Weird question, but do most think the 300 2.8 is really a bit too long for impromptu/convenient full body portraits??? Thinking just head shots would be fine.
Have fallen in love with the look/bokeh of the 200 1.8/2.0, but an old 300 2.8 non IS is more in my price range, and the look is very similar. Also going to be shooting NCAA basketball soon, and think I'd rather have the 300 over the 200 for the far end. For portraits I already own and like the 50L & 135L (and Sigma 20 1.4 Art). For full body shots (on full frame) I already kind of don't love dealing with a focal length of 135 (50 is so much easier), and discovered this last weekend that full body portraits at 600mm is a pain.
So do people agree that to get the look I'm after (the 200 F2 look) the 300 should be fantastic for headshots, but fairly unweildy for full body?
Thanks in advance. -Mike