Canon 300/2.8L IS or 200/2L IS......?????

[Fouad]

[*-)]I am having a great deal of trouble deciding between these two awesome lenses.


Both are essentially similar purpose ; both cost north of 4.5k although the 300 is somewhat less expensive; both have IS; both are equally heavy; both have amazing image quality; The 200 is relatively faster but the 300 has greater reach and is no slouch;


The 200 is better for low light but the 300 is not bad either.


Both receive A+ reviews from enthusiastic users.


Currently I have the ff lenses and perhaps this should help determine what I should add.


70-200/2.8L IS; 24-105/4L IS; Macro 100/2.8L IS


I am using the 5DMII body.


I will be using the lens for birds, flowers, landscape, non formal portraits, zoo, park, etc.


I know the 70-200/2.8 is similar in the focal length covered to the 200/2 , but the image quality of the 300/2 and the 200/2 is mind boggling.


Anyone with any input please; if you have used either or preferably both, your insight would be greatly appreciated by myself and I am sure others who find themselves in a similar situation.


Also, any input as to who may have a US warranty product with the real Canon lens case, would be greatly appreciated as well. Most of the vendors seem to have a replacement lens case and their own one year warranty instead of the Canon warranty.


TIA.

[Usjwo]

<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 7pt;"]In my opinion 200mm for bird is a little to short. As you say, you have 70-200 already, there isn't sense to buy 200mm. I recommend you 300mm, f-stop 2.0 is better but 2.8 is also very good,in most of caseshould be enough (especially with IS)<o></o>

[EdN]

If you want to shoot birds, even 300 mm is on the short side. I would definitely buy a 1.4x if you're going 300. Even longer like 400 or 500 is not wasted on birds but other than a zoo, you won't be able to use the long lenses on your other interests. Also, big means a lot heavier and more conspicuous when you're out and about.

[Daniel Browning]

I will be using the lens for birds, flowers, landscape, non formal portraits, zoo, park, etc.

• birds, zoo, park: 300mm f/2.8
• flowers, landscape, portraits, etc.: 200mm f/2

Now all you need to do is decide which one is more important to you. (FWIW, you'll need at least 2X TC to do birding with the 300mm f/2.8.)

[mattsartin]

[/quote

• flowers, landscape, portraits, etc.: 200mm f/2

the 300mm f/2.8 takes fantastic portrait shots the working distance is just a little long, and its gets heavy to handhold after a bit

[Vince]

I've got same question before 300 f2.8 or 200 f2? after all I bought 300mm f2.8, because I think 200mm really not long enough and I already own 70-200 f2.8 &amp; f4 IS USM~

[JJphoto]

both cost north of 4.5k although the 300 is somewhat less expensive

check bryan's link here, you can still get the 300mm 2.8 for $4120, while 200mm 2.0 selling for more than $5000. I don't know if it is enough for you to choose the 300mm 2.8? BTW, will Canon offer $500 rebate for 200mm 2.0 again?

I am using the 5DMII body.

for FF body, 200mm may be a little short for birds?

Most of the vendors seem to have a replacement lens case and their own one year warranty instead of the Canon warranty.

any link?