300mm F2.8 vs. 200 F1.8 + Extenders

I have finally saved enough money to purchase a low end 300mm f2.8 non IS lens or a 200mm F1.8 lens and I am torn. Everything I have read says both are phenomenal lenses. I find the ability to shoot at f1.8 intriguing and have heard the 200mm has excellent sharpness even with the tele extenders both 1.4 and 2x. So would it be better to get the 200mm since I do shoot a lot in gyms (basketball, dance, gymnastics) or get the 300mm for football, soccer, baseball, lacrosse. I am not considering any image stabilized lens.

It just depends on which focal length you want to use more. If you don't plan to use a focal length longer than 300 (and don't mind using the extender... iq will be hurt no question), maybe the 200 is a better choice since it gives you 200 and 280, while the 300 gives you 300 and 420.


On the other hand, I might be just saying that because I madly covet the 200 :)

I checked canon's website and do not see a 200 f1.8??

They don't make it any more.

The 200 f1.8 was discontinued in 2003 and is available used.

Check Bryan's review (you have to go to the page of primes, then you'll find it at the bottom in the "discontinued" section). Amongst other things, it seems that the 200/1.8 is very front-heavy and is difficult to use. The tripod foot is also quite different than the other super-teles, and gets in the way with the hood (I think). Also, Bryan's review doesn't indicate that the 200/1.8 is "amazing" with either teleconverter - that'd be the 200/2IS.


Why not the 300/2.8 and a 200/2.8? Or keep saving and pick up a 200/2?

I second Jon's advice. You have to choose between amazing 200mm shots and less-than-amazing 280mm shots, or amazing 300mm shots and no 200mm at all.

I must be blind because I do not see a primes page much less a discontinued section.


Can you point a dummy in the right direction?

canon lens review section is the primes section, discontinued is all the way down on the bottom

I found it. It is canon lens reviews. It does not say peimes.


thanks

what's "a low end 300mm f2.8 non IS lens'?

While I absolutely respect Bryan's opinion and am addicted to his comparisons and reviews, there are other opinions out there. I am including link to Sports Shooter and Fred Miranda regarding the 200 f1.8. I think it's kinda like comparing a 1996 Ferrari vs. a 2007 ferrari. Neither one sucks.


http://www.sportsshooter.com/gear_profile.html?id=83