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?

 
pyrojim
Goldmember
1,882 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
May 31, 2013 02:57 |  #121

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15984704 (external link)
Wow... Now I want to see the gallery of the guy who defined the blur unit. His pictures must be awesome. ;)

I mean it makes sense to me. There is NO reason to get mean towards the brainiacs! We need loving too.

Although I didn't see the Fourier of a normal being normal in my head, Wikipedia says it is so! And negative variances don't sit well with me.


PhaseOne H25
Camera agnostic

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
dancook
Senior Member
540 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Sep 2011
     
May 31, 2013 03:17 |  #122

pyrojim wrote in post #15985090 (external link)
Also the 70-200 is sharper than the 85L. Period.

is that the 70-200 @ 1.2? :p

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4 (external link)

100@ 2.8 vs 85 @ 2.8

Look at the bottom image, right square. 85 looks sharper.. ? :)

Don't mind me though, I'm not in this argument..




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
May 31, 2013 03:28 |  #123

pyrojim wrote in post #15985102 (external link)
I mean it makes sense to me. There is NO reason to get mean towards the brainiacs! We need loving too.

Although I didn't see the Fourier of a normal being normal in my head, Wikipedia says it is so! And negative variances don't sit well with me.

I don't know how to begin replying... so I'll bow out cause it's off topic.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bonbridge
Goldmember
Avatar
1,263 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 418
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Netherlands
     
May 31, 2013 06:55 |  #124

pyrojim wrote in post #15985090 (external link)
Some thoughts:
Don't get snippy about investment advice, if some of us also happen to have experience or advanced knowledge of such things, you'd be wise to listen- on a forum this large there are a few people with PhDs and grad students.
There is no need to justify to us, let alone yourself by how much a mortgage and car payment are... If you are leasing or making payments, it just tells me you didn't pay cash...

Now let's ignore the banter for a second. You want to shoot a big sharp lens at the park/beach with your family. Is the 200/2 or 300/2.8 IS2 good for that? Sure. It's also a big lens- the 70-200 IS2 is also that darn good. If you think one of the big teles is better you are a little off ya rocker!

If you want more isolation than the 70-200 offers, you are looking for answers in the wrong camera format...


Also the 70-200 is sharper than the 85L. Period.

Imagine all the time you have spent worrying about what to shoot with instead of just shooting and enjoying the time outdoors with the fam!!!

You should just get a 5D(gen 1) and a 50/1.8. Then you would really enjoy the time!

No it is not, I tested it yesterday and the 85LII is sharper at f/2.8.


5DII + 6D | 16-35/4.0L IS | Σ35/1.4A | 40/2.8 | Σ85/1.4A | 85/1.2L II | 70-200/2.8L IS II
iMac Retina 5k | i7 | 24Gb RAM | 512GB Flash | 4GB M295X

Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrbdmb
Goldmember
Avatar
1,291 posts
Likes: 12
Joined May 2011
     
May 31, 2013 08:10 |  #125

Some more from SLRGear on the 70-200 II:

"Conclusion - This one's fairly straightforward: if you were looking, you probably were already thinking about getting this lens, and there's nothing to fault it. If absolutely need image stabilization and the sharpest, best image quality in a 70-200mm zoom, it's money well-spent."

BTW, in the review for the original 70-200mm, SLRGear says:

"(Note though, that when we say slight, we mean almost imperceptible: DxO says that sharpness differences of a single blur unit are just barely perceptible to human vision, and most of the blur surface at 200mm is well below two blur units. So the amount of softening is very small indeed.)"

In any event, good luck with your 200 2.0L. Once you've found an acceptable copy hopefully you can get away from the ISO test charts and contrast tests and spend more time working on the craft of photography.


