Whether it be nikon or canon version if I mainly do outdoor swimwear shoots at beach would you opt for the 200 over 300? I was leaning towards 300 in case I needed longer focal length for things other than outdoor portrait type images?
It's a tough choice since they're both great lenses. When I shoot sports I see much more 300mm 2.8's out there and I don't think I've ever seen a 200mm f/2 being used. For portrait shooting though I think the 200mm f/2 would be superb and paired with an 85mm 1.4 you would have one mean kit. The 200mm can also take a 1.4x TC and become almost a 300mm 2.8 too so that's something to consider too.
You can't go wrong with either, but I would buy the lens for what I do most and if that is portraits you just can't beat the 200. I like the 200 with the TC-14 and 17 if you need a little more reach.
Who will you be tomorrow, loser Folks could be helping a real photographer
with genuine questions...not a clown with pipe dream gear lists & swimwear shoots
#1
Today, 05:45 PM
EyeCandyXposure
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 13
300 f/2.8 vs 200 f/2?
Whether it be nikon or canon version if I mainly do outdoor swimwear shoots at beach would you opt for the 200 over 300? I was leaning towards 300 in case I needed longer focal length for things other than outdoor portrait type images?
Thanks all
__________________
CANON
• 1DX
• 85 f/1.2L II, 135 f/2L, 200 f/2L IS
• 600EX
NIKON
• D800E
• 14-24 f/2.8G, 85 f/1.4G, 135 f/2 DC
• SB-910
Folks could be helping a real photographer