Is 300 2.8 II overkill for me?

Here is my current line-up:

5D Mark III
35L
85L
24-70 II
70-200 IS II
600-EXRT

I don't make money out of photography and I mainly shoot portraits, love subject isolation and thin DoF. I hardly use F4.0 or above (only if I am taking a picture of multiple people). I spend most of my time in the playgrounds or beaches with my family.

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. That being said, I do NOT do wild life or birds.

I don't see myself ever replacing 70-200 because you still need the zoom 90% of the time, but for those magical shots (similar to why I need my 85L even though I own 24-70 II), I think I need something else.

I'd prefer people who has owned or used 300 2.8 II (or I) to answer although obviously everyone is free to voice their opinion.

EDIT : After posting this, I also realized maybe I should consider 200 F2.0 with a 1.4 converter. Please feel free to comment on that idea as well.

Many thanks.

If you can afford it, and feel you need/want it, then get it. 300 is long for portraits, but if it's more street, anonymous shots where you aren't close, then it'll certainly work. Maybe buy a 300 f/4 used from here or KEH and see if the DOF will work for you. I've owned that lens and it was a great lens that didn't cost too much.

What about 200 F2.0 (any point of keeping 70-200 if I get that?) and maybe get a 1.4 converter? They say 200 + x1.4 is as good as 300 2.8, but most of those claims were made against the old 300 2.8, not the new II version.

Have you considered a late model crop to complement your 5D3? You get slightly longer reach than a converter without the loss of one f-stop. Price-wise you save money over the purchase of a 300 and the crop purchase is comparable to a converter... Just a thought...

If you don't shoot sports or wildlife the 300 is a lot to carry around unless you know you are going to use it. It is a fabulous lens, but I almost always had an extender on mine so I sold it and bought a 500.

Get a 1.4x TC and use it on your 70-200 to start with. Will give you decent results and tell you how often you might use a fast 300mm lens. Even if you get the 300 later, you will still be using that TC. Gene

gasrocks wrote in post #15970114
Get a 1.4x TC and use it on your 70-200 to start with. Will give you decent results and tell you how often you might use a fast 300mm lens. Even if you get the 300 later, you will still be using that TC. Gene

That's a very good idea, I will try that.

I rented it once. I would not buy one unless I was shooting sports professionally or wildlife.

Personally I definitely would not buy it for family portraits. I'd get the 1.4 teleconverter. But I like smaller lenses in general.

But if I wanted to play with one, I'd find a used one, have it for a year and then would decide what to do. If canon doesn't come up with the next version, you might even make a hundred bucks.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15969582
Here is my current line-up:

5D Mark III
35L
85L
24-70 II
70-200 IS II
600-EXRT

I don't make money out of photography and I mainly shoot portraits, love subject isolation and thin DoF. I hardly use F4.0 or above (only if I am taking a picture of multiple people). I spend most of my time in the playgrounds or beaches with my family.

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. That being said, I do NOT do wild life or birds.

I don't see myself ever replacing 70-200 because you still need the zoom 90% of the time, but for those magical shots (similar to why I need my 85L even though I own 24-70 II), I think I need something else.

I'd prefer people who has owned or used 300 2.8 II (or I) to answer although obviously everyone is free to voice their opinion.

EDIT : After posting this, I also realized maybe I should consider 200 F2.0 with a 1.4 converter. Please feel free to comment on that idea as well.

Many thanks.

you could get a 7d .

120-300 f/2.8 by Sigma. Save some money and have a zoom, rolled into 1. Of course it is not as sharp as a prime, but if sharp-ness isn't the end-all, then there might be a winner.

2nd body is not something I'd do, as I said, I do this as a hobby and I don't see myself ever carrying 2 cameras. The way I do this is I pick a lens, I go out with the family that day, I take my pictures, and I come home. If we happen to drive to a place (say a beach), then only I pack 2 or 3 lenses in my lens bag and might choose to switch between them later on.

That being said, the more I read about 200 F2.0, the more I think that is a more suitable lens to me than 300 2.8 II. With a 1.4 tele converter, I can get the same performance as the 2.8 @ 280 mm (please tell me if that's not an accurate statement for the 300 2.8 II).

The question is, is it worth keeping 70-200 around with 200 2.0, and I guess the answer is maybe. I honestly got so used to the zoom that I'm scared of letting it go. But at the same time, I miss those magical shots I get with my 85L with longer FLs.

The 200 f/2 is a beast of a lens. A day with the family, Im not sure if thats the lens I would go for - simply for practicality reasons. Its very large, and on the heavy side. If it was me, I would get annoyed carrying it around chasing after family members. A zoom in this instance I think would be a lot easier and in turn, more fun.

In my case for additional reach I picked up the 7D to compliment my 5D3 Its an expensive teleconverter, but the quality remains as does the aperture. I think the idea of trying out a teleconverter in your case would be a good idea - a place to start anyway.

I love using the 300 2.8 for portraits, I use the sigma, so the Cost/Justification scale is a little different. If you work it right, the results can be wonderful, but I think a little more planing is needed and it helps to have your subject warmed up a little as, the large lenses can be a little on the intimidating side for timid subjects.

I lust after the 200 f/2; have not been lucky enough to use one yet.

I'd say rent one, shoot portraits with it everyday you have it, and try to put it to some other uses as well. Since getting the 300, to ensure it's regular use I have started getting into bird photography the last few months; that way when I'm not shooting low light sports or portraits where I want the thin DOF it doesn't collect dust. Also pick up a round of complimenting TCs, the beyond 200 primes are designed to have them dropped in line with this latest generation of IS lenses and the MkIII converters, and that makes 300 a very flexible focal length.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15970360
2nd body is not something I'd do, as I said, I do this as a hobby and I don't see myself ever carrying 2 cameras. The way I do this is I pick a lens, I go out with the family that day, I take my pictures, and I come home. If we happen to drive to a place (say a beach), then only I pack 2 or 3 lenses in my lens bag and might choose to switch between them later on.

That being said, the more I read about 200 F2.0, the more I think that is a more suitable lens to me than 300 2.8 II. With a 1.4 tele converter, I can get the same performance as the 2.8 @ 280 mm (please tell me if that's not an accurate statement for the 300 2.8 II).

The question is, is it worth keeping 70-200 around with 200 2.0, and I guess the answer is maybe. I honestly got so used to the zoom that I'm scared of letting it go. But at the same time, I miss those magical shots I get with my 85L with longer FLs.

but you'd consider carrying a 300L f2.8? and paying for it. or the 200L f2 + TC? yep true hobbiest !

Just because one doesn't generate an income, doesn't mean they shouldn't or don't strive for the best.

I too love the 200 f/2 and the older F1.8 from the results I've seen, I cant offer experience with either option, but I can relate to your desire.