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?

 
dioladetus
Senior Member
657 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 939
Joined Feb 2010
Location: DK
     
May 28, 2013 07:40 |  #31

MakisM1 wrote in post #15974827 (external link)
The light intensity and therefore the required f-stop goes with the sensor square footage...;) So it is the same f-stop for large format, FF or crop.

As a matter of fact, if you want to nitpick, for most lenses there is a light fall-off at the corners, something you do not experience with the crops because.... you crop!:D

So, on the average you get more light per square foot...:rolleyes:

Yes. But a larger sensor gathers more light, period.
Light fall off in the corners is minimal, but the reason that I wrote ~1 stop.


www.phodiography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,580 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 352
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
May 28, 2013 08:09 |  #32

So you think that for the same scene a crop will shoot say at f11, 1/100 and ISO 100 and a FF will shoot at f16, 1/100 ISO100 ?...


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 28, 2013 08:12 |  #33
bannedPermanent ban

Can you guys please stick to OP:) I am not going to buy a crop camera!;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dioladetus
Senior Member
657 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 939
Joined Feb 2010
Location: DK
     
May 28, 2013 08:18 |  #34

Yes, you are right TheLensGuy, lets stick to OP, no more comments after this one.
MakisM1, No, of course I do not think that, that is not what I am saying!


www.phodiography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 28, 2013 08:25 |  #35
bannedPermanent ban

Actually if people stopped focusing on my money spending habits and started reading the thread carefully :), I changed my question to include 200 F2.0 (OR 300 2.8), I couldn't however change the title of the thread. I have read wonderful things about the 200 F2.0 and from the sample picture thread in this forum, I see that it's in a league of its own compared to 70-200 MK2. I was thinking of selling my zoom and get 200 F2.0 and use that. I'm not sure if 300 2.8 II will be very useful for me for my use cases. I do shoot portraits/street photography and I truly see the value of being able to stand 20 meters away in the playground to frame my kid, I just don't know if there is something I am missing. I know 300 is long I just don't know how much longer it is than 200.

Why I bring 300 2.8 II into the equation is, it's a much newer lens design and I don't want to spend 6k on 200 F2.0 and then a year later have an "older" version lens that Canon stops supporting (like they did to 200/1.8). I know you will say when the new one comes out the old one will be more expensive and lenses are good investments and you are probably right, it's just human nature when you think about shelling out 6-7k, you want to make sure you get the best lens possible:) I also know each FL is different, but I seem to remember that as you go high in the FL, especially past 150mm, in a full frame camera, a difference of 50-60mm is not that much (in terms of perspective). That's why I am comparing two lenses. I'm not sure if the difference between 200mm and 300mm is as big as the difference between 24mm and 85mm.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,423 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 345
Joined Sep 2011
     
May 28, 2013 09:38 |  #36

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15974979 (external link)
Actually if people stopped focusing on my money spending habits and started reading the thread carefully :)

Is there a reason you posted the exact same post twice in an hour?

So fine we will forget about the money, but you may want to go back and read ed rader's comment about the size of those beasts. If you are going to make a move, I would keep the 70-200/2.8 and add the 300/2.8.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stan23
Member
88 posts
Joined Jun 2003
Location: Cupertino, CA USA!
     
May 28, 2013 13:59 |  #37

The 200 1.8 had been out for some 14 years before it was replaced by the 2.0 version. And I believe it was replaced due to some manufacturing practices that are no longer tolerated.

Those of us that have been shooting Canon for a long time know that lens update releases are pretty much far and few. I say if you bought a 200 2.0, it will probably outlive the EF mount.

I've had the 200 1.8 and it's a manageable size. I've done lot's of portraits with it, and it has a very special look to it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidc502
Goldmember
Avatar
3,459 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 38
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Tennessee
     
May 28, 2013 14:12 |  #38

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15974793 (external link)
Actually if people stopped focusing on my money spending habits and started reading the thread carefully :), I changed my question to include 200 F2.0 (OR 300 2.8), I couldn't however change the title of the thread. I have read wonderful things about the 200 F2.0 and from the sample picture thread in this forum, I see that it's in a league of its own compared to 70-200 MK2. I was thinking of selling my zoom and get 200 F2.0 and use that. I'm not sure if 300 2.8 II will be very useful for me for my use cases. I do shoot portraits/street photography and I truly see the value of being able to stand 20 meters away in the playground to frame my kid, I just don't know if there is something I am missing. I know 300 is long I just don't know how much longer it is than 200.

