Monkey moss wrote in post #15206044
Ah, one more comment...
Christina, I couldn't stop looking at those two zombie pics you posted. I found the first girl strangely attractive
and I had to keep looking at the second to make sure she hadn't really un-zipped her skin!!
Must have been spooky, especially as it sounds like it went on after dark...
Did you find hiring the 70-200 2.8 a real must, or do you think you'd have got away with uping the ISO on the 70-300 when it got darker?
Eh, to be honest? No it wasnt a must. More of a 'just in case I need the reach when it gets dark) - (and I mean dark). In the end, I used my 85L most of all, as I was so close to the action I didn't need the 300 or the 70-200. But before I switched to the 85L I was flipping between the 70-300 and 70-200 every half hour or so. DOF wise, the 300 at 300 replicates the same out of focus blur wide open as the 70-200 did at 2.8 - BUT I was so close, the 300 was too long and so was the 70-200 in some cases. I was also playing with them to see how they compared. The 200 was the not the II version, but was the IS version. I can tell you now the IS of the 70-300 was hugely improved. The 200 seemed to suffer from focus shift from time to time. In the end I put away both just because I didn't need more than 85mm of reach and it was getting very dark. IQ wise the 70-300L produced better, warmer colors in my opinion (and this test was done shooting same location with both lenses back to back, i changed them. And sharpness wise, better as well. The 70-300L compares more to the II version in terms of optics.
And yes I could have gotten away with just bumping the ISO, which I did for a bit before it becane pitch dark out. Thats when I switched to the 85L