. For being old, made for film, it seems entirely usable for anything but the most demanding AF work.
I was expecting this to be a washed out, mushy mess wide open. Fine on film back in the day (and when you didn't have a choice, you needed f/1.8 or you didn't get the shot and compromise was OK).
As I recall, these are some of these lenses that have been rehoused for cinema use.
Indeed the 1.8’is plenty sharp wide open, it’s just the f2 is mind blowing. I was once told “you haven’t seen image quality until you try a Canon super tele” and he was right you know.
I ran both my f2’s through FoCal and they were both sharpest at 2.2 of any aperture , ridiculous xOD
You would be shocked again how well the best Canon FD L lenses of 40 to 50 years ago perform! I have the 55/1.2 Aspherical and 800/5.6 L and I used to have the 400/2.8 L and the 300/2.8 Aspherical.
My partner uses a FD 300/2.8 (the late 1970's one with the fluorite element) on film. I've got an adapter to use it on my Z6; it is extremely sharp wide open.
After 20+ years as a sports photographer I took the leap and bought a 200 f2. Biggest mistake of my career; I should gave bought it 20 years earlier. I can not think of a lens that has more to differentiate my work from that of my competitors than the 200 f2. If I could get a Nikon 200MM f1.8 AF-S -- I think I'd sell a kidney.
Ok, and if your competitors buy this lens also? What exactly the difference will be? No difference? If only difference between competitors comes from the lens, most probably this explains why photography like profession is dying so fast.
Video-vs-photo Same equipment doesn't mean same output. I have experienced the same many times: colleagues see my equipment and see my results so they think if they buy the same gear they will get the same. Only they never question why and how I use the equipment so their results don't change at all. Photographers who get lazy die fast, but the ones who put in an effort and understand the whole of photography - for those the demand is ever growing and growing.
I see a couple unaltered Nikkor 300 F/2.0s on Ebay, including one from a predomenant ebayer who seems to nail the price perfectly for thier FD lenses. They sold a 200 1.8 for just over 5K and it sold in less than a month. I believe the 300 F/2.0 is still up, but 20K. Been up for a while now, so I guess there's no market for it at that price.
Hi Dpreview had a Canon EF 200 1.8 L from the first series. This is the second lens from serie 1 I see with this strange look of the aperture (pic #49 in the gallery) at f/2.8.
I have now my second lens, both are from the serie II, none of them has this strange behavior. The switch at the new ones is "AF-MF" instead of "AF-M" and the coating of the front lens is diffrent. The change from I to II was around #14727-14887. When I look at the parts-list then the serie II had a new diaphragm unit. Mybe the fist serie had a problem with the blades?
I don't have the code of all the lenses in "my list". I have 25 serialnumbers with 23 production codes. The first with productioncode of serie II in my list is #14887 with UK0415 (1996), the last I with prodcode is #14190 with UJ0915 (1995).
The numbers of the 200/1.8 FDn-lenses I have till now are 10'xxx
PS: If somebody has a 200/1.8 (FD or EF), please send my your serialnr, productioncode and label on the switch (AF-MF or AF-M)
Hi from Berne and thanks for your post. I found your own blog post about your two 1.8/200mm with a lot of interesting details and your valuable personal experience with this lens. I think, many readers would be interested in your blog post, maybe you want to offer the URL to dpr readers. I do not disclose it myself, because you may have your own reasons, not to do it(?). Your other blog posts are also very interesting to me and I have been reading a bunch of them for about one hour despite the nice weather outside ;-) Thanks and I hope the weather is also that nice on the north side of the Jura mountains. Alfred
This has been a discussion for almost as long as the 200 f/1.8L exists, and there is a great deal of misinformation about the two versions of the 200 f/1.8L. First, Canon never even claimed to have a second version. They never changed the name of the lens like they do for most which includes putting a II at the end of the name. It was a silent change. I have diagrams of the 200 f/1.8L with both what Canon labels (New for the later models) and Old for the initial release. It was supposed to be a silent change, but people on the Internet got ahold of it, and made a bigger deal about it than is really there. Regarding the diaphragm, the exact same part is used in either the new or the old versions of the lens. They never changed it during the entire production run.
