200/2.8 vs 70-300g?

gillbod wrote: with regards to portraiture and candids, having the 70-300g popping out feels a bit odd, and makes people uncomfortable. i'd be happier using the 200mm, which doesn't scare my subjects. i even find that my tamron 90/2.8 makes people uncomfortable, just from the extension while focusing. but it's not entirely about size, it just seems more suitable for me on other areas: i rarely need the long end of my 70-300g, unless i am doing very occasional birding and wildlife, so that 200-300 range just doesn't get used for me in normal circumstances. even when i do need it, i think strapping a 2x teleconverter to the 200 and stopping down one stop gets me better results than my 70-300g. but then there's the focusing speed. my 70-300g is not very slow, but i don't have an action lens, and there are times where i wish i did. birds in flight keeper rate could be higher. i'd like to shoot more action, and the 70-300g doesn't cut it, either focusing speed, or aperture wise. and the background isolation. this this is about 2 stops faster than the 70-300g at 200mm, and at no penalty with regards to size. and it's solid metal, as opposed to sony's plastics. i often don't use a camera bag, so it's nice to know the lens has a metal shell. i understand why the 70-300g has its advantages. to me, the advantages are purely in the versatility in zoom. i'm willing to sacrifice this, because the 200mm seems better at everything else...

OK, thanks for the reply. That makes sense, and as mentioned it's good for traveling too! I'm sure you'll enjoy using it.

with regards to portraiture and candids, having the 70-300g popping out feels a bit odd, and makes people uncomfortable. i'd be happier using the 200mm, which doesn't scare my subjects. i even find that my tamron 90/2.8 makes people uncomfortable, just from the extension while focusing.

but it's not entirely about size, it just seems more suitable for me on other areas:

i rarely need the long end of my 70-300g, unless i am doing very occasional birding and wildlife, so that 200-300 range just doesn't get used for me in normal circumstances. even when i do need it, i think strapping a 2x teleconverter to the 200 and stopping down one stop gets me better results than my 70-300g.

but then there's the focusing speed. my 70-300g is not very slow, but i don't have an action lens, and there are times where i wish i did. birds in flight keeper rate could be higher. i'd like to shoot more action, and the 70-300g doesn't cut it, either focusing speed, or aperture wise.

and the background isolation. this this is about 2 stops faster than the 70-300g at 200mm, and at no penalty with regards to size.

and it's solid metal, as opposed to sony's plastics. i often don't use a camera bag, so it's nice to know the lens has a metal shell.

i understand why the 70-300g has its advantages. to me, the advantages are purely in the versatility in zoom. i'm willing to sacrifice this, because the 200mm seems better at everything else...

In a longer sort of way, I'm sometimes crossed between my Minolta 300/4 w/1.4x TC and 70-400mm. I don't do wildlife per se, but like to shoot birds. Since more than 420mm is almost always needed, I go with the minolta combo because it's easier to handle, quick and has good IQ. The 70-400 does have it's place, though (like airshows). So I'll keep both.

You truly can't go wrong with either, so it's a matter of preference. The single, only reason I can let go of my 200/2.8 without too many tears (it's listed on dyxum) is that I have a 100/2 that takes care of my creamy bokeh requirements. And I don't use a hood on any of my lenses so the big yogurt container hood on the 70-300 isn't a problem for me. Indeed the 200/2.8 is a fixed length, and it is better balanced than the zoom in terms of weight distribution on the camera. And the zoom, has, well, a zoom capability.

I advocate that the serious 'generalist' photographer will want both a versatile zoom of some kind but also a fast prime. But at what focal lengths is totally wide open. I think I've found the right balance for my requirements. And I found the 200, 100 and 70-300 one too many, so the 200 is going to find some nice person to enjoy it. Sniff... I'm going to be ok. Really. It's just a lens. Right?

it's not the weight of the 70-300g, but the lens gets very long at 300mm with attached hood. i don't mind weight, i mind size. the minolta seems to hit a nice compromise in size for me.

I just replaced my 70-300G with the 70-400G. The only way i might be happier is with the new 500f4

Ronnie

Though I both have the 100-300 APO and the 200G, I've been playing ith the idea to buy a 70-300G. What put me off, is the size and speed. The 70-300G is a very good lens but needs a
lot of light to shine. It is not really small, partly due to the hood. 100-300 APO is small and flexible. 200G also performs in difficult situations and is a good combination with an 1.4 converter.