Elijah Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
ariot wrote:
Hello,
I'm now confused and I found this thread and registered to ask for input.
I shot for a long time (military) using film. I worked the digital transition and used whatever gear my unit had, and I never bothered to move to digital for myself. (I was too busy really)
I moved to digital a few years ago, using D90 and legacy lenses. I floated to a few other brands too.
I now have 810s and a D500 with the basic Gs and the high-value 200-500 5.6.
I always wanted a 300 f2.8, back in the day I shot sports and did some side work with the old 300 f4D.
Now that I'm able to actually buy the 300 f2.8 VRII, I happened across the 200 f2.
Similar price. Similar weight. OK. Less reach. OK. TCs work like gangbusters (I'm not selling any of my wildlife goofing around).
So any reason why I should still want a 300 f2.8 vrII?
I can get to 300 mm or 400mm on the 810 with TCs.
I can get further on the D500 with the TCs
I am priced out of the higher end super telephotos for at least a good long while. (I assume every want-to-bee birder or nature duffer 'tog wants a 600 F4 with FL magic. Right?)
I just need someone to flat out explain how a 300 f2.8 has the edge, knowing I have the D500 cropper and the 810s.
I also do portriats for work, and the kicker is I often use my gear rather than office gear. To me that seals it for the 200, if I ever need some real pop for work.
Thanks for any replies I may get. Peace....Show more →
You got everything pretty much covered yourself;
1) D810's have enough pixels to crop, even if you don't use TC's.
2) If you DO use a TC, you will STILL get an f/2.8 aperture, though at 280mm, not 300mm (super marginal difference)
3) You don't have to back up so much with a 200mm when shooting portraits, as opposed to a 300mm.
4) You will have a faster lens in general (f/2.0) when you need it, as opposed to a limited f/2.8
Ask Corey, He actually sold his 300 for a 200 recently (not 100% about this though)
Anyway, here's my contribution from this weekend.
|