The only changes were to the front element, rear element and the AF switch (labeling). It also looks like they changed some internal screws 3 times during the production run. It is my understanding that the change on the element was more of a coating than an actual change to the element itself. There was an old Canon rep who said optically they should be the same. It is funny to see this discussion. It reminds me of discussions from 20 years ago. Regarding the look of the bokeh at f/2.8, I must admit to never noticing any issue. With this said, if I am stopping down the lens I rarely go far beyond f/2. If I am shooting at f/2.8, I normally will use a different lens.
You can tell the difference between V1 and V2 simply by looking at the rear baffle The older version is square, while the new version is round. Plus what you mentioned about the af-mf switch
Interesting on finding a link to see a series II of the 200 f/1.8L. I have never seen this before, and I have been following this lens for over 20 years now.
If you have access to the diagrams. Please look at the portion that has the blades for the diaphragm. There is only one. This would not have changed. All 200 f/1.8s will show the same look in their bokeh. To your original point though, I have never noticed the problem noted here. I don't know whether I have just not noticed or it is due to the fact that I don't really stop down that far.
I went to the Canon Museum to see if they referenced the Series II of this lens. They don't have it either. Canon USA never referenced a Series II. I wonder if it was something only in Europe? The interesting thing is they never put it on the lens like they normally would.
Hi bakhtyar kurdi I looked at my saved auctions on ebay. There are rear baffles on older and newer version with square, while the new version sometimes are round and sometimes a square. I have a serie II and it has a square, my first lens was newer and was round.
Got an nFD 200 F1.8. Can't find the date mark, but the serial number says 10090. I don't experience the sawtooth bokeh at f/2.8, but it's still kinda bright. I'll update when it gets darker, but I put my RGB keyboard out of focus and see a slight hexagonal shape rather than a sawtooth as per photo #49. The nFDs were made later than the EFs, so they may have fixed some issues.
Thank you. I don't know the FD-lens. I don't buy lenses just to collect, I use it out in the field, therefore the FD is to expensive for me.
In old articles about the lens is a number of 1000 Ex of FDs and 7000Ex of the Efs, in newer articles is a number of 200Ex of FD-lenses. I got till now 31 serialnumbers, 10% are from FD.
I think the FD has maybe an other diaphragm mechanism (change of aperture manually). The lens construction is from 1989 and therefore the same as serie I of the EFs.
The production-code is on the back like here on this pic (TE04xx) https://olypedia.de/images/b/bf/FDn_200_1.8_Christian_7.jpg I think it isn't the same code as with the EF-version, I don't know what the T is standing for, E=1990, 04=april.
She said in the video that RF lenses enable R5 to focus on eye iris. But EF lenses focus on eye lashes (probably because they try to focus on eye iris but if an eye lash gets between the iris and camera then camera focuses on the item closer to the camera). I've never heard that before. So is this true that only RF lenses manage to focus on eye iris even if the eye lash gets into the way?
What I know from some industrial imaging projects is that the motor and encoder in older lenses tends to be less able to make very small focus changes reliably, the measurement "where is my focus/rotation encoder currently" is good enough for the time they belonged to.
The newer lenses have more digits to encode the distance so the body can read and tell focus on a rather 0.1mm scale today where old lenses allow for 1mm scale only. Just a rough explanation, the numbers will be different but idea holds true. Also a consumer lens vs. pro lens thing.
Got the nFD version of this by pure luck. Got it sub 5K. Have been using it for lots of video on my Sony system and found the manual focus very smooth. Aperture ring is very useful too. Replaced my foot with an RRS foot. Works from the EF 200 1.8L. IQ looks on par with the review which means super awesome!
Have you seen isenegger's comment (currently two posts up) and does yours add anything (re date, bokeh ball shape)? I assume it would be earlier than his.
I am currently away but I will check when I get back. Ironically, the nFDs were later than the EF model because many professional photographers were upset about the sudden drop of FD support. The NFD was released in 1991, the last Canon Breech Lock lens ever made by Canon.
Can't seem to edit the previous comment, so sorry for double posting. Managed to try out my lens, albeit it's kinda bright outside. I tested it on my RGB keyboard and made the keys out of focus. I see a slight polygonal shape, but no sawtooth as in picture 49. I can't find the date code in the conventional location of the mount, but I will update in isenegger's comment above.
Easy on the eye, too (and so is the model). I usually ignore any and all video reviews but I admit to having watched this one, maybe due to the, ah, "visual appeal" factor.
I know I'm a horrible, fickle man. :-D
P.S. I know I liked seeing my wife wield the Canon 1D Mark III and the 70-200/2.8 IS lens on a shoot. There's something about girls with cameras...
