Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 26 May 2013 (Sunday) 15:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is 300 2.8 II overkill for me?

 
light_pilgrim
Senior Member
Avatar
922 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 145
Joined Jan 2012
     
May 30, 2013 05:56 |  #91

I think it definitely is an overkill for what you do...


www.lightpilgrim.com (external link) ||1x.com (external link) ||500px.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 30, 2013 07:11 |  #92
bannedPermanent ban

I might do the CPS thing, it's a great value for $100. I wonder, why would anyone do lensrentals which is a lot more expensive? It's like $250 to rent 200 F/2 for 5 days whereas with CPS, you get it for free for 2 weeks? What's the catch?

Also, I'd like to abandon this thread at this point as I made up my mind for not pursuing the 300 2.8 II. When I made this thread, I didn't clearly mention as to what I was trying to get out of it (my mistake completely). I guess there were 2 things, a) If the FL was useful for my use case, and b) If the tele primes were better than the zooms (or if they were worth the price difference). I answered a with the help of many people here (thank you very much), b is yet to be answered. As I'm leaning towards 200 F/2, I probably should create another thread with a proper title to not to waste anyone else's time here. Thanks again everyone for your time.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Buckeye1
Goldmember
Avatar
3,392 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 282
Joined May 2005
     
May 30, 2013 12:06 |  #93

Bianchi wrote in post #15981559 (external link)
After 6 pages into this thread, I am surprized no one recommened spending a hundred bucks and buy a gold membership to the CPS . For that, you have unlimited use of all of Canon lenses (2 at a time)...and 2 camera cleaning per year.

Borrow the 200 and 300, return, then borrow the 400 & 500
You will answer your own questions...

Happy shooting..

Silvex, sweet shots with those little primes.. Betcha your a poparazzi shooting the stars in LA :)

+1 or 2 or 3 :p




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,724 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6389
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 30, 2013 12:21 |  #94

dioladetus wrote in post #15979456 (external link)
oh, sorry, I mean "for example". In Denmark we just write fx, thought it was OK internationally, but will try not to make that mistake again ;)

:lol: Thanks :)

I'm used to "EG" (example given)


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidc502
Goldmember
Avatar
3,459 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 38
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Tennessee
     
May 30, 2013 14:31 |  #95

silvex wrote in post #15981375 (external link)
Agree...the 200L being f/2.0 it will have less contrast...pixel peepers will have a feast analyzing blades of grass and dirt molecules... :) . In real life publications (web, magazines, newspaper) they will be no difference...;)

Can't say that because people don't understand.


_
My Gear is ---> Here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lovemyram4x4
Goldmember
Avatar
2,198 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 57
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Temecula
     
May 30, 2013 15:08 |  #96

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15981990 (external link)
I might do the CPS thing, it's a great value for $100. I wonder, why would anyone do lensrentals which is a lot more expensive? It's like $250 to rent 200 F/2 for 5 days whereas with CPS, you get it for free for 2 weeks? What's the catch?

The catch is you get it when it's available. If there's a list people wanting the same thing as you you have to wait until their done and if you have a specific time you want to use the gear you might not get it. You also only get to try it twice so if you're renting a certain piece of gear more often that you'd still need to rent, but if this is the case you might as well buy it.

I think for you CPS will be perfect, for someone want to try it at an event it might not work out(best chance is to request 2 weeks prior to when you can return it).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 30, 2013 15:57 |  #97
bannedPermanent ban

davidc502 wrote in post #15983301 (external link)
Can't say that because people don't understand.

Yes as they don't about the difference between 85 1.2 vs 1.8 or 24-70 I vs II or 70-200 2.8 vs 4.0, and it goes on and on. It's all about someone not being able to afford something finding ways to how to not to justify buying that particular thing. It's human nature. If we go down that path, then all the amateurs should not use a body that is more than the 60D and should never buy an L glass because it's all for the looks, and always use Sigma because Canon is just a brand. I am so sick of this argument really.

The fact of the matter is, there is a lens that is $4000 more expensive than the other one and it costs that much for a reason. And I cannot tell you how many times I have read the same thing over and over and over again for all the above lenses and guess what in every single one of them, I sat down and spent hours comparing images and there was a significant difference in quality.

I distinctly remember before buying my 5D Mark III, I have had a forum full of people (not here) who were telling me to get a 60D (not even 7D) and use Sigma lenses and that I would never be able to tell them apart unless I pixel peeped - yeah right. I remember this so well because when I got 5D Mark III, I was amazed about the difference in quality, color, contrast, DOF, and focus performance. It was like getting into a Porsche from a Ford Focus.

Now I haven't used 200 2.0 but the "proper" reviews I read all say the same thing and all the people who don't own the lens also say the same thing. What does that tell you?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 30, 2013 16:01 |  #98
bannedPermanent ban

lovemyram4x4 wrote in post #15983455 (external link)
The catch is you get it when it's available. If there's a list people wanting the same thing as you you have to wait until their done and if you have a specific time you want to use the gear you might not get it. You also only get to try it twice so if you're renting a certain piece of gear more often that you'd still need to rent, but if this is the case you might as well buy it.

I think for you CPS will be perfect, for someone want to try it at an event it might not work out(best chance is to request 2 weeks prior to when you can return it).

I almost signed up until I called up UPS to find out the cost of insurance, which is $2 per $100 and that's about $120 just to insure the 200mm. Overall the cost of ground shipping exceeds $200. Multiply that by the number of times you request a lens, that's an enormous amount of money. I'm going to head down to B&H sometime next week and test drive the lens as they said they would let me (I live in Manhattan). I will have my 70-200 II with me and try to take as many comparison shots as I can and go from there, but no way I am spending $300/lens, I think that's a money thrown away, or let me just say it this way, I don't think I'll find out more about the lens by using it for a few more days in terms of making a purchase decision.

