Do I Just Need to Suck it up With the 300 2.8 II?

[Cory]

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.

 

[R1-7D]

 

[Halfrack]

What body are you working with? What other glass are you working with?

I know it sucks to think about, but really, a f2.8 is only 1 stop brighter, and we're getting much better ISO performance with the latest bodies.

The 300/2.8 is a great lens, but do you actually need the weight and size, especially if you're moving about a crowd? You can't leave it somewhere, so you're carrying it everywhere. Even the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is huge, and not something to carry all day/night . The 70-200 mk2 with the 1.4x mk3 adapter shooting f/4 and a current body is more likely to fulfill all your needs. Even a used 1dx for the high ISO performance would be a better investment IMHO.

 

[Cory]

A 6D. My former set-up was a 70D and 200 2.8. I wonder if a 6D and 300 4.0 would be very similar in the quality of pics (which were remarkable with the previous combo).

 

[pwp]

Sounds like the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 might be worth a look for you. Check the weight though. It's a monopod job unless you're Mr Muscles.

-pw

 

[PavelR]

Sounds like the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 might be worth a look for you. Check the weight though. It's a monopod job unless you're Mr Muscles.

-pw

+1000

 

[edoorn]

I've had the 300 2.8 II and it is an amazing lens. Just saying

 

[chrysoberyl]

Why not buy the version I of this lens? A very good one can be had for $3K.

 

[hendrik-sg]

I would no longer buy a version 1, except for very cheap, not for 3k$. Be aware that the 400 2.8 i IS is out of Support already, so the 300 2.8 i IS can loose support any day.

The old IS system is for 2 stops help only. Yes i know, IS does not help for action stopping, but for everything else it does. I replaced my 300 by a 100-400 ii and it's better in low light, it's IS is just fantastic. on a 5d3 this one can take the 1.4iii really well, with better results than the 300 with 2x (except beeing f8 vs f5.6)

I clould use a loaned 400 2.8ii, which is just a fantastic lens. Assuming that the 300 ii is at least as good, this is a real upgrade to the zoom, the old 300 is not (expet again for action stopping and bokeh)

With some patience, you may find a used version ii, so i really recommend to save for this one, or get a 100-400 ii

 

[axtstern]

Well some advice from an idiot that likes to buy heavy and expensive glass...

If the Price of the 300 IS II is a burden than don't do it.
Once you have spent the money you will learn that the lens itself is another burden.
I had my fast, faster, fastest Phase and it generated a mountain of glass which I rarely use.
The only heavy White I use regularily is a non IS 400mm 2.8
If it is 2.8 or faster and 300mm or longer than I do no longer bother with IS as my will to hand hold it diminishes towards zero. So with a sturdy tripod, a dedicated heavy duty head and a few Kilo of tin and glass mounted on it I'm as agile and mobile as an AA gun in a digged in Position.

I own the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Version one since my children have reached an Age that I can't hang it on the Baby Buggy it was never used.

The solution that worked for me was to buy a cheap used Sigma 100-300 4.0 and to accept the mediochre IQ or if a zoom was not required to use the 300 L 4.0.

As others here have said... a Camera with state of the art low light capabilities is the better way to go here. And if you want to complement your 135L wit a lens check the 300 L 4.0. It is lightweight and I love the build i lens hood.

 

[chrysoberyl]

With some patience, you may find a used version ii, so i really recommend to save for this one, or get a 100-400 ii

Thank you for your information. Yes, the loss of support is concerning. But for me, paying US$5K for a used 300 II is not acceptable. The 100-400 II is uninteresting because it is slow, will need frequent cleaning and frankly, not especially sharp. I’ll continue with my 70-200 II until a viable option enters the market.

Thanks again.

 

[PCM-madison]

I also shoot many running events (but not the music events). I have both the 135mm F2 L and the 300 F2.8 L IS ii. I do love my 300, but I mainly use it for wildlife. For the running events, I almost always use the 135.

 

[Hector1970]

For sport I alternatively use a 70-200 II or a 100-400mm II or 300 F2.8 II on a 7D2 (which I'm not a fan of 7D2 that is).
The 300mm is the least flexible but it takes the best photographs.
It's really sharp and renders beautiful photographs.
The 100-400 is a good lens, the 70-200 is even better but the 300mm is just on a different level.
If you can afford it get it (its'a luxury because it is big and not really hand holdable for a normal person for any extended period of time)

 

[Halfrack]

A 6D. My former set-up was a 70D and 200 2.8. I wonder if a 6D and 300 4.0 would be very similar in the quality of pics (which were remarkable with the previous combo).

The 300/4 is a great lens, but doesn't offer the flexibility of a zoom, plus it's design & IS is much older than the 70-200 mkII.

What other lenses are you shooting with? The 135L will take both teleconverters really well, and give you some flexibility with minimal investment.

You haven't said what limiting factor you're hitting. Do you need:
- longer lenses (less cropping of an image)
- larger files (for client deliverables)
- better ISO performance (need higher ISOs)

 

[Cory]

You haven't said what limiting factor you're hitting. Do you need:
- longer lenses (less cropping of an image)
- larger files (for client deliverables)
- better ISO performance (need higher ISOs)

Thanks. I need a longer lens (that offers similar quality to the 135) so I can remain unseen by runners. The shot is often ruined when they seem me.
Some of my favorites, if you like, are at -
https://runningphotography.com/gallery
I wonder if the 300 4.0 IS is "it" or if maybe an 80D/200 2.8 II is a good answer.

 

[peterzuehlke]

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.

 

[JMZawodny]

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.

 

[applecider]

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.

 

[AlanF]

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!

 

[unfocused]

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...