6:43, yep totally looking at her face.

1:50 "...deepthroat it or something..." You just threw it out there. lol

oh my god, she is the cutest model ever, i love her!!

@4:40 the left image is taken at 200 and the right one at 100. Simply look at the background

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.

0:32 when you go dressed as the lens...

that deep throat

At 7:35 she is like why the hell does this piece of glass cost 2000 bucks 😂

6:57 her face when she finds out the price haha :')

Wait - "that Nikon guy" with a Canon?  Good for you!!  Welcome to the light side, we have cookies!

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.

You flip flopped the labels of the 100mm and 200mm photos.  The field of view is narrower on the 200mm.

When shooting a still object if it's within your power and budget always go with a prime lens.

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.

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)

at 4:33 min during shots comparision, 100mm shot has been swapped with 200mm shot. mistake while editing the video

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

Enjoyed the video - but the guy with the video camera should stik to soft drinks or get a tripod ;)

I love your model's sense of humor!

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.