Gear choice : Canon EF 200mm f/2.0 L IS vs Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II

[Tabazan]

Hello,

I'm thinking of getting a 200 / 300 prime for equine jump photography (indoor) - I now use the 70-200 f2.8 IS II -

Apart from the range (both can make it, and even if it duplicates the 70-200, 200 it's no problem) and bokeh (F2 is sweeter), is there a huge image quality difference between them ?

Thanks !

[neuroanatomist]

Judging by Bryan's ISO 12233 crops, I'd say no meaningful difference in IQ. So...it seems to come down to whether you'd benefit more from the extra stop of light or the extra 100mm.

[HDNitehawk]

In Bryan's review of the 200mm it compared favorably to the old version of the 300mm. How the 200mm compares with the new 300mm II is a little tougher to figure out since the 300mm is so new. There might be slight improvement with the new 300mm.

Your question though was there a huge difference in IQ. The answer is going to be no. All three lenses hold the top three or four spots in IQ. Any difference is going to be minor not huge.

I would think the 300mm would be a little long for the type of work you are talking about. You have first hand experience and know if it is right or not. IMO just pick the lens that is the best focal length, any other issue doesn't matter with these lenses.

[Don Burkett]

So...it seems to come down to whether you'd benefit more from the extra stop of light or the extra 100mm.

I think that really hits it on the head. If you have a stop of light to give and want the extra reach the 300mm f/4 is cheaper on the pocket book and in my opinion similar IQ to your selections.

[Tabazan]

Thanks to all,

It's clear that the 200 F2, 300 F 2.8 (I or II) or 400 F 2.8 (I or II) play in the "stunning" kind of lenses.

In term of prime, and knowing it's better to be shorter than longer (crop vs out of frame), I think the choice will be 200.