Image quality alone: 300/2.8 or 200/2

[Fouad]

Bryan's fine description of these two lenses leaves me not sure as to which of these two may have the better image quality, even if by a small margin.


NO other considerations, just IQ.


Given good light, cooperative subject within easy reach of the focal length of each.


Which would it be?

[ThomasJ]

Well, Bryan provides excellent ISO chart crops. Why not take the time to actually look at them yourself and share your thoughts?


Judging by my quick glance at the chart at various apertures, both are top notch. I mean it - top notch. I couldn't find a difference. I doubt many here are qualified enough to read ISO charts well enough to actually interpret the results (this includes me).


The 200mm is known to have great bokeh. I can't comment on the 300mm - though I doubt it's a bad performer. The example shots look great to me.


The 200mm seems to have ever-so-slightly more vignetting wide-open. Keep in mind it's an entire f-stop faster though! I doubt it's an issue AT ALL. At the same aperture settings, the 200mm is slightly slightly slightly minimally less vignetting that the 300mm. No biggie to me.


Assuming you have the $$$ to shell out, I would make my choice based on the question of:

.) Do you need the extra f-stop advantage of the 200mm f/2?


.) Or do you need the extra reach of the 300mm?


.) IS is newer on the 200mm f/2



I don't think the differences are noticeable. And if, they reach pixel-peeper level...

[Daniel Browning]

Bryan's fine description of these two lenses leaves me not sure as to which of these two may have the better image quality, even if by a small margin.

That's easy. 300mm f/2.8. The ultimate test of any lens is astrophotography. Lenses like the 200mm f/2 which seem pretty sharp for daytime use begin to reveal serious flaws when they try to focus a single star into a point. Here one such review of the 200mm f/2 (scroll down):


http://www.welsh-house.net/andy/review200f2.html


The 300mm f/2.8 does a bit better. But as others said, the difference is so small for daytime photography that no one (in practice) will be able to tell the difference.

[Jon Ruyle]

He says the 300 f/2.8 does better, but I didnt see if he meant wide open or at the same f/number.


I wouldn't have expected the 200mm to do well wide open.


For astro, I think it makes sense to compare images of the same angular size, or the shorter lens has an advantage (though that isn't how we usually compare lenses... looking at iso crops the usual way, the 200mm looks ever so slightly sharper to me)


Anyhow, the 200mm gets pretty much the same sharpness at f/2 as the 300mm does at f/2.8. I know this wasn't what the op's question was about, but I find the 200 to be the more impressive lens for this reason.

[Daniel Browning]

He says the 300 f/2.8 does better, but I didnt see if he meant wide open or at the same f/number.

I think he meant wide open (f/2 vs f/2.8).

I wouldn't have expected the 200mm to do well wide open. For astro, I think it makes sense to compare images of the same angular size, or the shorter lens has an advantage

Agreed. My idea was to take the astro measurements (where you can't get physically closer) and apply them to the OP's question (where you can get physically closer) to conclude that it's sharper.

Anyhow, the 200mm gets pretty much the same sharpness at f/2 as the 300mm does at f/2.8. I know this wasn't what the op's question was about, but I find the 200 to be the more impressive lens for this reason.

Agreed.

[Fouad]

I have the passion and the will and I am listening and learning from all of you.


I love what I do for a living, treating sick people, but I come alive when I have a camera in my hands.


Thank you all !!

[Fast Glass]

So I guess you are not buying any of these lenses are you?