200mm f/2 vs 300mm f/2.8

I am primarily going to shoot sports (both indoors and outdoors -- football, gymnastics, etc...) and probably some portraiture and events and have trouble choosing between a 200mm f/2 and a 300mm f/2.8.

If you were in my position (shooting FF and already have access to a 400mm f/2.8), what would you guys choose?

200

Yup... 200 if you got the $$$$,,,135 is a close 2nd

200 may be a bit long indpors

umphotography wrote in post #16283387
200 may be a bit long indpors

Thanks for your comments. I do have a 24-70 and a 70-200 for the wider indoor shots.

200+1.4 tc= 3002.8

I always find a way to use my 300 indoors, it can never be too tight for expressions or details. If you're shooting portraiture mainly, then I would go for the 200. Anything else and the 300 is king.

Staszek wrote in post #16283937
I always find a way to use my 300 indoors, it can never be too tight for expressions or details. If you're shooting portraiture mainly, then I would go for the 200. Anything else and the 300 is king.

I am thinking that I could stand a bit further back and use the 400 for that though. I am leaning towards the 200 for more flexibility since it gives me f/2.

frankchn wrote in post #16284009
I am thinking that I could stand a bit further back and use the 400 for that though. I am leaning towards the 200 for more flexibility since it gives me f/2.

The 300 f/2.8 is 10 million times more versatile than the 400 f/2.8. Go with whatever your heart wants most.

I would choose 200 over 300 any day and I have both. 200 is just a "special" lens and 1 full stop faster than the other one which makes a significant difference (6400 vs 12800 or 12800 vs 25600 ISO). There is also way too much compression with 300 for it to be a good portrait lens (or let's just as just as good as the 200). 200, to me, is "the" head/shoulder portrait lens. It's bokeh is also unbelievably good, I would say the best lens in Canon's line up for portraits.

300 is just a "reach" lens and mostly used for birding or air shows (with a 2x extender), nothing more than that. I always put the 200 on whenever I feel creative and I want a magical look whereas 300 is a "tool" that gets the job done.

Also, both lenses take 2x III very well. That being said, as with all lenses, they need to be stopped down. 200 has a big advantage there because its a full stop faster. When you stop it down to F5.6, it's already sharper than 300. And as the aperture gets smaller, the light makes even more difference.

I hope that clears it.

for those that have the 200,,,,,,how slow can you go with the shutter to hand hold. Im very steady. But a 135L, i dont dare go below 1/125. The 85L, i can get it down to 1/100

and a 1.4 on the 200 puts it at 280MM....Not 300mm@ F/2.8.....300 will be sharoer wide open @ 300mm when a TC is not involved. I saw that someplace here on POTN a few years ago.

umphotography wrote in post #16284374
for those that have the 200,,,,,,how slow can you go with the shutter to hand hold. Im very steady. But a 135L, i dont dare go below 1/125. The 85L, i can get it down to 1/100

and a 1.4 on the 200 puts it at 280MM....Not 300mm@ F/2.8.....300 will be sharoer wide open @ 300mm when a TC is not involved. I saw that someplace here on POTN a few years ago.

I can hand hold easily 1/15. Anything below that is hit or miss.

Any lens with TC will be softer than any lens without one, that's a given. I also would never buy a 1.4 TC for 200mm lens, the 80mm it adds is insignificant. There is not that much difference between 200 and 300, not as much as the difference between 135 and 200.

Most people who buy 300 buy it because they can make it a 600mm lens which can be hand hold all day long. I wouldn't buy 300 to use it at 300 all the time, 200 does the job just fine there.

Thanks for the 411 on the 200. Ive been tempted many times. But very happy with my sigma 120-300. I use it at every wedding. awesome inside a church.

frankchn wrote in post #16283198
...If you were in my position (shooting FF and already have access to a 400mm f/2.8), what would you guys choose?

Then 200 for sure. You will have the outdoor sports covered with the 400.

umphotography wrote in post #16284418
Thanks for the 411 on the 200. Ive been tempted many times. But very happy with my sigma 120-300. I use it at every wedding. awesome inside a church.

None of these big whites are meant for wedding. So something like 70-200 or 120-300 is a way to go. I have my 70-200 as well along with 200 and 300 prime and they all have their specialties.

That being said, the 200 is such a sharp lens, its probably my only lens that with no PP sharpness, can still produce sharper images than my 70-200@200.

Especially around 4.0 for those very tight headshots, its just unmatched. I wish Canon could match that distortion free sharpness with one of other primes like 35L or 50L or 85L (well 85 is sort of razor sharp too). It would be great if they made the expensive versions of those lenses that are sharp corner to corner with absolutely no faults.