June 19, 2018, 07:04:13 AM

Author Topic: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?  (Read 6004 times)

peterzuehlke

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2018, 02:25:53 PM »
shot a lot of events with the 200 2.8, not a bad lens except for the bokeh and lack of IS.  Had a 300mm f/4.0 IS for a short time and liked the IQ a lot but the iris stopped stopping down, and I managed to return it.  I use a 70-200 f/4 IS and feel the IQ is better than the 200 2.8, but of course with a 1.4 TC you are at 5.6, getting slow.  the 70-200 2.8 is almost as good as the f/4 but it is big.  Not easy to save money, but for IQ and price, and weight, I would go 300 f/4 IS, and hope it hangs in there.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2018, 02:25:53 PM »

JMZawodny

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
  • 1Dx2, 7D2 and lots of wonderful glass!
    • JMZawodny Observations
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2018, 02:47:52 PM »
     I do a lot of "running" events, indoor stage/band and outdoor music events, etc.  Trying to figure out which telephoto zoom is the "best", but have extremely high standards having been spoiled by the best primes (with the 135 2.0 my default lens).
     With that in mind do I really need to just somehow make the 300 2.8 IS II happen and call it a day?
     Sometimes you do just have to say "**** you".  Not often, but in rare instances.
     Thanks.

I was in the same situation shooting very similar subject matter.  The 70-200 f/2.8L IS just was not cutting it - just a little too short.  Once I had the 300 2.8 II I had the right framing and the IQ to shoot wide open.  These events frequently occur either at night or under poor indoor lighting.  I hate noisy photos, so giving up a stop was not really an option for me.  I'm very happy I got the 300 2.8 II.  If you are even remotely thinking you could afford one, buy it.  ... and get the 1.4x to go with it.
When you are right you are the teacher, when you are wrong you are the student. A win-win scenario if ever there was one.

applecider

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2018, 03:18:43 PM »
I shoot mostly birds  so my use slightly different.

I find the 300 f 2.8 L is ii  to be easier to handle all day than the 70-200 ii is.  I am not a strong man and in fact have rotator cuff issues which predate lenses.  I find that in addition to the 300 2.8, the 500 f4 ii is is also a hand holdable manageable lens even with a 1.4 converter.  The 400 f2.8 ii is too big with too much inertia for me to track birds with it off tripod.

I’ve never regretted the 300 f2.8, it’s a grand lens that is a joy to use.
AE-1, T90,EOS Elan 7e, EOS-M, 7D, 5D3, 1dx, ef40 2.8

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3555
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2018, 03:44:37 PM »
I shoot mostly birds  so my use slightly different.

I find the 300 f 2.8 L is ii  to be easier to handle all day than the 70-200 ii is.  I am not a strong man and in fact have rotator cuff issues which predate lenses.  I find that in addition to the 300 2.8, the 500 f4 ii is is also a hand holdable manageable lens even with a 1.4 converter.  The 400 f2.8 ii is too big with too much inertia for me to track birds with it off tripod.

I’ve never regretted the 300 f2.8, it’s a grand lens that is a joy to use.

If you can hand hold the 500/4 II then you are relatively strong!
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4149
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2018, 04:48:22 PM »
I guess I'm the contrarian here.

I don't shoot running events, but I do shoot some college track and field and cross country. (Which I guess is sort of the same).

Indoors, I would not trade my 70-200 zoom for a prime lens. One thing about runners is that they are always going to get closer. I prefer to start out at 200mm and then drop down as they approach. It improves my odds. I think I would find a fixed focal length too limiting. And, for indoor track, I think a 300mm fixed focal length would be a little long for my taste. Understand I am talking about people running around a track, which may be different than what you are shooting.

For outdoor events, I prefer the 100-400 II, for the same reasons.

For the price of a 300 f2.8, you can get a 5DIV, a 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 extender and still have some left over to go toward a 100-400 II for outdoor events. If you are in the U.S. and buy refurbished on sale, you can come awfully close to getting all four for the price of the 300 f2.8.

Just my opinion and my use case may be different from yours, but I'm not seeing the need for running events. Now, if you just want the lens...




JMZawodny

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
  • 1Dx2, 7D2 and lots of wonderful glass!
    • JMZawodny Observations
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2018, 05:33:21 PM »
I shoot mostly birds  so my use slightly different.

I find the 300 f 2.8 L is ii  to be easier to handle all day than the 70-200 ii is.  I am not a strong man and in fact have rotator cuff issues which predate lenses.  I find that in addition to the 300 2.8, the 500 f4 ii is is also a hand holdable manageable lens even with a 1.4 converter.  The 400 f2.8 ii is too big with too much inertia for me to track birds with it off tripod.

I’ve never regretted the 300 f2.8, it’s a grand lens that is a joy to use.

