Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

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

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

Archive 2009 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

jagsiva
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

A non-scientific comparison for those interested -- I have seen the question asked a number of times. Also, I tweaked MA on my 1DSIII so this was a good time to test. Sorry about the "snapshot" look, i had a very impatient model and about 3 mins to snap these off before dinner...

First is the 300, second the 200..

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III 300 mm f/2.8 1/125 sec 100 ISO 0.0 EV

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III 200 mm f/2.0 1/125 sec 100 ISO 0.0 EV

Edited on Mar 08, 2009 at 02:40 AM · View previous versions

Mar 08, 2009 at 02:18 AM

jagsiva
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

100% crops. First is the 300, second is the 200. USM at 150,0.3,1 and 200,0.3,1 respectively

2012 © jagsiva

Mar 08, 2009 at 02:37 AM

lamonica66
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

What?

No 200 1.8?

Just kidding, and really jealous!

Thanks a ton for posting this..

I look forward to any additional comparisions you may do.

the 300 looks sharper to me.. but I know it aint scientific

+1

Mar 08, 2009 at 02:58 AM

jagsiva
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

lamonica66 wrote:
What?

No 200 1.8?

Just kidding, and really jealous!

Thanks a ton for posting this..

I look forward to any additional comparisons you may do.

the 300 looks sharper to me.. but I know it aint scientific

+1

Let me know what you'd like to see. The 300 does look a tad sharper, but remember that DOF may be a little thinner with the 200 @ F2 (although the focal length may cancel that out -- I'm sure one of the math wizards here can tell us

.

Interestingly enough, the 200 seems to take a bit more sharpening in PS. In anycase, sharpness between the two wide open is very close, and stopped down a half stop is even better. Between the two... really, we'd be splitting hairs!

My only complaint is that Canon goes and builds a fantastic lens like the 200 and puts in a state-of-the-art 4-5 stop IS system in it, and doesn't have a tripod collar that comes off -- go figure -- it adds a 1/2 lb and feels like it's in the way, no matter where you twist it.

Mar 08, 2009 at 03:08 AM

lamonica66
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

can it be removed with an allen key?

Mar 08, 2009 at 04:59 AM

jagsiva
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

You can remove the foot (and it is not that easy with 4 very long screws), but the collar does not come off, so not really helpful.

Mar 08, 2009 at 05:02 AM

lamonica66
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

got it

Mar 08, 2009 at 05:30 AM

AaronNegro
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

Well, sharpness might be better in the 300 but color tone and light looks better in the 200 to my eye.

Again, it is my eye and it might need microadjust

Mar 08, 2009 at 02:27 PM

tracknut
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

My only complaint is that Canon goes and builds a fantastic lens like the 200 and puts in a state-of-the-art 4-5 stop IS system in it, and doesn't have a tripod collar that comes off -- go figure -- it adds a 1/2 lb and feels like it's in the way, no matter where you twist it.

Mine's at the top, doing its job as a carrying handle...

Dave

Mar 08, 2009 at 05:11 PM

jagsiva
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

AaronNegro wrote:
Well, sharpness might be better in the 300 but color tone and light looks better in the 200 to my eye.

Again, it is my eye and it might need microadjust

I thought that too, but after looking at the crops, the focus is right on. I think this is a DOF issue - it a less on the 200 compared to the 300 due to the faster aperture and closer subject distance (I moved in for similar framing). On the 200 shot, notice the back of the eyebrow that is on the same plane as the eye and you'll see that it is in focus. On the 300, the DOF allows the whole eyebrow to be infocus.
Also, if you look at the iris, the veins in the eyes, and the inside corder of the eye, you may notice that the 200 is slightly sharper - splitting hairs, but sharper!

Mar 08, 2009 at 05:44 PM

jaetie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

they look pretty similar and i wouldn't worry about performance from either one of them.

Mar 08, 2009 at 05:49 PM

jamato8
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

It is depth of field and focus. The 200 is focused on the canthus vs the distal eye lid and lash.

Mar 08, 2009 at 06:26 PM

abnorm
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

200mm definitely makes a better portrait lens.

Mar 08, 2009 at 07:29 PM

SR777
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

The images from the 200/2 IS and 300/2.8 IS look similarly sharp to my untrained eye.

Mar 08, 2009 at 07:38 PM

DocsPics
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

Sort of like trying to decide if a gorgeous red head is preferred over a knock out blonde. Who cares? Be glad that you can put your hands on either one (lens that is).

Mar 08, 2009 at 07:54 PM

deepbluejh
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

The only optical differences worth mentioning between these two lenses are focal length and aperture. They are more or less equally sharp.

Mar 08, 2009 at 07:56 PM

Nick Nishizaka
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

They both look very sharp!

Initially I wasn't floored by my 200L f2 IS and it was front focusing badly with my 2X TC, so I sent in everything to get them calibrated...the 1DMKIII, 5D, 200L, 1.4x TC, and 2x TC. They came back nicely.

The 200L + 5D is spot on. Always has been. With the 1DKIII, the AF acts up occassionally, causing things to FF, but dialing in 4+ of Micro Adjust seems to keep things in check.

Now I am floored by the IQ the 200L can produce. We all know about the 300L f2.8...so I am guessing they are more similar than different!

The lack of CA on the 200L is simply stunning IMO.

Mar 08, 2009 at 11:02 PM

thedigitalbean
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

Interesting Nick. I too wasn't initially floored with the 200 f/2 on the 1D3. However after using the lens on a 5D2 and now a 1Ds3, oh man I am very impressed. You are right the total lack of CA even in the corners of a FF camera is stunning (along with tack sharp corners).

Mar 08, 2009 at 11:04 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

yeah, that old 300 is showing it's age, it's easy to see the 200 lays the smack down big time on the geriatric.

Mar 08, 2009 at 11:12 PM

trenchmonkey
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics

Reading this thread with much interest. I have the 'darkside' offerings and am asked which is better almost daily.
My pat response is "too close to call but the 300 doesn't do f2 very well" On FF these lenses are obscene, w/wo TC's.
Are these great times to be shootin' ....or what

Mar 08, 2009 at 11:13 PM

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