Which is more fun Sports or Portraits?

[TonyUSA]

Edit: Which is more fun Sports or outdoor Portraits?

Making a decision on the lens, Canon 300 f/2.8 or Canon 200mm f/2.

 

[Frank F.]

If you like sports shoot sports.
If you like people, shoot people.

Both lenses are very bulky. While the 2.8/300 is great for sports, at the price point more for people who do it for a living, the 2/200 is too bulky for portraits and I would rather recommend one of the great selection of 85mm lenses.

 

[Derrel]

I've owned both in Nikon brand...the 300mm f/2.8 AF-S Mark II from around the 1996 era I guess it was (the light-weight, magnesium barreled model famous for its 7 foot MFD), and the 200mm f/2 AF-S VR-G from around 2004. Both were big glass lenses. The 200 f/2 was very short and stubby and front-heavy due to short length. Perhaps the most-bautiful bokeh lens ever made by any maker, but a bear to carry and shoot. The advantage of the 200/2 has now been realized on Nikons that offer an in-camera 12- or 14- bit RAW image using "in-camera crop mode", thus conerting the 200 into a narrower-angle lens, with extraordinary optics. On say D800 or 810, FX is 36-MP, but the crop-mode is a 15.8 MP APS-C capture....VERY handy.

I think eiher of these lenses might be a mistake purchase at your stage of photographic development. But...the 300/2.8 is useful, easier to carry than a 200mm f/2 lens, due to balance isues inherent in such a massive glass lens as a 200 f/2. The 200/2 could be mnade "longer" via converter, or in-camera crop. And in-camera crop capture mode DOES maintain that f/2 max aperture.

You really, really need to actually handle both, in a camera store, that has these beasts in-stock. Once you see a Canon 300mm f/4...you'll understand what a carry-able 300 is about. Not 7 pounds.

I sold off both the 300/2.8 and the 200/2 VR this summer.

 

[pixmedic]

depends on who you ask....a portrait photographer, or a sports photographer.
i mean, obviously portraits are the best photographic form...but I suppose theres a chance, however minute, that someone
might prefer something else.

 

[ronlane]

Derrel and Frank both give solid advice here. I would agree that I'm not sure that either of these would be a portrait lens. I just got the Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens a couple of weeks ago and I will agree that it is going to be a great portrait lens. Unless you are shooting a lot of sports I agree that the 300mm f/2.8 is a really big expense and not something that a new person would be prudent in purchasing. That being said, I am looking at getting me one this year for my sports work. But I do shoot sports for one of my local newspapers and I really enjoy it and shoot a lot of different types so I will be using it a lot.

 

[Overread]

I suspect, going by your gear list, what you WANT to buy is the 300mm f2.8 because, again going on your gear list alone; it looks like you've got far more capacity to do sports than anything else (besides possibly landscape at the other end of the scale).

You've almost nothing (save a 50mm you say you don't use much) in the more normal portrait ranges. This suggests to me that either your 70-200mm is your main bread winner there; or that you've not as much interest in portrait photography as sports or other areas.


However it might just be that you feel you do need to expand your gear more into portraits; at which point 24-70mm f2.8; 50mm f1.4; 85mm of varous kinds and 135mm primes might be a better market selection to be looking at for that type of photography. You've already got a great 70-200mm so you've got the 200mm end covered so you'd only be refining what you can do with the 200mm (the 300mm will take a 2*TC and is higher quality so its refining plus giving you potential increased reach over your 100-400mm).



But I'm only guessing YOU have to be the one to sit down and work out your own priorities. Furthermore if portraits are more your thing then a cheaper lens and a set of lights, light modifers and such might be far more prudent an investment.

 

[Frank F.]

Lighting gear is important for formal portaits in the studio and on assignments on customer's premesis. Backgrounds. Light Formers. Heads. I do most of my work with the same continuous lighting I use for my food photos, but many prefer strobes / flash.

 

[runnah]

I have a 300mm 2.8 that sits in it's case the vast majority of the time because it's heavy and a pain to carry around. I only end up using it when I know for sure that it will be worth dragging it along.

 

[Overread]

Even outside some formal lighting modifiers can be important - a flash and a stand or a simple reflector can be essential; though of course as too can be sandbags and such to ensure that even light wind isn't a problem (sometimes assistants or interns are needed too).

I have a 300mm 2.8 that sits in it's case the vast majority of the time because it's heavy and a pain to carry around. I only end up using it when I know for sure that it will be worth dragging it along.

If its canon I can give it a good home and regular exercise!

 

[runnah]

Even outside some formal lighting modifiers can be important - a flash and a stand or a simple reflector can be essential; though of course as too can be sandbags and such to ensure that even light wind isn't a problem (sometimes assistants or interns are needed too).

I have a 300mm 2.8 that sits in it's case the vast majority of the time because it's heavy and a pain to carry around. I only end up using it when I know for sure that it will be worth dragging it along.

If its canon I can give it a good home and regular exercise!

It is, damn near 30 years old but still works fantastic.

 

[ronlane]

I have a 300mm 2.8 that sits in it's case the vast majority of the time because it's heavy and a pain to carry around. I only end up using it when I know for sure that it will be worth dragging it along.

I know for sure that it's worth me dragging it along. (I'll send you the shipping information)

 

[zombiesniper]

To the OP.

You have every lens you need to make this decision.
Sit down and think. What focal length do you shoot the most? Do either of the prospective lenses also cover this length AND will it make an improvement?
Answering this will make your decision easy.

On the other hand are you suggesting you may wish to go in a newer direction? If this is the case, again you have all the lenses you need to try out this new direction. If it in turn seems like you are really enjoying it then see the second question above.

 

[Derrel]

One thing to consider is that the 200mm f/2 lens works VERY well on an APS-C camera body at things like track meets, football games, and so on, and functions as a 320mm f/2.0 focal length equivalent on a 1.6x Canon body. HERE are some actual samples of a 200mm f/2 lens, from a 12 year-old Nikon D2x camera. ISO levels were 200 to 500, to 640, on a sensor that's not that good. The sports shots are mostly full-frame, 12 megapixel D2x camera,down-sized at 200 ppi, 8 inches on the long axis, and sharpened HARD, to be printed on newsprint. That was my paper's basic For Print image processing routine. 200ppi, 8 inches tall or wide, and sharpened HARD, like 2.0 pixel radius, and the blacks set so they would not ink down too much.

Runner: Nikon D2x ISO 640, f/2.5 at 1/750 second, ISO 640 April 2006, FOR NEWSPRINT
********

Close-up portrait for profile on this excellent athlete. Nikon D2x 1/750 f/3.2 ISO 500 200mm VR lens FOR NEWSPRINT. April, 2006.
********

Female distance runner from Oregon City: Uncropped, this is the issue at 20 feet with a 200mm lens...you MUST choose what to include. This is a full-frame capture. 1/1250 f/2.5 ISO 500, 200mm VR lens, Nikon D2x, April 2006. FOR NEWSPRINT
**********

September, 2006, Nikon D2x 12.2 MP camera 1/250 sec with 1/8 power fill-in flash, f/2.5 ISO 200, 200VR, Sept 2006 . Web sharpening.

 

[Frank F.]

Phantastic camera work, Derrel!!!

 

[runnah]

I have a 300mm 2.8 that sits in it's case the vast majority of the time because it's heavy and a pain to carry around. I only end up using it when I know for sure that it will be worth dragging it along.

I know for sure that it's worth me dragging it along. (I'll send you the shipping information)

Yeah If I know I am shooting a sports gig I will bring it out but realistically it's only usable with a monopod.