Image quality alone: 300/2.8 or 200/2

[Fouad]

After reading these and other posts and looking at the ISO crops and the lens comparison tool, even though I have a 70-200/2.8L IS lens already, I am going to add the 200/2 to my small collection.


Looking at the ISO crop comparisons, to me at least, the 200/2 seems very slightly the sharper in comparison with the 300/2.8. Also, the 200 has the latest IS and has slight advantage in lower light situations. Focal length wise, while the 300 has the advantage, as several people pointed out, neither is really suitable for true bird photography. If I decide later to get a true bird lens, I will have to go the route of the really heavy stuff and a tripod and that is not what I am willing to do at this time.


I am very impressed with the very fine quality ofmy 70-200/2.8L IS, but comparing it with the 200/L using the Lens comparison tool, the difference is astounding!! I can only imagine the IQ one can expect from the 300/2.8 and the 200/2.


I guess I am going to get a goodmonopod to be able to use the 5DMII with the 200/2.

[Jon Ruyle]

After reading these and other posts and looking at the ISO crops and the lens comparison tool, even though I have a 70-200/2.8L IS lens already, I am going to add the 200/2 to my small collection.

Good choice

Looking at the ISO crop comparisons, to me at least, the 200/2 seems very slightly the sharper in comparison with the 300/2.8.

I think so too, but then they call me crazy.

Also, the 200 has the latest IS and has slight advantage in lower light situations.

The 200mm is amazingly hand-holdable, able to take a handheld picture in 1/6th the light of the 300. In fact, despite its long focal length, the 200mm f/2 is one of the most hand holdable lenses canon makes (a 135mm f/2 IS would be king of this, if only they made one)

If I decide later to get a true bird lens, I will have to go the route of the really heavy stuff and a tripod and that is not what I am willing to do at this time.

You might consider a slower lighter lens for this, like a 400mm f/5.6. If you think for a moment his isn't a "true bird lens", take a look at what Nate has done with it.

[mattsartin]

The 200mm is amazingly hand-holdable, able to take a handheld picture in 1/6th the light of the 300. In fact, despite its long focal length, the 200mm f/2 is one of the most hand holdable lenses canon makes (a 135mm f/2 IS would be king of this, if only they made one)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

i think a 135mm f/2 IS would be the ultimate portrait photographer's dream, that would be an incredible lens

[mattsartin]

The 200mm is amazingly hand-holdable, able to take a handheld picture in 1/6th the light of the 300. In fact, despite its long focal length, the 200mm f/2 is one of the most hand holdable lenses canon makes (a 135mm f/2 IS would be king of this, if only they made one)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

i think a 135mm f/2 IS would be the ultimate portrait photographer's dream, that would be an incredible lens