Tools: 70D, 10-22, Tamron 24-70 VC, 70-300L, 135 f2L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 31, 2013 08:55 |  #126
bannedPermanent ban

jrbdmb wrote in post #15985468 (external link)
Some more from SLRGear on the 70-200 II:

"Conclusion - This one's fairly straightforward: if you were looking, you probably were already thinking about getting this lens, and there's nothing to fault it. If absolutely need image stabilization and the sharpest, best image quality in a 70-200mm zoom, it's money well-spent."

BTW, in the review for the original 70-200mm, SLRGear says:

"(Note though, that when we say slight, we mean almost imperceptible: DxO says that sharpness differences of a single blur unit are just barely perceptible to human vision, and most of the blur surface at 200mm is well below two blur units. So the amount of softening is very small indeed.)"

In any event, good luck with your 200 2.0L. Once you've found an acceptable copy hopefully you can get away from the ISO test charts and contrast tests and spend more time working on the craft of photography.

So then who should buy 200 F2.0 over 70-200 IS II?

And don't you find it funny there are similar arguments with 70-200's F4 version over the F2.8?

I'm curious to know (and maybe that's the question I should have asked) who should buy the expensive prime. If we should listen everyone in this thread:

- You cannot see any differences in a large print
- You cannot see any differences in a large screen
- Normal people cannot see any differences between the pictures that were taken by both lenses.

So then who should buy this lens? Body builders who like photography so they can improve their triceps?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mag-1981
Senior Member
Avatar
987 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 122
Joined May 2012
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
     
May 31, 2013 10:19 as a reply to  @ TheLensGuy's post |  #127

I do not own any of the lenses discussed in this thread, but I think that the confusion you experience on here has more to do with what you expect from the lens, rather then the lens's actual performance.

Who should buy expensive prime?
Anybody who wants it and can afford it.

Who should buy 200 F2.0 over 70-200 IS II? Anybody who:
- wants it and can afford it
- is sure that will not miss versatility of a zoom or has/can afford more good primes to cover longer/shorter FLs
- is prepared to keep switching lenses if needed
- wants larger aperture.

Why 200mm f/2 is so much more expensive than 70-200?
-primes are generally more expensive than zooms and we all now that and we all know why. You also pay more for larger aperture and better IS. But just because it's 3 times more expensive than 70-200, does no mean that it will give you 3 times better IQ. You will probably be able to see slightly better performance and general difference in picture at 200mm comparing these 2 lenses, but I believe the reason why not so many people here are pushing you to pull the trigger on it, is, that for what you intend to use this lens for (family, etc), 70-200 is simply more suitable, with really marginal difference in IQ. You don't seem to care about the lack of reach anymore, but even if you did, 300mm would probably result in similar responses. Nobody is saying 200mm is a bad lens or overpriced for what it can do and sure, if you really want it, get it and it will be amazing, but I'll bet, that for those family pics on the beach you will still be using your 70-200 more often. And that's the whole point.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,811 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5822
Joined Sep 2007
     
May 31, 2013 10:33 |  #128

dancook wrote in post #15985120 (external link)
is that the 70-200 @ 1.2? :p

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4 (external link)

100@ 2.8 vs 85 @ 2.8

Look at the bottom image, right square. 85 looks sharper.. ? :)

Don't mind me though, I'm not in this argument..

this is marginal at best. If you have to pixel peep over and over again to see the differences, then it's not a significant difference.

I think the TS was making an issue about this said difference, but now it's a little more focused on separation, which the 200 f/2 and 300 f/2.8 clearly have.

if you want more separation, then 200/300 (I'de take the 200 anyday since it has a better working distance). If you need even more separation, get the 400 F2.8 :p

if that's still not enough, shoot in studio.

for reference sake, the 200 F2 will give more background blur/better separation than the 300:

http://howmuchblur.com …f2.8-on-a-3m-wide-subject (external link)

optical quality is a wash based on MTF charts posted earlier, both are among the sharpest FF lenses to exist.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - 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 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silvex
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,306 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 42
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Southern California, USA
     
May 31, 2013 10:35 |  #129

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15985565 (external link)
So then who should buy this lens? Body builders who like photography so they can improve their triceps?

