Trade 28-300 for 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8

[wdh777]

I'm considering this trade. It's nice to have the 28-300 and carry just one lens vs the two but the others are much faster at 2.8. Most of my photography is of my kids so either low light concerts and plays or outdoor soccer, baseball and basketball. The 2.8 is better in low light but is the depth of field too shallow to use with movement such as soccer or plays so you end up shooting at a higher aperture?  I have a 5d mark 3 so can always increase the iso.  I love the effect of a 2.8 but is it practical to shoot sports wide open?   Also would I miss the 200-300 range for soccer and basketball? I'm a novice so your advice would be great. Thanks

[neuroanatomist]

The 28-300L is convenient for travel.  If you mean the MkII versions of the 24-70 and the 70-200, the IQ will be much better.  Yes, you can shoot them wide open.  I suspect you'd be fine cropping the 70-200 II images vs. 300mm, or you could add a 1.4xIII down the line for a 280mm f/4 lens that's still a stop faster than the 28-300 at 300mm.

[Harv]

The 28-300L is convenient for travel.  If you mean the MkII versions of the 24-70 and the 70-200, the IQ will be much better.  Yes, you can shoot them wide open.  I suspect you'd be fine cropping the 70-200 II images vs. 300mm, or you could add a 1.4xIII down the line for a 280mm f/4 lens that's still a stop faster than the 28-300 at 300mm.

+1