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...