200/2.8 vs 70-300g?

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...

Originally posted by gillbod 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.