Why I bring 300 2.8 II into the equation is, it's a much newer lens design and I don't want to spend 6k on 200 F2.0 and then a year later have an "older" version lens that Canon stops supporting (like they did to 200/1.8). I know you will say when the new one comes out the old one will be more expensive and lenses are good investments and you are probably right, it's just human nature when you think about shelling out 6-7k, you want to make sure you get the best lens possible:) I also know each FL is different, but I seem to remember that as you go high in the FL, especially past 150mm, in a full frame camera, a difference of 50-60mm is not that much (in terms of perspective). That's why I am comparing two lenses. I'm not sure if the difference between 200mm and 300mm is as big as the difference between 24mm and 85mm.

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.

Best Regards,


_
My Gear is ---> Here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 28, 2013 18:26 |  #39
bannedPermanent ban

davidc502 wrote in post #15976253 (external link)
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.

Best Regards,

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!:)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lovemyram4x4
Goldmember
Avatar
2,198 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 57
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Temecula
     
May 28, 2013 19:37 |  #40

Either of those 2 big white lens seem like over kill for your intended use, but maybe to you that slightly sharper IQ and shallower DOF is imoprtant.

Keep in mind that at longer focal length the DOF gets smaller so maybe f4 will be fine so a 300 f4 may satisfy your IQ and DOF wants while not be quite as good is its big brother it might good enough while being smaller, lighter and cheaper.

Maybe you should try a 1.4x on your 70-200 to see how 280mm is for you needs and how f4 is close to 300mm, it might also come in handy if you go with the 300 f4/2.8 if you find you want 420mm.

I chose the f2.8 over the f4 mainly for it's secondary use in that because I'll also use it with a 2x quite often and it does better IQ and AF wise, for it's primary use f4 would normally be fine. The fact that I'm also happy with the results I get with my 70-200+1.4x a 400mm would have been a better choice focal length wise(at least for my FF and 1.3 crop senors), but the 400 f2.8 is just in whole different league size weight wise, the f5.6 lacks IS(would lose AF with 2x) and I strongly considered the f4 DO. Oh, I mainly use the longer lens for motorsports and wildlife, I enjoy both but I'm more serious about the former so I got a lens that outstanding for it while still quite good for the latter.

Personally I wouldn't take my 300 f2.8 to the park/beach to use to take pictures of the family I'd use the 70-200 for that but I might bring it for the birds/animals(which I'm glad I threw it in the car this weekend at the last min as I ended up getting some nice BIF shots).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,616 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 520
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
May 28, 2013 19:43 |  #41

Don't know if it would be overkill but its a lens I would love to try but I too cannot really justify having one. I love the idea of using a 2x and having a 600mm 5.6 lens. My plan is to rent it, at the very least it will be fun to play with for a week or so.

Maybe rent the 300 than the 200 and see how you feel after using them both. From what I see and hear both are pretty amazing.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidc502
Goldmember
Avatar
3,459 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 38
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Tennessee
     
May 28, 2013 20:37 |  #42

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15977124 (external link)
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!:)

Judging? Not a chance.. Most of us have our soft spots for what we love. I've dropped money on Les Paul's, so if it's not one thing, it's another. I'm sure there are musicians who would tell me to buy the Chinese version of the Paul, and save 3 grand, but you know it's something I feel is worth the extra money. Like L lenses, Paul's can retain their value if taken care of, so I'm kinda in the same boat when it comes to professional items.

Bottom line is you know what your heart wants, so go out and buy what feels right for you. If it's the 300mm f/2.8, then you're just gonna have to come back, post some pictures, and make the rest of us wish we had one! :cool:

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'


Cheers,

_
My Gear is ---> Here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,118 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6183
Joined Sep 2007
     
May 28, 2013 20:57 |  #43

no problem getting a 300 2.8, but it doesn't really fit what you're doing.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cristphoto
Senior Member
964 posts
Likes: 54
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Maryland
     
May 28, 2013 21:04 |  #44

I don't have the mkII, but do have the prior mkI. I find its too long for my portraits most of the time as I'm too far from subject to be comfortable. Indoors I don't have enough room in my studio for it. I mostly use the 85 or 135 with good results.


5D MKIV x2, 24L II, 35L II, 50L, 85LIS, 100LIS Macro, 135L, 300LIS, 16-35LIS, 24-70L, 70-200LIS, 100-400LIS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,035 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6762
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 28, 2013 21:20 |  #45

You re looking at this, and have not yet gotten a 135mm f/2L?

I think you should consider the 135mm :)


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

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

13,328 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 pasztun
674 guests, 347 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.