At what point do you decide you need a 300 f/2.8?

Advance apologies for long winded post:
I shoot odds and ends as a hobby, but the plan in sports and motorsports as a business done the line. I ended up shooting most of my first baseball game with the 70-200. I wanted the reach of the 200-500 on a few shots, but it was too slow or I was. I figured I was then.

I also shoot birds on occasion. The 70-200 lacks reach. The 200-500 has been OK for static ducks on pond or herons at a distance. However, bird in flight? Not a chance!

I feel like I will be behind the fence for a while, but reach alone won't get you money shots at motor events.

300 f4 or 100-400 ever come to mind? Both are way cheaper the the 2.8

That depends entirely on you. I would say you "need" a lens (any lens, not just that one) when you are missing important shots that you could have got, had you had the lens. Obviously, the amount of missed shots anhd how important they are, depends entirely on your personal interpretation.

For me, I decided I "needed" that lens when I got fed up running out of light with my 100-400L shooting birds and wildlife, and the lure of two extra stops (even at the expense of a little reach) was too much. The lens is a great wildlife and birding lens as it can be a 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4 or 600 f/5.6 according to need, simply by adding a TC, which it handles with very little loss of IQ.

However, that situation is different than yours. You have to decide for yourself, but I have always found that I know when I need something, the fact becomes painfully clear when shooting without it. If you have to ask on a forum if you need a lens, or how to tell when you do, then I would suggest that you quite clearly don't need it. You will know when you reach that point

With the release of the Mkii and price increase if you think you want one I would start looking. I ran across one on craiglist 11 months old as new for 3800, that made my decision for me. I dont think you will lose anything if you find the right deal.

Dan

IMO, the big f2.8 telephotos are really only needed when light becomes a big issue....such as shooting night games under artificial lighting. If you're doing the majority of your shooting during the day, there are many other, much less expensive options that offer superb performance such as the 300 f4, 100-400 or 400 f5.6.

For me it happened as soon as I saw one in person. Now I'm just waiting for my savings to catch up

Nothing else takes teleconverters like the large primes.

The 300mm f/2.8L IS is sick sharp on its own so it makes a very, very good 420mm f/4 and an acceptable 600 f/5.6.

dscri001 wrote in post #14351557
For me it happened as soon as I saw one in person.

same!

I was kindly loaned one for an airshow while my 100-400 was being repaired.
Have "needed" one ever since! sadly I've "needed" to keep paying the mortgage on my house, "needed" to buy food, "needed" to pay for petrol, etc etc.

One day the "needs" will get shuffled around and I'll actually buy one.

Thanks for all the replies.
No, I don't 'need' one at the moment.
I did consider the 100-400L, but seems to get mixed reviews, which was why I selected the Tammy 200-500. I just didn't enough research on the AF performance .
If I went with the 300 F/4, then I would be limited via TC for additional reach. That would mean two long primes, which may be an option.

jra wrote in post #14351465
IMO, the big f2.8 telephotos are really only needed when light becomes a big issue....such as shooting night games under artificial lighting. If you're doing the majority of your shooting during the day, there are many other, much less expensive options that offer superb performance such as the 300 f4, 100-400 or 400 f5.6.

You cannot get the bokeh a 2.8 supertelephoto lens offers on an f4 or slower lens

Personally, the day I rented one many years ago made my mind up. I only went out to shoot with a rental for a few hours (used a 1:4 extender too), but when I returned to the camera shop with my return the next day, I put my rental costs toward the purchase of my own 300 2.8 IS. Never regretted that decision, ever.

I came across a good deal on ebay. Still waiting for it to arrive. It's a 300mm f2.8 non is.

I shoot a lot of sports, most of the time outdoor in daylight, sometimes indoors. I needed more reach and wanted more subject isolation. I use the 80-200mm f2.8 with 2xTC. The TC is not very good and the lens doesn't take it well so blue haze and blurry images are the result. I hope the 300 2.8 with an optional 1.4TC will do a lot better.

when you wake up and realize life is short, and there is no reason not to own and use one of the best lenses Canon produces.

There is something magical about the 300mm f2.8 in any of the three version. The creamy bokeh after 1 shot at f2.8 had me sold. Add in the unbelievalbe AF speed and it's hard not to take a good picture. Being a cost analysist type of person I couldn't justify either of the IS versions but at half the cost of the IS version one the non-IS was right in my ballpark. Finding one in good shape at the right price proved to be a little tricky but I have zero regret. At around 2k the non-is version is a hard lens to beat. Some might say that with the extra weight and lack of IS camera shake may be an issue but that can be overcome with a good monopod.