Hi All
I had been considering buying a 70-200 2.8 recently for taking pictures of the 1 year old grandchild. Given that the Mark III was coming I thought I’d hold off for the new release and then either buy the new upgraded lens, or get a Mark II secondhand at an extra discounted price. The new release information has led me to question what I should do.
Currently I have a 6D Mark II, 24-105 Mark I and 70-300L. I have some other lenses but they aren’t relevant for this purpose.
I am primarily looking for pictures with good subject isolation and background blur, and these will be shot mainly with available light both indoors and outdoors and with the grandchild just doing what she does, not staged stationary portraits. I am also not looking for the ultra short DOF with the eye in focus but the nose and ear blurred. I am also not looking for primes. I’ve tried an 85 1.2 and 200 2.8 and sold both, as well as still having an 85 1.8 but it’s not flexible enough for a fast moving kid.
So my options are:
1. Stick with the existing lenses. 24-105 doesn’t give me as much isolation and blur as I’d like, and the 70-300 drops to 5.6 fairly early in its zoom length, so once I am out to 200 or so I am now pushing iso and possibly not getting as much isolation / blur as I’d like.
2. Buy the 70-200 2.8 Mark II (maybe used) and hopefully save a reasonable amount of cash vs the Mark III for pretty much the same optical performance.
3. Buy the new 70-200 2.8 Mark III - pay full price but get the latest coatings and a new product warranty.
4. Buy the new 70-200 F4 Mark Ii IS. Lose 1 stop vs the 2.8, but save cash, get the latest updates and warranty. But am I going to get the isolation and blur that I want? Up to 105 mm I might as well use by 24-105 at the same aperture, but above that I am spending quite a bit of money to only get 1 stop extra vs my existing 70-300 and is that difference worth spending so much money to get?
I should also mention the I would intend to keep the 70-300L regardless as a travel lens as the 70-200 2.8 is so much heavier and larger, and the extra 100mm over the F4 makes it more flexible. So there would be no selling this lens to offset the cost of a new lens.
So let me know what you think, and I’d especially like to hear from anyone who has previously owned the 70-300L and can give me their experiences.
Thanks in advance.
Rob
I had been considering buying a 70-200 2.8 recently for taking pictures of the 1 year old grandchild. Given that the Mark III was coming I thought I’d hold off for the new release and then either buy the new upgraded lens, or get a Mark II secondhand at an extra discounted price. The new release information has led me to question what I should do.
Currently I have a 6D Mark II, 24-105 Mark I and 70-300L. I have some other lenses but they aren’t relevant for this purpose.
I am primarily looking for pictures with good subject isolation and background blur, and these will be shot mainly with available light both indoors and outdoors and with the grandchild just doing what she does, not staged stationary portraits. I am also not looking for the ultra short DOF with the eye in focus but the nose and ear blurred. I am also not looking for primes. I’ve tried an 85 1.2 and 200 2.8 and sold both, as well as still having an 85 1.8 but it’s not flexible enough for a fast moving kid.
So my options are:
1. Stick with the existing lenses. 24-105 doesn’t give me as much isolation and blur as I’d like, and the 70-300 drops to 5.6 fairly early in its zoom length, so once I am out to 200 or so I am now pushing iso and possibly not getting as much isolation / blur as I’d like.
2. Buy the 70-200 2.8 Mark II (maybe used) and hopefully save a reasonable amount of cash vs the Mark III for pretty much the same optical performance.
3. Buy the new 70-200 2.8 Mark III - pay full price but get the latest coatings and a new product warranty.
4. Buy the new 70-200 F4 Mark Ii IS. Lose 1 stop vs the 2.8, but save cash, get the latest updates and warranty. But am I going to get the isolation and blur that I want? Up to 105 mm I might as well use by 24-105 at the same aperture, but above that I am spending quite a bit of money to only get 1 stop extra vs my existing 70-300 and is that difference worth spending so much money to get?
I should also mention the I would intend to keep the 70-300L regardless as a travel lens as the 70-200 2.8 is so much heavier and larger, and the extra 100mm over the F4 makes it more flexible. So there would be no selling this lens to offset the cost of a new lens.
So let me know what you think, and I’d especially like to hear from anyone who has previously owned the 70-300L and can give me their experiences.
Thanks in advance.
Rob