Money or usefulness not the issue.

Which of these two lenses is the outright sexy-est?

200mm f2L or 300mm f2.8L mk2

I don't care about usefulness, weight, focal range, sharpness, price, what my primary uses are or bokeh.
Try and think bragging rights.

Given the choice, what would you choose?

If sexiness is the measuring stick then I pick whichever one isn't wearing a coat.

PineBomb wrote in post #18403247
If sexiness is the measuring stick then I pick whichever one isn't wearing a coat.

So which would you choose?

fordmondeo wrote in post #18403243
I don't care about usefulness, weight, focal range, sharpness, price, what my primary uses are or bokeh.
Try and think bragging rights.

Well the 300mm is way more expensive, bigger, a white L telephoto, and can have shallower DOF (due to its focal length). Based on your measuring stick of bragging rights, isn't that the clear choice?

davesrose wrote in post #18403249
Well the 300mm is way more expensive, bigger, a white L telephoto, and can have shallower DOF (due to its focal length). Based on your measuring stick of bragging rights, isn't that the clear choice?

This is a silly topic, so I have no opinion for the OP, but I will just point out that at equal framing, the 200/2 will have shallower DOF than the 300/2.8 because it is one stop faster.

DOF is strictly a function of aperture and FOV.

The 300/2.8 may create more background blur on account of having greater magnification, especially when the background is far beyond the subject. But degree of blur and DOF are only somewhat related.

Opps, mis-read the OP: thought it was the 200mm 2.8L vs 300mm 2.8LII. For practicality of utilizing the full sensor, FL and shooting distance are factors in DOF. OK, 300mm is still more expensive and bigger...so that should be a factor for bragging rights

fordmondeo wrote in post #18403243
Which of these two lenses is the outright sexy-est?

200mm f2L or 300mm f2.8L mk2

I don't care about usefulness, weight, focal range, sharpness, price, what my primary uses are or bokeh.
Try and think bragging rights.

Given the choice, what would you choose?

It's a bit like having to choose between Peggy Mount and Bella Emberg, I know who I'd go for.

john crossley wrote in post #18403257
It's a bit like having to choose between Peggy Mount and Bella Emberg, I know who I'd go for.

Who?

Actually, I don't know who either of them are.

The 200mm f2 I'm guessing is the more rare of the two but the 300 f2.8 is a legendary lens (I'm not sure why)

I have to make up my mind by this coming Saturday as that's when I'm buying one.

I don't care what each one costs I just want to say, or not, look at this bad boy!

fordmondeo wrote in post #18403272
I have to make up my mind by this coming Saturday as that's when I'm buying one.

I don't care what each one costs I just want to say, or not, look at this bad boy!

So you are spending FIVE and a HALF GRAND on a lens for no other reason than vanity!!!!

Since you've chosen to rule out the usual metrics, all that's left is to buy whichever strokes your ego most. No need to justify to anyone, just go for it.

Depends on your definition of sexy.

The 200/2 is more exotic, but the 300/2.8 is bigger.

200/2 here. Size doesn't matter... it's how you use it

Not wishing to offend in any way but this posting is frivolous to say the least. I'm only responding as I currently have the time....normally I would definitely not bother.

makes as much sense as most either or posts

I agree with the posters who claim this is a silly and/or frivolous post. That begs the question, "So?". The internet has never had Relevance Police, which is as it should be.

To the topic at hand. My hands-down, no-brainer, easy-peasy choice would be the 200 f/2. Longer than that, I'd like a zoom. To me 300mm is a specialty lens.

ed rader wrote in post #18403342
makes as much sense as most either or posts

Or the classic: "I shoot ETTL-II with auto-ISO in Av mode. Why isn't my camera doing what I want?"