@Ilia You're not a "horrible man", but why do you instantly and exclusively comment on her looks? I find it telling that when you see a female photographer shooting a female model, you simply lump both women together in the "good-looking" category.
@Alex Hanin Because I don't feel qualified enough to comment (in a substantial way) on the quality of the photos, never having done this kind of shooting. I know the shots look good but anyone with at least one functional eye would tell you that... :)
When your video reviewers are two white males and most of the other reviewers are male, and when they showed their Zoom meeting screen which featured nearly all-male staff, that is a DIVERSITY issue.
I would argue there is no such thing as a "diversity issue". Lack of diversity can be caused by different things, such as a prejudiced employee selection process against people of different sex, origin, belief, etc. Such practices have no place in society and are an aberration. Nonetheless seeking diversity for the sake of it is nothing short of stupid. One should be selected only on the basis of his or her professional skill and excellence. I think it is safe to say that one of the reasons why many of come to DP Review is for the quality content that is regularly produced. Most of us couldn't care less (I hope) about whether it is written (or filmed, presented, etc) by someone from sex A or B or from X or Y background, as far as the content is up to a good standard. Considering the fact that none of us knows what the selection parameters DPR are, nor have an idea about who has applied for the job, we can't really comment on the matter. 1/2
Moreover I'd like to point out that the phrasing of your last comment is quite problematic. You not only use the pigeonhole term "white male" when referring to Chris and Jordan, but you also manage to introduce some blatant discrimination by saying that having a nearly all male staff is (for some reason) a problem. If we are to uphold equality, then lets discuss the professional performance of these people, regardless of their gender or ethnicity. Otherwise, we would effectively be undermining more than a century of progress in human rights.
Personally I think it was a great video with a great guest. More videos like that please!
Such a long post when DPR themselves in an FB message to me already admitted they're working to have a more diverse staff. Your sorry defense of having all male staff and how it's ok reveals your character, not mine. I'm content with having it on record that DPR admitted it's an area they need to improve and based on this video review, it seems they're working on it in earnest.
And they are btw two white males, regardless of how you spin it. They are not black. They are not Asians. Not Latins. And certainly not women. Diversity and inclusiveness for the likes of you is still hazy and it's already 2021.
@Noogy So we do not get what is the issue with diversity and inclusion here anyway? You think in every review need to be a person from every single race and every single sex multiplied by every possible gender in the world? This is how it should be in 2021? And who cares what exactly DPR is sending to you over FB private messaging. World is not Canada or California. There are still many places in the world where people have common sense and real human values. Not like google algorithms tuned for answers with 50/50 mixed results :D.
So we just end up in the next incarnation of leftist movement. Nothing scientifically based or useful for someone. And lets see how many giant companies will stay in California till the end of the year.
Do you not understand the points I'm making? Have you even read my post? It seems you did not.
I have absolutely no idea of the conversations you're having with DPR on Facebook, I was just responding to your post, in which you were insinuating there was some sort of bias at DPR.
Firstly, the fact that you can have an all male staff, if chosen in accordance to anti-discrimination provisions of labour law acts, is something guaranteed by law in all democratic countries. So, if you you choose your employees solely based on skill, then it doesn't matter if your staff is composed of men, women, transgenders, people of different ethnicity, beliefs, nationality, etc. or if your staff is composed solely of say Spanish women, or South African men, etc. That's just how equality works and that's why it's in the law. It has nothing to do with, me, you, our character, our beliefs. It's just a fact.
Now if you want to have a diverse staff, then that's a question of morality, which is something else. If DPR wants to recruit some new staff members, then that's great. I'm happy we'll get more articles and I'm sure everybody will be as well, as long as the quality stays the same.
Oh and btw, Chris is half Japanese, so there goes your racial assumption.
P.S: Just so you know, I studied human rights law and I'm from a minority that was oppressed for centuries, so I'm quite up to date on the matter of diversity and inclusiveness.
@yayatosorus I stand for Israel and many other small nations from which great numbers are still in high risk for their lives or oppression! And I am absolutely for human rights for every human being! Like we saw very recently war in Armenia is pure demonstration for real risks for human rights and lives! And also trying to force whole society to comply based on someone's feelings how it should be in 2021........ and somehow this teaching coincides with some other teachings from the past....... And it was like West is fighting against them during the cold war. Now it seems like same teachings thrive in the hearth of western civilization. It is like déjà-vu........
