davidc502 wrote in post #15976253
Money aside, I wouldn't recommend either of those two lenses for your needs.
If you end up liking the 200mm length, I would get the 70-200 f/4L (maybe the f/2.8) or if you want a prime, then the 200mm f/2.8L. The main reason why I'm not a player for the 200f/2 is that it weighs 5.6LB's and it's big and white monster! Now, if you're a pro, and the job depends on getting that "shot", then absolutely, go fore the big guy, and get the job done, but chasing kids around? No way.
As for the 300mm length, I would go with the f/4L version or go with a zoom like the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L as they are both relatively lightweight.
So, I guess I'll go with your subject for this thread and say both 200f/2 and 300f/2.8 are overkill for you.
However, if you decide to get one or the other, be sure to post back and let us know how it goes. Also, folks would absolutely love to see shots from both of these lenses as they are coveted in many circles.
I already have the 70-200 2.8 IS II (which I may keep or sell depending on this purchase). The problem with that lens is, at the long end (190-200mm), I am not getting my shots as sharp as I would like, at least not anywhere near say my 85L around 1.8-2.0. They look good, but they don't look like the ones that came out of my 85L in terms of color, contrast, and overall IQ. This is exactly why I am considering 200L or 300L Mk2. The weight is absolutely not a problem, I'm a pretty muscular guy (work out/exercise pretty much everyday) and would have no problem carrying another kilo on my shoulder (I can do 40+40 = 80 lbs shoulder press if that helps, not trying to rub it though!).
A lot of my shots are also unprepared where I'd prefer to be hidden. So it's not like I need to work with models or people where I need to give them any direction. I usually stay as far as I can and would like to get head/shoulders when I use 70-200 and I do so at the long end. If I want my pictures to show any context, then I use my 85L or 24-70 II.
I hope that clears things a bit. I'm thorn between 200 F2.0 and 300 2.8 II. The 300 is a newer lens that is much sharper, 200 is older, not as sharp, but it's a whole stop faster, but then it won't give me any extra reach (but then I don't know if that extra reach will become a headache in the future - I just don't know if I can handle 300mm).
I really do not like to waste my money, please stop judging me because I'm not a professional but I can afford these lenses. Some people spend this much money on vacations, I don't do that and do this instead, everyone is different!