200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

bigbluebear
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

I noticed that these two lenses are about the same price used nowadays. Which one would you prefer and why?

I know this will vary based on your needs but I thought it'd be an interesting discussion on these two awesome primes.

Feb 12, 2013 at 10:59 PM

clarence3
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

I love my 200/1.8 and use it half the time with a 1.4x TC for 280mm at f/2.5 - I've never had a lens with less PQ degradation from a TC. Easily my all time favorite lens.

I wouldn't trade it for a 300/2.8 IS because 99.44% of the time I'm shooting sports with it at shutter speeds fast enough to not need image stabilization (1/1000"). And when I use it in dimnasiums for indoor sports, it delivers where f/2.8 fears to tread.

For similar reasons, I'm tempted to trade my 600/4L for a 400/2.8L - I love the reach, but sometimes it'd be nice to have the option to go a little wider.

Feb 12, 2013 at 11:21 PM

ggreene
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

Easy, you can never have enough reach. 300/2.8 with TC's gives you a lot of flexibility. Also, isn't the 200/1.8 out of service by Canon? I don't want the hassle of trying to find somebody to fix it and hoping they have parts.

Edited on Feb 12, 2013 at 11:27 PM · View previous versions

Feb 12, 2013 at 11:26 PM

Hammy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

Totally depends on what you shoot more often: low light or more reach?

200/1.8 (I own two):
- it's f/1.8 - 1.3 stops faster than 2.8
- with 1.4, its a 280/2.5 and still great IQ
- with 2.0x, its a 400/3.5 that will do in a pinch.
- at f/1.8, the bokeh is virtually unmatched in the telephoto range.

300/2.8:
- lighter
- very fast focusing
- with 1.4x, becomes 420/4
- with 2x, becomes 600/5.6

So the 200 can go longer - but not as long as the 300.
But the 300 will never go shorter, nor can you get more light than at 2.8.

Both premium lenses, well worth the investment for the range they cover.

Those are my thoughts.

Feb 12, 2013 at 11:26 PM

bigbluebear
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

Yep. In my mind I feel like if your application is related to indoor sports, the 200mm is a no brainer, regardless of your servicability concerns. It's more important to get the shot at the necessary shutter speeds.

However if you were to take it outdoors, I feel the 300mm starts catching up in the race since it has IS and is lighter.

I personally just love the rendering of the 200mm though. It's too bad canon quit making it.

Feb 12, 2013 at 11:31 PM

bigbluebear
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

ggreene wrote:
Easy, you can never have enough reach. 300/2.8 with TC's gives you a lot of flexibility. Also, isn't the 200/1.8 out of service by Canon? I don't want the hassle of trying to find somebody to fix it and hoping they have parts.

I've heard this to be a concern but most owners of the 200mm f1/.8 have stated that they are very reliable. I think canon does a great job making their whites.

Feb 12, 2013 at 11:55 PM

rdalrt
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

I don't have a 200 1.8, but I do have a 200 f/2. And previously owned a 300 2.8 IS.

For the way I shoot and what I shoot, the 300 was just too often "in between". It wasn't fast enough for indoor sports. Outdoors it wasn't long enough. Add the tc for some added length and it wasn't fast enough outdoors (for night sports). Never seemed to be quite right. I never had a complaint with the IQ though. It was superb.

So for me, the 200 f/2 does a stellar job for indoor sports and the 400 2.8 for outdoors. But that is a big $ outlay that I understand a lot of people can't swing. In which case the 300 is a reasonable compromise. But that is what always bothered me about it. It was always a compromise.

Feb 12, 2013 at 11:55 PM

ggreene
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

bigbluebear wrote:
I've heard this to be a concern but most owners of the 200mm f1/.8 have stated that they are very reliable. I think canon does a great job making their whites.

I have no doubt it is well made but if I'm about to spend thousands of dollars on a lens I'll choose the one that can at least be serviced and has parts available.

Feb 13, 2013 at 12:59 AM

thedutt
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

ggreene wrote:
Easy, you can never have enough reach. 300/2.8 with TC's gives you a lot of flexibility. Also, isn't the 200/1.8 out of service by Canon? I don't want the hassle of trying to find somebody to fix it and hoping they have parts.

+1. IMO these are different purpose lenses; 300 2.8 is my long lens (with 2x) and 200 1.8 could not replace that for me. (135 f2 covers indoor situations where I am not reach limited and need f2)

Feb 13, 2013 at 01:06 AM

vivisha
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

I started with the 300 2.8 IS and used it for field sports, most times I used a 1.4 teleconverter on it, then I got a 400 2.8IS and rarely used the 300. Now I own a 200 f2.0 and I use the 300 even less but it's hard to let go because the IQ is so good. Now I use the 200 and 400, 200 for low light indoor sports,theatre scenarios and the 400 for field sports,wildlife. If you can only get one, get the one closest to the focal lenght you need the most.

Feb 13, 2013 at 01:21 AM

J.D.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

thedutt wrote:
ggreene wrote:
Easy, you can never have enough reach. 300/2.8 with TC's gives you a lot of flexibility. Also, isn't the 200/1.8 out of service by Canon? I don't want the hassle of trying to find somebody to fix it and hoping they have parts.

