Any comparison shots of 200mm vs 300mm?

I currently own a 55-250 and am trying to figure out whether I want to go the 70-200mm route or the 70-300/100-300 route for the L lens. I really enjoy my current lens and its reach, so I'm wondering how noticeable the loss would be to go down to 200, or how noticeable the opposite would be to get an extra 50 for the 300 end. So, I'm looking for comparison shots of 250 vs the 200/300 to get an idea. I have done a comparison myself on the 200 vs 250 with my current lens and there doesn't appear to be much of a difference at all, to my surprise. However, I'm curious about the extra 50 to see if it's just as negligible.

You could actually do pseudo test with cropping, using your own lens.
All you have to do is shoot at 200mm FL and crop your picture by 33%, leaving only 66%. (leaving room for 1% margin of error :P)
That is the field of view you will get at 300mm FL.
However, keep in mind that all you are seeing is similar FOV, and nothing more.
Because 200mm FL can never be a 300mm FL.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try doing that as well.

Fligi7 wrote in post #11711468
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try doing that as well.

NP, I wish I had some 300mm FL shot to show you.. but I do not. :[

No worries. I've seen 300mm FL's, just looking for the off-chance anyone has comparisons available.

This is a handy tool for comparing focal lengths.
http://www.tamron-usa.com …cal-length-comparison.php

17mm 24mm 35mm 50mm 70mm 100mm 135mm 200mm

silvrr wrote in post #11711776
This is a handy tool for comparing focal lengths.
http://www.tamron-usa.com …cal-length-comparison.php

Thanks for that. That's pretty handy.

themadman wrote in post #11711811
17mm 24mm 35mm 50mm 70mm 100mm 135mm 200mm

Thanks for those, but I'm looking more specifically for the differences between 200 and 300mm.

another way would be to think about what you shoot and what you feel when you're shooting. For example, when I use my 55-250 I quite often find I'd like more range from it, so stepping down to 200mm would probably not be an option for me. When and if I do upgrade my telephoto lens, I'll most likely be going for a bigma or bigmos.

If I have my 55-250 out, I'm always looking for more range. However, that doesn't mean I necessarily want to step up to a lens with longer range. I am essentially looking for an increase in IQ considering how often I use the telephoto. So, what I'm trying to figure out is whether or not to go for a lesser range of 70-200mm with better IQ if I can just simply crop it (or add an extender) for a 300mm effective reach and retain an equal or better image than that of a native 70-300mm lens. Does that make sense?

Fligi7 wrote in post #11711865
Thanks for those, but I'm looking more specifically for the differences between 200 and 300mm.

I can give you the difference between 200 and 400 if you want... I don't have a 300mm lens.

http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …al_length_compa​risons.htm
It doesnt have the specific comparison you are looking for but it has a simple tutorial about how to compare FL.
I hope it helps.

Have a look here:

http://www.tamron.eu …al-length-comparison.html

You can just use relative comparisions, as well. The difference between 100 and 150 is the same as for 200 and 300.