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...
p.1 #3 · 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.
p.1 #8 · 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...
p.1 #9 · 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!
p.1 #14 · 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).
p.1 #16 · 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.
p.1 #17 · 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).
p.1 #19 · 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
p.1 #20 · Samples - 200F2 vs.300F2.8 wide open pics
I found the best way to test a Super Tele's sharpness is to add the Canon 2X II. Lets face it, nobody using the 300/2.8 is complaining about sharpness. However one could complain the 300/2.8 IS with a 2X is a tad soft and shows some CA compared to the 400/2.8 IS with the 2x.
FWIW my 400/2.8 IS takes my 2X II MUCH better than my old 300/2.8 IS. I never found a reason to use the 2X on my 200/2 IS however.
.
