Well, I don't think it would be bad, but not good either, or easy.
I used to use a 135 MM all the time for portraits. I tended to like
80 MM for that work (both Nikon film and Hasselblad) and then bought
the super fine AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF and it was all over. I bought
that lens, went to a political event and used it 20 minutes later on
an F5, and fell in love. It is a money maker. I continued to use
that lens after I got my D-1, then D-1x, then D-3. I really like the
way the images look, even though I need to get closer with the D-3,
like the old days with the F-5s.
Even though the 200 MM may look great, I think the working distance
with a full frame camera is gong to be WAY too long, and if you are
using a DX sensor, you are going to need a very large studio.
If you want a sharp lens, you could also consider the AF DC-Nikkor 105
MM f/2D or the AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D. I don't suggest them for
their defocus control, but for their sharpness. I THINK I would go
for the 105, but maybe not.
As I wrote above, for decades I liked the 135 MM, but the working
distance was a bit long, so I got closer.
I cannot see using anything shorter than 80 MM though. People like
there noses to look smaller! <g>
On Jun 18, 2009, at 5:00 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:10:31 +0800
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] AF-S 200/2 for portrait?
I know it's a bit crazy but has anyone tried the AF-S VR 200/2G for
portrait? I heard that it is extremely sharp and produces very good
bokeh
wide open so may worth carrying the extra weight.
_______________________________________________
Nikon mailing list
[email protected]
http://nikonusers.com/mailman/listinfo/nikon_nikonusers.com
