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?

 
MDJAK
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
24,722 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 181
Joined Nov 2004
Location: New York
     
May 29, 2013 09:00 |  #61

ed rader wrote in post #15973082 (external link)
i'm in a dissimilar situation. my house is paid for. I have no children. no bills. no ex-wives and the wife i do have is young and likes to work ;)!

You are my hero. :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 29, 2013 09:00 |  #62
bannedPermanent ban

Charlie wrote in post #15978828 (external link)
the comparison threads are ok, but you need to keep in mind that the 70-200 has a lot of amateurs shooting it, while the 200 and 300 are shot mostly by seasoned professionals.

another thing is that with your slideshows, you definitely wont see much, if any difference in IQ. Even if you have a 4K tv.... that's coming from a HUGE slideshow user (full time HTPC user - my setup (external link)).

you really dont need critical sharpness when it comes to slideshows, even fairly large prints. I think you're blowing off the sharpness of the 70-200 a little too much. It's a really sharp lens, and while it may not be 100% as sharp as the primes, it's pretty much there. The sharpness difference is not significant.

I respect your opinion and I'm not really trying to be rude, but have you actually owned these lenses (200 F2.0 or 300 2.8 II)? Unless your signature is old and inaccurate, I don't think you do. So what are you basing this on?

The pictures I linked here were not taken in a studio and I don't think it would have mattered whether someone who has never used a DSLR took them or not. They are the pictures of dollar bills after all and if you read that thread, you can see the tests were extremely ad hoc.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,941 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6682
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 29, 2013 09:16 |  #63

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15978673 (external link)
I am looking into buying these lenses (and please also realize I am considering 200 F2 not just 300 Mk2) simply because of their IQ/contrast/sharpness over my zoom. Reach is a secondary reason, not primary.....

And thus, I repeat, 135mm f/2L
All of the image quality, 1/2 the "reach" (never thought I'd use the word reach for people photos) @ 1/6th the price.

Seriously, for under a grand, you should be looking at this lens before anything else.
The 135mm focal length is designed to be your telephoto portrait lens. That's it's purpose in life.


Just FYI, I got the 200mm f/1.8L (the predecessor to the f/2L IS) because I thought 200mm was the perfect FL for shooting live performances in the theatre I worked in, and I needed the low light ability of fast prime apertures. Back then, the DSLRs I used were only good up to 800ISO, 1600 was pretty bad.

In the end, I ended up using the 135mm f/2L much more often. Eventually I sold the 200mm, (for other reasons) but it was not as hard a decision to make, as I really could not find reasons to shoot with it often.

Is the 200mm f/1.8L and it's newer sibling a better lens than the 135mm ? In some ways, absolutely! But, I can;t tell you how amazing and convenient it is to have a lens of near equal IQ and performance, in such a portable inconspicuous and affordable package. It takes no effort to use this lens, and very little effort to get fantastic images with it.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 502
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
May 29, 2013 09:20 |  #64

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #15978927 (external link)
And thus, I repeat, 135mm f/2L
All of the image quality, 1/2 the "reach" (never thought I'd use the word reach for people photos) @ 1/6th the price.

Seriously, for under a grand, you should be looking at this lens before anything else.
The 135mm focal length is designed to be your telephoto portrait lens. That's it's purpose in life.


+ 1. Check out the image thread.


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
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 29, 2013 09:25 |  #65
bannedPermanent ban

Okay, thanks, I will start reading up on 135L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 502
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
May 29, 2013 09:28 |  #66

It will also take a teleconverter. Never tried it but I hear it performs well.


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
dioladetus
Senior Member
657 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 939
Joined Feb 2010
Location: DK
     
May 29, 2013 09:46 |  #67

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15978727 (external link)
Thanks for your recommendations. I may most likely get 135mm at some point, it's a great value lens. Everyone I spoke to so far says the new version of 300 2.8 is a lot sharper than 200mm which is why I was considering 300mm instead of 200mm at first, but that being said, the 200mm is a full stop faster and that's very tempting. Sometimes my zoom produces pretty useless images at 12800 ISO and I guess in 6400 ISO, it would be a whole another game.

In terms of the image quality and color, how does 300 v2 compare to 200?

The problem with comparing these two lenses are, as they are extremely expensive, finding a person who has used them both is extremely hard:(

In terms of IQ the 300 V2 is better I think. Better colours, contrast, fg/bg and sharpness.
The 300 is great for portraits, but if portraits was my main use for a telephoto, I would choose the 200mm personally, over the 300. But for versatility and the last bit of output, then definately the 300.
And also, yes, you should get your hands on the 135l :)


www.phodiography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,072 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6158
Joined Sep 2007
     
May 29, 2013 09:47 |  #68

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15978882 (external link)
I respect your opinion and I'm not really trying to be rude, but have you actually owned these lenses (200 F2.0 or 300 2.8 II)? Unless your signature is old and inaccurate, I don't think you do. So what are you basing this on?

The pictures I linked here were not taken in a studio and I don't think it would have mattered whether someone who has never used a DSLR took them or not. They are the pictures of dollar bills after all and if you read that thread, you can see the tests were extremely ad hoc.

