Image quality alone: 300/2.8 or 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.