If you can hand hold the 500/4 II then you are relatively strong!

I also shoot the 500/4 II handheld with the 1.4x and it is right at the limit of what I'd want to handhold for an entire airshow.  I'm really hoping the 600 DO comes in at or below that weight.  BTW, I do not consider myself strong.
When you are right you are the teacher, when you are wrong you are the student. A win-win scenario if ever there was one.

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3555
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2018, 05:53:10 PM »
Admittedly, the 500/4 II + hood + 1.4xTc at 3.67 kg is the same as the Sigma 120-300mm at 3.67 kg, which I found very tiring to use when testing one. I found the 300/2.8 II +2xTC at 2.88kg OK (and find the 400mm DO II easy), but the extra 790g makes it hard work, especially as the 500 lens is longer.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2018, 05:53:10 PM »

Cory

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
    • Running Photography
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2018, 08:29:30 PM »
Seems like literally everyone raves about the 100-400ll.  For outdoors maybe one just can't go wrong with that?
I guess maybe that makes a ton of sense.
THANKS.
6D, 16-35 4.0 IS, 135 2.0
430EXII, Induro AT113/Sirui K-20x, Sirui T-025x

ethanz

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 572
  • 1DX II
    • my website
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2018, 10:46:39 PM »
Rent the lenses first.
1DX II, 16-35L f/4 IS, 24-70L f/2.8 II, 70-200L f/2.8 IS II, 200-400L f/4 IS w/1.4 EXT
http://ethanzentz.com/

PCM-madison

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2018, 11:59:52 PM »
I agree that the 100-400mm IS ii is a great lens. I own this lens and use it mainly for wildlife. I think the key question is what are your expectations for the photos and the people that will benefit from them (friends/clients). For me, I am an amateur that takes photos of friends and family. With the large aperture lenses like the 135 F2 and 300 F2.8, the images are great, but the shallow depth of field (great for separating athlete from background) means that some shots may miss ideal focus. The wider aperture lenses like the 100-400 will give more wiggle room for focus, but the images that it produces don't "pop" as much for my tastes. Because I take many photos of not very many people, I much prefer the results from the wide aperture lenses like the 135 F2 and 300 F2.8. Here are two examples of a friend I photographed competing in Ironman Wisconsin. Bike is with the 300mm F2.8 L IS ii. Run is with the 135mm F2 L.

jhpeterson

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 224
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2018, 12:09:51 AM »
If you can hand hold the 500/4 II then you are relatively strong!
+1
I don't think I ever hand-held a 300/2.8 until my early 30's. Then, when I switched to the EF system, it became my very first lens. It wasn't until decade later that I regularly began using longer ones. Now, moving on more than 25 years, the 500/4 has become my "go-to" and I can't wait to see what the future brings.
Paraphrasing the lines of an iconic American songwriter, "I may be older now than I was then, not necessarily wiser, but I'm stronger than that now".
1D series bodies (x4), L glass (x9)

Cory

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
    • Running Photography
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2018, 06:40:43 AM »
Here are two examples of a friend I photographed competing in Ironman Wisconsin. Bike is with the 300mm F2.8 L IS ii. Run is with the 135mm F2 L.
That's exactly what I'm saying although these, with the 300 4.0 IS, look pretty good -
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sample-Pictures.aspx?Equipment=111
6D, 16-35 4.0 IS, 135 2.0
430EXII, Induro AT113/Sirui K-20x, Sirui T-025x

Random Orbits

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2044
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2018, 11:02:32 AM »
For my kids' presentations on stage, I use the 70-200 on one camera and the 300 on another.  The 300 f/2.8 IS II is an amazing lens, but I rarely use it alone (unless I'm taking pictures of the moon with a 2x TC).  Outdoors, I'm using the 100-400 II.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2018, 11:02:32 AM »

chrysoberyl

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 847
  • 6D
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2018, 12:22:30 PM »
Rent the lenses first.

I tried that once.  Two weeks later I bought a Milvus 100.  I stopped renting; clearly my willpower is insufficient.

degos

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 36
Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2018, 01:31:46 PM »
I wouldn't advise anyone to buy the 300mm f4 in 2018.  Other than the extra stop it is completely obliterated by the 100-400 II, both in sharpness and IS capability.  The IS on the zoom is so freakily performant that it can more than compensate for the smaller aperture. After all it is 20 years more advanced.

I got rid of my 300mm f4 with a few weeks of buying the zoom.  It was an easy choice.


Along with the 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2 and 400mm f5.6 it is one of the shamefully overpriced antiques in the Canon lineup that just manages to scrape by on account of reputation.

Otherwise for sporting events the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 already mentioned seems worth trying though I haven't done so yet.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 01:45:53 PM by degos »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?
« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2018, 01:31:46 PM »