200L 2.0 vs 300L is 2.8 II

Need to get a Christmas Gift:
- Which to buy?
- Why?

200L, because a 300 cant do 200 @ f2 but a 200 can do 300 @f2.8 with a convertor

Really depends on what is your "usual subject"
For portraits, 200.
For wildlife, >= 300.

It is true that 200/2 can be 280/2.8 with 1.4x, but it cannot be 600/5.6 with 2x.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18221435
Really depends on what is your "usual subject"
For portraits, 200.
For wildlife, >= 300.

It is true that 200/2 can be 280/2.8 with 1.4x, but it cannot be 600/5.6 with 2x.

Yes you have to stack a 1.4 and 2 to get to 560mm 5.6 but then your really degrading IQ.

I've owned both... not consecutively but I still own the 120-300 and the 200/2. This is where my decision came down to purchasing the 200/2 came from. I have the 1.4xIII and so my 200 dubs as the 200/2 and a 280/2.8 and even w/ the TC it's equal to the 120-300 @ 300 and the canon 300 2.8 IS would be very slightly ahead of the 200/1.4x combo and if you compare to the 300 2.8 IS II then without a doubt the II would win, it's as sharp as the 2002/ is bare. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …p=453&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

You can see there the 1.4x takes a hit on the 200/2 but in the real world you would be very hard to tell the difference. Maybe a slight bump in contrast and sharpness would fix the 200/1.4 combo to match the 300. However any TC combo on the 300 to get you 420 or 600 the 300 would dominate.

So yes it really boils down to your preferred subject. I find myself loving the 300 length but also 200/f2 is extremely valuable for my needs. You gotta really look at what you desire to shoot the most.

I looked at my LR catalog and since moving to FF I have 70k photos. My breakdown is this:

600mm - 700
400mm - 1450
300mm - 6,500
200mm - 10,000
135mm - 3,000
85mm - 10,750
70mm - 4,000
50mm - 5,000
35mm - 5,500
24mm - 4,000
15mm - 1,500

This is covering every single type of glass owned. So it includes my zooms as well. It was a clear picture that 200mm was a preferred length but also was 300. The amount of photos in between 300-280mm was only 1,000 and the amount between 135-200 was even less around 600 and I had around 1,000ea at 70mm and 120mm which was the wide part of both zooms I own but both zooms I only had 250 photos at 135mm. This however off of just the 70-200/120-300/200.2/200.2+1.4x I had 25k photos taken so 35% of my photos were taken with my longer glass.

So I studied my data and realized that moving to primes wouldn't hurt me too bad and so far I'm enjoying it. Sure there is times when I wish I could zoom to a different focal length quickly but for those shots I do get w/ my primes I'm just much happier than what I would get w/ the zooms.

I use both 200 and 300 equally in a nutshell and found the 200 w/ 1.4x provides me both of my needs. My unfortunate situation is going longer requires 2x and that degrades the IQ too much so next year I plan on adding a 400 2.8 IS to my kit. But if you think you would ever need 300+ then the 300 would be the way to go.

I've owned my 200L for over 4 years now. It was not long after I got it I sold my EF 300L f/2.8 IS USM. I often use a 1.4x TC with the 200L and consider it to be better than 300L.... The real beauty of the 200L is shooting it wide open. It is a truly magnificent versatile lens......Would I swap my 4yr old 200L for the new version (2) 300L IS 2.8........easy to answer,...NEVER!

PCousins wrote in post #18221542
I've owned my 200L for over 4 years now. It was not long after I got it I sold my EF 300L f/2.8 IS USM. I often use a 1.4x TC with the 200L and consider it to be better than 300L.... The real beauty of the 200L is shooting it wide open. It is a truly magnificent versatile lens......Would I swap my 4yr old 200L for the new version (2) 300L IS 2.8........easy to answer,...NEVER!

Ya the new 300 IS II is without a doubt better BUT... the 200L and 1.4 is no slouch and they both share similiar size/weight/IS, etc. Mode 3 IS is the only benefit you have on the II.

Again... if you don't need longer than 300 with tc's the 200 is a great option.

Hard to pick, as budget is limited

HKFEVER wrote in post #18221663
Hard to pick, as budget is limited

Over at FM there is a nice minty UB date code 200L for 4500. Both lenses are priced around the same new and used market. I picked mine up used for the average price... saved me alot vs buying new.

HKFEVER wrote in post #18221404
Need to get a Christmas Gift:
- Which to buy?
- Why?

Can you be any more ambiguous?

CheshireCat wrote in post #18221435
Really depends on what is your "usual subject"
For portraits, 200.
For wildlife, >= 300.

It is true that 200/2 can be 280/2.8 with 1.4x, but it cannot be 600/5.6 with 2x.

^^^ I think this pretty much sums it up. Only you know what you plan to use the lens for and whether you would need 200mm or 300mm.

HKFEVER wrote in post #18221663
Hard to pick, as budget is limited

If you don't know whether you need 200mm or 300mm then maybe you shouldn't be spending $5000 on a lens.

If still undecided, renting both lenses for a couple days to see for yourself may be well spent money.

I love both portraits and wildlife, and after trying a friend's 300/2.8 for a day, I found it neither fish nor fowl. Too long for most portraits, too short for wildlife (with extenders). By the way, I am on full frame.

Apart from the 1-stop advantage in low light, the 200 also fits much better in my bag, so I decided to buy the 200, got a 400 for wildlife, and never looked back.

Then again, everyone is different. Rent the lenses.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18221852
If still undecided, renting both lenses for a couple days to see for yourself may be well spent money.

I love both portraits and wildlife, and after trying a friend's 300/2.8 for a day, I found it neither fish nor fowl. Too long for most portraits, too short for wildlife (with extenders). By the way, I am on full frame.

Apart from the 1-stop advantage in low light, the 200 also fits much better in my bag, so I decided to buy the 200, got a 400 for wildlife, and never looked back.

Then again, everyone is different. Rent the lenses.

I will mimic your setup. Which 400 though?

Talley wrote in post #18221856
I will mimic your setup. Which 400 though?

You sure you wanna know the answer ? That's not good for GAS.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18221880
You sure you wanna know the answer ? That's not good for GAS.

I think I'm gonna let the dust settle w/ selling the zooms and hold off a year to get the V2.

Talley wrote in post #18221886
I think I'm gonna let the dust settle w/ selling the zooms and hold off a year to get the V2.

Wise choice

CheshireCat wrote in post #18221852
If still undecided, renting both lenses for a couple days to see for yourself may be well spent money.

I love both portraits and wildlife, and after trying a friend's 300/2.8 for a day, I found it neither fish nor fowl. Too long for most portraits, too short for wildlife (with extenders). By the way, I am on full frame.

Apart from the 1-stop advantage in low light, the 200 also fits much better in my bag, so I decided to buy the 200, got a 400 for wildlife, and never looked back.

Then again, everyone is different. Rent the lenses.

Like he said, the budget is limited. Renting both of it will leave him with the 200L as the only option