Obviously for people who don't live near B&H, their only option is this or lensrentals.com in which case I can see the merit of renting one.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
May 30, 2013 16:22 |  #99

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15983592 (external link)
Yes as they don't about the difference between 85 1.2 vs 1.8 or 24-70 I vs II or 70-200 2.8 vs 4.0, and it goes on and on. It's all about someone not being able to afford something finding ways to how to not to justify buying that particular thing. It's human nature. If we go down that path, then all the amateurs should not use a body that is more than the 60D and should never buy an L glass because it's all for the looks, and always use Sigma because Canon is just a brand. I am so sick of this argument really.

The fact of the matter is, there is a lens that is $4000 more expensive than the other one and it costs that much for a reason. And I cannot tell you how many times I have read the same thing over and over and over again for all the above lenses and guess what in every single one of them, I sat down and spent hours comparing images and there was a significant difference in quality.

I always want to ask for a gallery when I read stuff like this.

I don't doubt that L prime > sigma zoom, but I want to see the colors. I want to see the results, because it makes me wonder what it looks like. If I would be able to see the difference.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrbdmb
Goldmember
Avatar
1,291 posts
Likes: 12
Joined May 2011
     
May 30, 2013 16:52 |  #100

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15969582 (external link)
70-200 works perfectly fine for portraits, the only problem I see with it is the reach (in that it is not enough), and also at the long end, I'd like my pictures to look sharper, I'm hoping to achieve more subject isolation with the 300 2.8 II and sharper images.

A bit late to the discussion, but I'm a bit surprised that you're saying that the 70-200 IS II isn't sharp enough for you. By all means the 300 2.8 or 200 2.0 will isolate the subject more, but if your 70-200 IS II photos aren't sharp then I would suggest there are more fundamental problems here that you should correct before spending a boatload of cash on more glass.


Tools: 70D, 10-22, Tamron 24-70 VC, 70-300L, 135 f2L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 30, 2013 16:54 |  #101
bannedPermanent ban

jrbdmb wrote in post #15983777 (external link)
I'm a bit surprised that you're saying that the 70-200 IS II isn't sharp enough for you. By all means the 300 2.8 will isolate the subject more, but if your 70-200 IS II photos aren't sharp then I would suggest there are more fundamental problems here that you should correct before spending a boatload of cash on more glass.

70-200 II has softness, distortion, CA quite present @ 200mm. This is nothing new, the zoom lens is at its weakest at the far end. Feel free to look at reviews from slrgear to digital picture or other sites with MFT charts to see for yourself. I don't know how my picture taking style can be the reason for this.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 30, 2013 16:57 |  #102
bannedPermanent ban

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15983678 (external link)
I always want to ask for a gallery when I read stuff like this.

I don't doubt that L prime > sigma zoom, but I want to see the colors. I want to see the results, because it makes me wonder what it looks like. If I would be able to see the difference.

I will try to find those pictures and post here, but even my completely clueless wife (in photography) was shocked when she saw the first pictures that came out of 5d mark III (with the 24-105 F4 kit lens). I only bring her up because of the "oh the untrained eye will never understand the difference between so and so" argument.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Zigot
Senior Member
601 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Ottawa Ontario CAN
     
May 30, 2013 17:06 |  #103

I have been thinking the same as I want :
- Something longer than my 70-200 IS ii
- Sharper wide open at 2.8.
- Photo is my hobby.
I am debating between this lens and the Sigma 120-300 os ( the Sigma weight more... )


7D, 5Dii, 5Diii, 70-300L, 24-105L 70-200Lii, 135L, 85, Tammy 150-600, 430EXii, 550EX, 580EXii, Σ50, Σ105 Macro, Σ150 Macro, ΣEM-140, Σ1.4x, LensBaby 3G, White lightnings, Bowens. Gear - feedbacks


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silvex
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,306 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 42
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Southern California, USA
     
May 30, 2013 17:55 |  #104

IMAGE: https://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/lenses/EF400_LISIIU/sampleimg/mtf.jpg
IMAGE: https://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/lenses/EF300_LISIIU/sampleimg/mtf.jpg


200L f/2
IMAGE: https://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/Lenses_2008/EF200mm/features/EF200_f2LIS_mtf.gif
70-200L f/2.8 Mk II
IMAGE: https://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/Lenses_2010/EF70-200mm/profile/ef70-200lisiiu_tele_mtf.gif

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …S-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx (external link)

CA (Chromatic Aberration) is practically non-existent in the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II - which is a small improvement over the version one lens that shows a small amount of CA in full frame 200mm corners.

.
-Ed
CPS Platinum Member.
Canon Gear
SilvexPhoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrbdmb
Goldmember
Avatar
1,291 posts
Likes: 12
Joined May 2011
     
May 30, 2013 18:05 |  #105

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15983780 (external link)
70-200 II has softness, distortion, CA quite present @ 200mm. This is nothing new, the zoom lens is at its weakest at the far end. Feel free to look at reviews from slrgear to digital picture or other sites with MFT charts to see for yourself. I don't know how my picture taking style can be the reason for this.

I would have suggested that your 70-200L is defective or needs adjustment. I was not making any guesses about your "picture taking style."


Tools: 70D, 10-22, Tamron 24-70 VC, 70-300L, 135 f2L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

13,093 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is 300 2.8 II overkill for me?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kumarrahul123
1972 guests, 228 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.