You sound like an activist running around like a loud chicken with its head but off.
Im pretty sure one of those white males you mention is not entirely white. And it shouldnt matter.
Go worry about real problems. Fighting for more womens rights in Canada is ridiculous. You are going for the last 0.1% of an issue when there are far bigger issues to activate for.
There has always been diversity at DPR. Have you been a member of this site for 20yrs?
Or just show up to complain about them not being diverse enough for you?
In my work, only 2 of our techs have ever been female. Out of 100. In 11yrs.
Go find out why they wont apply to my job. Why are females only interested in working in my office, being managers?
I dont care why, as long as they have equal access, equal pay, no discrimination, etc. Which is the case.
They have always had women in their ranks. Do you think they actively dissuade or discriminate against so called females?(are we even allowed to speak of gender anymore?)
Its called PR. Customer is always right, right? Thats why.
Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Hilary Clinton won the popular vote to be president.
Equal rights is 99.x% completed. You are wasting your time on this. Much bigger issues to activate for.
I see you are from or in Manilla? Possibly there its still a big issue. DPR is based in USA, Seattle and the UK. There is no gender inequality remaining worth mentioning.
I wish you luck obtaining equal rights for gender in Manilla if it needs it there still.
You have got to be kidding, when people are rampaging in major US cities because of racial justice issues. Where have you been? The UK? Come on. You are far from a role model nation on diversity. For that alone you have zero as in zero ascendancy on the issue.
Meanwhile kudos to DPR for seeking to have a truly more diverse team.
Diversity is only a requirement for some countries and societies (exclusively English speaking). Other societies get a total and complete pass....like Japan.
scokill, Japan is full of Japanese people. So, thats the biggest reason. They are certainly further behind in some areas though. Ahead in a couple others.
It would technically work for sure! But that wait wouldn't cut it for most of us. We are ok to carry more weight when that's really need. Supertelephoto lens are one example. To take portraits this weight? No no .. The only reason i stay with Fuji is their 56mm f/1.2. what a fantastic lens for it's size.
Sure it won't. But still i'd use that only for experimental. The weight and Cost not worth for many to use it for intended work. That's why it's discontinued.
Have you ever used it? When you actually use it for yourself I believe your opinion will change.
As I said, it’s big. It’s heavy. It’s expensive but the results are unmatched. (Though similar to the 200/2.0 from canon and Nikon.)
If you want to go small the closest thing you can get is a 135/1.8. The look here will be similar. Though still not the same. And VERY different from your 56/1.2
The way around the cost is to rent one for a weekend... (or the 200/2, which will probably be what's on offer.)
I don't think it's much lot like the Sony/Sigma 135/1.8s in look though... the Sigma is a lot sharper wide-open than the Sony but I don't have a huge preference for the blur between the two. The Canon 300/2.8s are probably closer for the look, but don't help with the cost issue...
You had to get your dig in on the Sony huh? We weren’t even talking about Sony. I know you haters can’t let an opportunity pass. I was talking about the look from a bokeh/separation perspective. And you’re arguing about about whether a lens is ultra sharp sharp or freaking ultra sharp. By the way the Sony 135GM is freaking ultra sharp.
I know this article is about a different lens but I have to call out BS information when I see it.
MikeRan - weird, I was really saying a 135/1.8 isn't a lot like a 200/1.8, which it isn't, plus I actually went and read lens reviews on both lenses before commenting on sharpness (and looked at sample shots for my bokeh comment).
PLUS you brought up the 135/1.8, I initially assumed you meant the Sigma, which I've used, however before commenting I checked and Sony have one too, so I checked it out. I get you're a big Sony fan, but was that necessary...
Not sure why you mentioned Sony or sigma. Was that necessary?? Or why you assumed I was talking about any specific brand. I was as brand agnostic as I could be. (In fact the only brands I mentioned in this article were Nikon and Canon.) You brought up Sony and sigma. Not me. And you’re wrong about the 135GM sharpness. You “checked it out” but it seems your research skills are very poor.
I was trying to figure out who he was so upset with. There are some IDs here that are very sensitive about Sony. The Sony Defense Force. More will magically show up to defend his attack.
They are the only two 135/1.8 lenses out there (AFAIK), you suggested one of those would be in-the-ballpark of the 200/1.8 and I disagreed, as it's quite a bit different. To be reasonable I thought I'd better check how they performed before commenting, rather than OTOH, which is common here. (I think a 300/2.8 from further back might be though, but that doesn't help if cost is the issue). Plus it wasn't like I was having a pop at the Sony, that's just you reading too much into it...