These lens are used to mostly blur the background, freeze action ...and to shoot in low light events...press conferences, concerts, boxing, and sports events at night.

Here getting the shot is more critical than pixel peeping...bw!


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,811 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5822
Joined Sep 2007
     
May 31, 2013 10:52 |  #130

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15985565 (external link)
So then who should buy 200 F2.0 over 70-200 IS II?

And don't you find it funny there are similar arguments with 70-200's F4 version over the F2.8?

I'm curious to know (and maybe that's the question I should have asked) who should buy the expensive prime. If we should listen everyone in this thread:

- You cannot see any differences in a large print
- You cannot see any differences in a large screen
- Normal people cannot see any differences between the pictures that were taken by both lenses.

So then who should buy this lens? Body builders who like photography so they can improve their triceps?

This is in reference to my posts I made earlier, and that was posted in respect to SHARPNESS comment you made.

in terms of sharpness, you WILL NOT be able to see differences on print or on screen... however there will be a difference in separation if you shoot the 200F2 or 300F2.8 wide open and framed similar to the 70-200F2.8. If you're buying for more separation, then the 200F2 and 300F2.8 definitely offers it. If you're buying for a significant increase in sharpness... you'll get a marginal increase at best.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - 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 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Buckeye1
Goldmember
Avatar
3,381 posts
Gallery: 57 photos
Likes: 274
Joined May 2005
     
May 31, 2013 11:34 |  #131

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #15984337 (external link)
IMHO, the info in the part in bold says it all.

Why he's even asking any of us is the real question. Clearly, we can't understand what he's up to, and personally, I feel good about that.

bw!

We all should leave and close the thread.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 31, 2013 11:34 |  #132
bannedPermanent ban

Charlie wrote in post #15985920 (external link)
This is in reference to my posts I made earlier, and that was posted in respect to SHARPNESS comment you made.

in terms of sharpness, you WILL NOT be able to see differences on print or on screen... however there will be a difference in separation if you shoot the 200F2 or 300F2.8 wide open and framed similar to the 70-200F2.8. If you're buying for more separation, then the 200F2 and 300F2.8 definitely offers it. If you're buying for a significant increase in sharpness... you'll get a marginal increase at best.

I don't think there will be that much of a difference in terms of DOF between 2.8 @ 200mm and 2.0 @ 200mm. Have a look at the comparison pictures of the girl in this review : http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx (external link).

2x light is another thing and that makes a significant difference when you go to ISO 6400 (vs 12800), that's something I am not contesting.

I also have no complaints on the focus of my zoom, it focuses as fast as I need it to be and the focus is right on the spot, it never misses the focus and if it does it's my fault not the lenses.

I will post some pictures tonight when I go home and compare my 85L @ 2.0, 2.8 and 70-200 @ 200 2.8 and show you guys what I'm talking about in terms of IQ.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheLensGuy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Sep 2012
     
May 31, 2013 11:35 |  #133
bannedPermanent ban

Buckeye1 wrote in post #15986048 (external link)
bw!

We all should leave and close the thread.

Yes we should but you guys won't let me:(




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joonrhee
Goldmember
Avatar
3,844 posts
Likes: 490
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Southern California
     
May 31, 2013 11:53 |  #134

Buckeye1 wrote in post #15986048 (external link)
bw!

We all should leave and close the thread.

Hey, what's up Ben! Howdy buddy :D


To OP, just ask the moderator to close the thread for ya. :D


a7RII • RX1RII • CV12 • B18 • L21 • B25 • B85
Full Gear List & Feedback
SmugMug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,422 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 341
Joined Sep 2011
     
May 31, 2013 11:54 |  #135

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15986057 (external link)
Yes we should but you guys won't let me:(

Nobody is forcing you to come back and post whinny faces.


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

12,868 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 wayne_lee
679 guests, 357 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.