200mm2.0 or 300mm2.8?

[JJphoto]

I'm the lucky guy who has $5000 to spent, I don't really need them, but just want to hold that big white lenses. I'm not interested in wild life or bird, my kids only 2.5 years old and i shoot with my 135mm2.0 a lot and really love it, I want to know what you guys think, which one you will pick and why. or may be I just should not get any of them?I know this kind of sick, but can't help. thanks!

[clemmb]

I know this kind of sick, but can't help. thanks!
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

There was a thread about this sickness a month ago or so. Seems like we all have this sickness but you are the only one with $$ to feed this sickness. Can we come over and play?

[Dallasphotog]

The EF300 f/2.8 is awesome. I don't know anyone who owns the EF200 f/2.0, so I don't have any comparisons. One of the other posters on this forum said it is comparible if not superior to the EF300 in optical quality.


Can't wait to hear from someone who owns both...

[Daniel Browning]

which one you will pick and why

I would definitely get the 200mm if I was in control of the subject distance, such as shooting portraits.

[mattsartin]

never used the 200mm f/2, but as far as sports are concerned, if you like to shoot those, the 300mm 2.8 is PERFECT for baseball and football. lightning fast USM, sharp and fantastic colors. i'm jealous!

[Jon Ruyle]

For pictures of people, I would go with the 200 f/2, no question. You don't need the reach, and f/2 @ 200mm is awesome.


BTW- are you shooting full frame or crop? 300mm f/2.8 on ff is a little like 200mm f/2 on crop,.

[JJphoto]

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.54/_5F00_MG_5F00_5382.jpg[/img]


thanks for all the replies. I think I will more likely go with the 200mm, but something bothers me, like I said I love my 135mm2.0, I saw somebody post some pictures took with the 200mm on another thread a few days ago, and I think the pictures I took with my 135mm2.0 are almost as good as those pictures took with the 200mm.


on the other hand, 300mm gives me more reach I might need later for my kids (sports), but I know this lens has about 10 year history, who knows it might get upgrade soon? besides the IS on 200mm is better than it on the 300mm..?


Oh, I use XSi now, so maybe I should get a better camera first? I heard somebody siad putting these glasses on a crop body is a waist, anyway, still a hard pick......


pictures took using XSi with 135mm2.0(no edit)


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.54/_5F00_MG_5F00_5474.jpg[/img]

[peety3]

thanks for all the replies. I think I will more likely go with the 200mm, but something bothers me, like I said I love my 135mm2.0, I saw somebody post some pictures took with the 200mm on another thread a few days ago, and I think the pictures I took with my 135mm2.0 are almost as good as those pictures took with the 200mm.


on the other hand, 300mm gives me more reach I might need later for my kids (sports), but I know this lens has about 10 year history, who knows it might get upgrade soon? besides the IS on 200mm is better than it on the 300mm..?

Keep in mind the pictures I posted from the 200/2 were on a one-day rental. It's quite possible that what you take with your 135/2 are almost as good, because you know it well...


...except for the night shots I took in Seattle. There's no way you'll be able to make out people inside a 900' structure when handholding a 135mm non-IS night shot at 1/13th.

[JJphoto]

to peety3


yeah, i didn't think about IS too much, cause none of my lenses has IS, thanks.