Love the introduction of other artist. I like her work a lot, but she really should be reviewing some other lens, which suits her style of photography more. 200/1.8 was/is lense, made for indoor sports/night stadiums like, period. This is where you should really make video on, also try different focus modes etc. I think it would be very interesting to see, how it goes on R body. Other than that, nice fresh change and good pick of the artist.
200 1.8 AF is no longer state of the art, so it does not make sense to spend that much on this lens for sports. For portraiture AF speed is less important, that is why 200 1.8 might still be of use to portrait photographers.
@andrey k: i was talking from point ov view, when when this lense introduced to market. there was no iso 100k+ in that time ;), asa1600 film was probably max in leica format, to be good enough for some reporting work etc.. also, it wasn't all about minimal dof photography, as it is trend today. anyhow, after all this years and beating, seem like still very solid lense.
The Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above?
Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Why is the Peak Design Everyday Backpack so widely used? A snazzy design? Exceptional utility? A combination of both? After testing one, it's clear why this bag deserves every accolade it's received.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
The Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above?
Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.
Sony's gridline update adds up to four customizable grids to which users can add color codes and apply transparency masks. It also raises questions about the future of cameras and what it means for feature updates.
At last, people who don’t want to pay a premium for Apple’s Pro models can capture high-resolution 24MP and 48MP photos using the iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus. Is the lack of a dedicated telephoto lens or the ability to capture Raw images worth the savings for photographers?
Kodak's Super 8 Camera is a hybrid of old and new: it shoots movies using Super 8 motion picture film but incorporates digital elements like a flip-out LCD screen and audio capture. Eight years after we first saw the camera at CES 2016, Kodak is finally bringing it to market.
In this supplement to his recently completed 10-part series on landscape photography, photographer Erez Marom explores how the compositional skills developed for capturing landscapes can be extended to other areas of photography.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
Sony, the Associated Press and 'Photo Mechanic' maker Camera Bits have run a month-long field-test to evaluate capture authentication and a subsequent workflow.
A color-accurate monitor is an essential piece of the digital creator's toolkit. In this guide, we'll go over everything you need to know about how color calibration actually works so you can understand the process and improve your workflow.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
It's that time of year again: When people get up way too early to rush out to big box stores and climb over each other to buy $99 TVs. We've saved you the trip, highlighting the best photo-related deals that can be ordered from the comfort of your own home.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
Sigma's latest 70-200mm F2.8 offering promises to blend solid build, reasonably light weight and impressive image quality into a relatively affordable package. See how it stacks up in our initial impressions.
The Sony a9 III is heralded as a revolutionary camera, but is all the hype warranted? DPReview's Richard Butler and Dale Baskin break down what's actually new and worth paying attention to.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
DJI's Air 3 and Mini 4 Pro are two of the most popular drones on the market, but there are important differences between the two. In this article, we'll help figure out which of these two popular drones is right for you.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
The iPhone 15 Pro allows users to capture 48MP photos in HEIF or JPEG format in addition to Raw files, while new lens coatings claim to cut down lens flare. How do the cameras in Apple's latest flagship look in everyday circumstances? Check out our gallery to find out.
Global shutters, that can read all their pixels at exactly the same moment have been the valued by videographers for some time, but this approach has benefits for photographers, too.
We had an opportunity to shoot a pre-production a9 III camera with global shutter following Sony's announcement this week. This gallery includes images captured with the new 300mm F2.8 GM OSS telephoto lens and some high-speed flash photos.
The Sony a9 III is a ground-breaking full-frame mirrorless camera that brings global shutter to deliver unforeseen high-speed capture, flash sync and capabilities not seen before. We delve a little further into the a9III to find out what makes it tick.
The "Big Four" Fashion Weeks – New York, London, Milan and Paris - have wrapped for 2023 but it's never too early to start planning for next season. If shooting Fashion Week is on your bucket list, read on. We'll tell you what opportunities are available for photographers and provide some tips to get you started.
Sony has announced the a9 III: the first full-frame camera to use a global shutter sensor. This gives it the ability to shoot at up to 120 fps with flash sync up to 1/80,000 sec and zero rolling shutter.
What’s the best camera for around $1500? These midrange cameras should have capable autofocus systems, lots of direct controls and the latest sensors offering great image quality. We recommend our favorite options.
Comments