+1. IMO these are different purpose lenses; 300 2.8 is my long lens (with 2x) and 200 1.8 could not replace that for me. (135 f2 covers indoor situations where I am not reach limited and need f2)

+2. 300/2.8 IS all the way.

1) Without knowing what you want to shoot with it, I'm a bit flummoxed as to why you'd want a 200/1.8. There are more options at that length than at 300mm. If you want a prime, the 200/2.8 might not be f/1.8 but it's still a top lens. The 135/2 is another great option.

2) It's never mentioned when the 200/1.8 comes up but always mentioned when a non-IS 300 comes up. There are no parts left anywhere in the world for this lens. I know: I have an old pre-IS 300mm which shares some of them. This will naturally become a problem for Gen 1 IS lenses eventually but it isn't such a problem now.

3) It has IS.

Now for the 200/1.8. You have to ask yourself why you want this lens at all. Before people say "because of its great sharpness/bokeh/IQ", I would suggest that these are the least important reasons for buying one. At that price, those things should be legendary anyway.

Application is the most important reason. Indoor sports and theatre would be good reasons but do they override the disadvantages of the 200/1.8 or the advantages of the 300/2.8?

Feb 13, 2013 at 01:32 AM

Grantland
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

J.D. wrote:
thedutt wrote:
ggreene wrote:
Easy, you can never have enough reach. 300/2.8 with TC's gives you a lot of flexibility. Also, isn't the 200/1.8 out of service by Canon? I don't want the hassle of trying to find somebody to fix it and hoping they have parts.

Application is the most important reason. Indoor sports and theatre would be good reasons but do they override the disadvantages of the 200/1.8 or the advantages of the 300/2.8?

plus 1.

i traded my 300 for a 200 years ago and it was a very good decision for me.

i shoot high school events and senior portraits. for portraits, theater, dance, football, basketball, softball, etc. it is an amazing lens. it takes a 1.4x very well. and when you need f1/8 you got it!

if i were to shoot field sports 75% of the time i would have stuck with the 300. i did pick up a 400 years later and the 200 & 400 was/is a great combo.

grant

p.s. some will worry about the 200 f/1.8 breaking without it being able to get fixed. a valid point, well kinda. i once did a FM survey asking who had bought an out of date expensive lens to learn if they got stuck with an expensive door stop in the first two years of ownership. to my surprise no one reported the worse case scenario of buying an expensive door stop. do they break? yep. but if you buy from a reputable seller i wouldn't worry.

Feb 13, 2013 at 03:37 AM

bigbluebear
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

Grantland wrote:
p.s. some will worry about the 200 f/1.8 breaking without it being able to get fixed. a valid point, well kinda. i once did a FM survey asking who had bought an out of date expensive lens to learn if they got stuck with an expensive door stop in the first two years of ownership. to my surprise no one reported the worse case scenario of buying an expensive door stop. do they break? yep. but if you buy from a reputable seller i wouldn't worry.

I'm not surprised

Feb 13, 2013 at 03:40 AM

Sheldon N
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

I've had both, both were awesome.

I loved the 200 f/1.8 more, the images from it when shot wide open were something special. The 300 was an excellent lens, but seemed more like a good workhorse long/fast/sharp lens.

Obviously your own purpose for what you'll be shooting trumps everything.

Feb 13, 2013 at 04:04 AM

bigbluebear
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

Yep. I also love the 1.8. The rendering at 1.8 for portraits is pretty amazing

Feb 13, 2013 at 05:32 AM

lhryshko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

I use the 200 1.8 almost exclusively for gymnastics and it's barely fast enough for most of the gyms/caves that I frequent.

Do I worry that it might break? Yep, because then I would have to find another one in a hurry......and that is exactly what I would do.

Feb 13, 2013 at 05:58 AM

saneproduction
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

There are still places that can repair the 200 1.8l.

It is my favorite lens.

Feb 13, 2013 at 06:00 AM

Lars Johnsson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

saneproduction wrote:
There are still places that can repair the 200 1.8l.

It is my favorite lens.

It probably depends on what repair the lens need. I don't belive there is any place that have or can get all parts for that lens.

Feb 13, 2013 at 06:04 AM

jcolwell
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

I have both the 200/1.8L and 300/2.8L IS. As mentioned before, they are best suited for different purposes.

The 300/2.8L IS is a better 300mm lens, even with IS turned off, than the 200/1.8L + 1.4x is a 280mm lens. The 200/1.8L + 1.4x III shows slight coma on bright edges with the 1DIV, while the 300/2.8L IS is very clean. AF is also faster on the 300/2.8L IS than 200/1.8L + 1.4x. OTOH, the 200/1.8L is awesome on its own.

Feb 13, 2013 at 12:47 PM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · 200mm f/1.8 vs 300mm f/2.8 IS Version 1

My 200 f/1.8 is tight like a Scottsman looking for employment.

Feb 13, 2013 at 12:54 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end