All my lenses for one big one.

Hello.

I have decided to trade all my lenses except for 1 and get a super-telephoto.

The problem I have is, I want the 200 f2 as it's about as sexy as it gets but I also want the 300 2.8.
As they will both suit my needs and, there is little difference cost or weight, I'm left with the flip of a coin to decide.

So, if you had to choose, which would you go for? 200 f2 or 300 2.8?

What do you shoot that needs one of these lenses ?

I havent shot with a 200f2 - but the 300f2.8 is a great lens.

Which lens are you keeping ?
If its a 70-200 i would get the 300
If its a 24-70ish - i would get the 200 and a 1.4x (which conveniently gets you to 320 f2.8, with a slight loss of AF speed and IQ)

Echo63 wrote in post #18061138
What do you shoot that needs one of these lenses ?

I havent shot with a 200f2 - but the 300f2.8 is a great lens.

Which lens are you keeping ?
If its a 70-200 i would get the 300
If its a 24-70ish - i would get the 200 and a 1.4x (which conveniently gets you to 320 f2.8, with a slight loss of AF speed and IQ)

I'm keeping an 85mm 1.2 mk2 and my 1.4X extender mk3.

My second most used lens is a 70-200 2.8 mk2 which I use almost exclusively at 200mm.

I'm getting rid of, 16-35 f4, 100 2.8 macro, 24-70 2.8 mk2, 70-200 2.8 mk2 and a 100-400 mk2.

tough one. get the 200L and a 2x iii, best of all worlds as you're covered from 200 up to 600 f4 that way. oh, and let us know how you got on...

Once again, what do you shoot?

I wouldn't sell those lenses to buy a single lens unless you have another system for other photos. (Phone maybe?)

If you already have the 70-200 2.8 mk2, is getting the 200mm f/2 really going to buy you that much? I guess it is a full stop faster but it seems that getting the 100-400 mkII gets you the reach for a lot less $$.

I shoot people, sports events and a bit of wildlife and the odd landscape.

I think the main reason I'm drawn to the super fast tele lenses is the background blur.
The zooms do a modest job but can't hold a candle to my 85mm.

I like the thought of the extra reach of the 300 but flip flop between that and the 200 constantly.

I have two cameras, a 6D and a 7D2 plus I'm keeping my 1.4 extender so I see a long prime replacing all but the wide angles.

i'm the same as you and shoot sport and people and look for the same subject isolation in my pics. i currently use an old non i.s. 300L that will eventually die, which will be replaced by a 200L and used with my 1.4x and 2.0x tcons. this will be the best and most cost effective solution with a wide enough aperture to still shoot in u.k. winters. a few years ago i rented an old 200 f1.8 and used it with both tcons on a 1d mkiii and got comparible results to my naked 300L

bildeb0rg wrote in post #18061223
i'm the same as you and shoot sport and people and look for the same subject isolation in my pics. i currently use an old non i.s. 300L that will eventually die, which will be replaced by a 200L and used with my 1.4x and 2.0x tcons. this will be the best and most cost effective solution with a wide enough aperture to still shoot in u.k. winters. a few years ago i rented an old 200 f1.8 and used it with both tcons on a 1d mkiii and got comparible results to my naked 300L

Light in the uk can be dull at times.

Having thought about your comments I'm swaying towards the 200. Whilst not a small lens it is markedly shorter the the 300. I also looked at MTF curves with the 1.4 t/con and the centre image quality appears to still be high enough.

I own both the 200L f/2 and 300L f/2.8...I have owned both lenses for over 4 years. If you check the lens reviews I wrote the review. I know these lenses so very well.

In answer to your question which one would you choose? that's an easy decision to make....It will be the 200L for the reasons I've listed in my review. It truly is a wonderful lens. I use mine with 1ds3 (FF) & 1d4 (crop) bodies with 1.4x TC III and 2x TC III. I would say the 200L with 1.4TC is still faster and more sharper than the 300L f/2.8. I am fortunate to own and to of owned some great glass and I would say truthfully that it is the best lens I have ever used. Even at 400mm with the 2xTC it is better than my mk1 400mm f/4 DO.

bildeb0rg wrote in post #18061168
tough one. get the 200L and a 2x iii, best of all worlds as you're covered from 200 up to 600 f4 that way. oh, and let us know how you got on...

you mean 400 at f4 (560mm at f5.6, with 200f2, 1.4 and 2x converters together)

Echo63 wrote in post #18061251
you mean 400 at f4 (560mm at f5.6, with 200f2, 1.4 and 2x converters together)

Never tried using converters together, AF will be just tooooo Slooooww

As much as I liked my 300, I can't imagine it being my only lens.

If you shoot to create art, I guess you could concentrate on one lens, If you want to document life's events you would be better off with more options, IMO.

Echo63 wrote in post #18061251
you mean 400 at f4 (560mm at f5.6, with 200f2, 1.4 and 2x converters together)

i meant covered from 200mm on his 6D up to just over 600mm on his 7D mkii with a 2.0x attached. and i'm referring to equivelant angle of view, i know a 200mm is still a 200mm whichever body he uses.