200 f/2 vs 300 f/2.8 IS II

Help me in trying to decide between these 2 lenses.

I do portrait and sports photography. For portraits (I mostly do outdoor portraits), I believe the 200 will be a better focal length, however, since most of the portraits I do will be outside, I can work with the 300mm length. My main question for portraits though, will be if the 300 will give that same unique "look" that the 200 gives?

For sports (mainly football and soccer) the 300mm length will work much better. Most sports I do is for the local high schools, so I can pretty much be wherever I want on the sidelines (within reason of course), so I don't believe I would need the 400mm length.

I also would lose 1 stop of light by using the 300mm, but I am getting by with f/2.8 for sports now, so I don't think that would be an issue.

I guess it comes down to how portraits would look with the 300. If anybody has any examples of that, it would be great.

Thanks

Based on what you said you will be using the lens for, I would suggest picking up the 200mm. Both are incredible lenses, but 300mm might be/will be too long for portraiture.

Also to consider, the with the 1.4 extender, you can get a 280mm 2.8.

Just my 2cents

I use my 300mm f/4L IS for portraits, and I like it very much for that purpose, but I think you'll find the consensus solidly in the 200mm f/2L IS camp. It's a dandy lens.

I use both (paired) for field sports but I'd never take the 300 over the 200 for portraits.....it hasn't quite got 'the pop'