I havent owned either one, and dont think any in this thread have either. You dont need to own a lens to figure out if it fits your needs or not. IMO, you're looking for something to satisfy your WANTS, which is perfectly fine (comes with the territory). It WILL give you more personal satisfaction, but better pictures for your intended purpose, it wont.

Just trying to be objective here because I see excessive amounts of pixel peeping talk. When you say that the 70-200 is weak on the long end, it just sends out the wrong signal to me. That lens is strong everywhere, and unless you're doing very very large prints, you wont be seeing the difference in sharpness. Slideshows are downsized to 2 megapixels for full 1080p HD, and 8 megapixels for 4K TV...

The 135L and 200L might not achieve the sharpness of the 300, but we're talking about portraits here. Even serious hobbyists dont print portraits big enough to see the differences in IQ. I mean plenty of people can just go out and buy a lens, but you buy it for a purpose. The lens in question seems tailor made for sports and wildlife, where reach is needed. You've stated that reach isnt needed.

Just trying to be objective.


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
vaflower
Senior Member
Avatar
855 posts
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Massachusetts
     
May 29, 2013 10:06 |  #69

Here is my fair opinion. Your pictures will still suck (or be amazing if you currently feel that way) no matter what you use 70-200 L, 200 2.0L or 300 2.8L etc.,

So it really doesn't matter what you use or buy. It is quite different from your buying luxury car example. People buying luxury car for their personal enjoyment, but for most people, lenses are tools to produce something pictures, arts etc.

And really it doesn't matter for your pictures. Throwing money into the problem doesn't work in this case.


Fuji XE-1, Zeiss ikon, Hasselblad; I love shooting film as a conceptual idea :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silvex
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,307 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 42
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Southern California, USA
     
May 29, 2013 10:09 |  #70

Here are more samples with the 400L f/2.8 ALL at f/2.8 ...the paquiao is at ISO800

IMAGE: http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000yg_iZAUvhJo/s/600/600/Manny-Pacquiao-at-Press-Conference-20111112-7193.jpg

IMAGE: http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I00003zESlKjFsBU/s/600/600/Alana-Blanchard-SemiFinals-heat-1-20100801-2727.jpg

IMAGE: http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000cd7trG4NeiQ/s/600/600/Malia-Manuel-Semi-H1-a20090719-1902.jpg

IMAGE: http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000WGC4gvOdCm4/s/600/600/Floyd-Mayweather-at-Weigh-In-049.jpg

The noise is courtesy of photoshelter OVER-sharpening of resized images...unlike smugsmug which gives you control of it... :)

.
-Ed
CPS Platinum Member.
Canon Gear
SilvexPhoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dancook
Senior Member
540 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Sep 2011
     
May 29, 2013 10:20 |  #71

I am an amateur photographer, maybe one day I'll go semi-pro - but i'm not going to force the issue.

I do however lust for the 200mm f2 and a 1dx.. and I will save up to buy them both! :)

It was a choice between 200mm f2 and 300mm f2.8. I think I am settled on the 200mm f2, I would have done whatever photography they were suited to - but decided that I enjoy shooting people most.

I currently have 85mm 1.2 L II and CZ 35mm 1.4 Distagon - I love fast primes :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,423 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 344
Joined Sep 2011
     
May 29, 2013 10:40 |  #72

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15978673 (external link)
when they see a $140,000 M6 driving by them, it's a huge waste of money and they most likely say "why would someone spend so much money on a car to get them from point A to point B, what is it that car does my Accord doesn't?"

Big difference here between cars and lenses. If I had infinite money, I would have no problem with buying a Bugatti Veyron, but I still would not want to carry a 300/2.8 around. And it's not like I couldn't afford a 300/2.8 II right now if my priorities warranted it.

I think VAflower summed up this thread elloquantly.


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
dioladetus
Senior Member
657 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 939
Joined Feb 2010
Location: DK
     
May 29, 2013 11:57 |  #73

I do not agree with these people in this thread that states you cannot see the difference between the super tele primes and fx. the 70-200. There IS a visible difference in fx sharpness, bokeh, colours.
If you have a decent editing monitor you can see this, if the output from the camera is good of course.
It might not be visible on a display in a living room if its not a good one though.
I work with canon in giving lectures and workshops on wildlife photography, so I have access to all the gear I need, and I have made many comparisons. I print a good bit of photos in A3+ sizes, and its very visible here. It might not be to the non-trained eye though, but once you are trained or have been interesting in photography for a while I believe its visible to most people.
In the editing process on a decent screen you clearly see the difference, and I think thats worth a lot. You might want to get more photos printet if you feel your output is great :)

But having said this, I think you can come a very long way with fx. the 70-200 v2, its a great great lens, it just doesn't have the "umf" that fx the 200 f/2 has.. :)


www.phodiography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdang
Senior Member
263 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2011
     
May 29, 2013 12:01 |  #74

I do this as a hobby, heck sometimes I don't even touch my camera for weeks. I own the 200mm F2. It is an incredible lens. The FL takes some time getting use to. You could always use a 1.4 TC to get to 300mm. Oh and it will make all your other lens look blurry ;p




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,941 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6682
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 29, 2013 12:05 |  #75

"fx" used half a dozen times,. what do you mean by that please?


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)

13,270 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 ChazMaz
1073 guests, 306 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.