I am having a great deal of trouble deciding between these two awesome lenses.
Both are essentially similar purpose ; both cost north of 4.5k although the 300 is somewhat less expensive; both have IS; both are equally heavy; both have amazing image quality; The 200 is relatively faster but the 300 has greater reach and is no slouch;
The 200 is better for low light but the 300 is not bad either.
Both receive A+ reviews from enthusiastic users.
Currently I have the ff lenses and perhaps this should help determine what I should add.
70-200/2.8L IS; 24-105/4L IS; Macro 100/2.8L IS
I am using the 5DMII body.
I will be using the lens for birds, flowers, landscape, non formal portraits, zoo, park, etc.
I know the 70-200/2.8 is similar in the focal length covered to the 200/2 , but the image quality of the 300/2 and the 200/2 is mind boggling.
Anyone with any input please; if you have used either or preferably both, your insight would be greatly appreciated by myself and I am sure others who find themselves in a similar situation.
Also, any input as to who may have a US warranty product with the real Canon lens case, would be greatly appreciated as well. Most of the vendors seem to have a replacement lens case and their own one year warranty instead of the Canon warranty.
TIA.
In my opinion 200mm for bird is a little to short. As you say, you have 70-200 already, there isn't sense to buy 200mm. I recommend you 300mm, f-stop 2.0 is better but 2.8 is also very good, in most of case should be enough (especially with IS)
If you want to shoot birds, even 300 mm is on the short side. I would definitely buy a 1.4x if you're going 300. Even longer like 400 or 500 is not wasted on birds but other than a zoo, you won't be able to use the long lenses on your other interests. Also, big means a lot heavier and more conspicuous when you're out and about.
Fouad:I will be using the lens for birds, flowers, landscape, non formal portraits, zoo, park, etc.
Now all you need to do is decide which one is more important to you. (FWIW, you'll need at least 2X TC to do birding with the 300mm f/2.8.)
Daniel Browning:[/quote flowers, landscape, portraits, etc.: 200mm f/2
the 300mm f/2.8 takes fantastic portrait shots :) the working distance is just a little long, and its gets heavy to handhold after a bit
I've got same question before 300 f2.8 or 200 f2? after all I bought 300mm f2.8, because I think 200mm really not long enough and I already own 70-200 f2.8 & f4 IS USM~
Fouad:both cost north of 4.5k although the 300 is somewhat less expensive
check bryan's link here, you can still get the 300mm 2.8 for $4120, while 200mm 2.0 selling for more than $5000. I don't know if it is enough for you to choose the 300mm 2.8? BTW, will Canon offer $500 rebate for 200mm 2.0 again?
Fouad:I am using the 5DMII body.
for FF body, 200mm may be a little short for birds?
Fouad:Most of the vendors seem to have a replacement lens case and their own one year warranty instead of the Canon warranty.
any link?