200 VR f2 vs. 300 f2.8

Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
469
I posted this in the 200 vr thread, but thought it might be better to ask this question in a thread of its own. I love the look of the 200 f2 but wonder if the 300 wouldn't be a better choice for field sports and baseball? I currently have the 80-200 afs and, if I get the 200, I thought I would replace it with that and a 85 1.4. If I get a 300, I guess I would keep the 80-200. Also, if I go with the 300, it probabley won't be the VR. Just too much $$$ ($$$$$$$$). I have a trip to Africa booked for early next year and would love to talk the wife into one of these before we go. I'm looking at a 80-400 VR (or other option)--something cheeper than the 200 or 300, as a back-up plan if she doesn't okay the big dollar outlay right now. Thoughts?
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
469
Gogo,

My wife will divorce (strike that, KILL) me if I ask for the 200-400!
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
650
Location
Thailand
If you're shooting sports, without a doubt...go with the 300/2.8 and also add a TC-14EII which can be used on both your 80-200 and the 300. You can pick up a used AF-S I 300/2.8 for approx. $2200-2600.

While the 200VR is undoubtedly a remarkable piece of glass, I consider it more of a "specialty" lens. Plus, it's $4000...ouch!!
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
3,403
Location
Merrick, NY
I have the 200 F2 and the 200-400. :smile::smile: For me... the 300 VR was an in between lens. If I had to choose only one though... I would get the 300 VR.

I love the 200 for low light capability and AMAZING IQ wide open.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I love the 200-400 for the convenience of the zoom plus STUNNING IQ wide open.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
469
Donzo,

I like the 200-400 shot but the 200 vr: WOW! I love the IQ of that lens.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
2,222
Location
Orlando, Florida
I definitely would recommend the 300 2.8 with TC's. When I was in Africa with that combination, I did not feel I missed anything. I had that on one body and a 100-300 f4 on the other. Africa is amazing!!!

Cheers
Nancy
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Messages
1,653
Location
Greater Seattle area (WA)
I posted this in the 200 vr thread, but thought it might be better to ask this question in a thread of its own. I love the look of the 200 f2 but wonder if the 300 wouldn't be a better choice for field sports and baseball? I currently have the 80-200 afs and, if I get the 200, I thought I would replace it with that and a 85 1.4. If I get a 300, I guess I would keep the 80-200. Also, if I go with the 300, it probabley won't be the VR. Just too much $$$ ($$$$$$$$). I have a trip to Africa booked for early next year and would love to talk the wife into one of these before we go. I'm looking at a 80-400 VR (or other option)--something cheeper than the 200 or 300, as a back-up plan if she doesn't okay the big dollar outlay right now. Thoughts?

Not sure what you really want this lens for: field sports or African wildlife ? They are 2 completely different thing and have different needs. I would think that the latter would require longer lens than the 300.

On the other hand, if it's field sports you are after, it depends on how much access you have at the field. If you can get close, the 200VR + TC's should do the job. But, outdoor field sports is not that badly in need of light in general --- even in overcast situations, at f/2.8, things should be fine with the 300/2.8. I would still go for the 300VR if I want to get a 300.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
469
Not sure what you really want this lens for: field sports or African wildlife ? They are 2 completely different thing and have different needs. I would think that the latter would require longer lens than the 300.


Arhury,

Since I haven't been there I can't definitively say but I don't think Africa requires super long glass. My web searchs have revealed some very nice shots of large animals in the 200-300mm range. I guess it depends on where you go; I will be in Botswana in the Okavango delta. It's pretty neat because I was watching Planet Earth tonight on Discovery HD and that is exactly where they were filming. :biggrin: Given what I have seen so far, I'm not certain I even need the 300 2.8 for its length. I guess I just want it anyway. :smile:
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
469
If cash is an issue have you thought about a 300 F4?
I have looked at it but I there is something that doesn't quite reach the IQ of the 200 or 300 2.8. IMHO I rank this lens slightly above the 80-400 (see my recent thread about that). At least with the 80-400, you get VR and zoom for just $400 more. Hmmmm.
 
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
879
Location
Center Valley, PA
I posted this in the 200 vr thread, but thought it might be better to ask this question in a thread of its own. I love the look of the 200 f2 but wonder if the 300 wouldn't be a better choice for field sports and baseball? I currently have the 80-200 afs and, if I get the 200, I thought I would replace it with that and a 85 1.4. If I get a 300, I guess I would keep the 80-200. Also, if I go with the 300, it probabley won't be the VR. Just too much $$$ ($$$$$$$$). I have a trip to Africa booked for early next year and would love to talk the wife into one of these before we go. I'm looking at a 80-400 VR (or other option)--something cheeper than the 200 or 300, as a back-up plan if she doesn't okay the big dollar outlay right now. Thoughts?
How about the combination of the 200VR & a 1.4TC? this would give you the option of the 200 at f2 for really low light & a 280 at 2.8 for every thing else?

Also Rich Gibson started a thread on the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 which might be worth checking out - this would give you the long range 2.8 with a the flexibility of a zoom - cost (B&H List) is ca 2700USD. No VR mind, but with a decent monopod you should be okay.

just some thoughts
 
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
879
Location
Center Valley, PA
I have the 200 F2 and the 200-400. :smile::smile: For me... the 300 VR was an in between lens. If I had to choose only one though... I would get the 300 VR.

I love the 200 for low light capability and AMAZING IQ wide open.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
There has to be a law about posting pictures like this.......must come with health warning...."looking at these will cause serious case of Lens Lust Addiction......"

Must....stop....looking....at...threads...with...200VR...in title....must...stop!!!!!
 
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
856
Location
Charlottesville, VA / Palo Alto, CA
Hmm... this is an expensive thread. I've already got an 18-200VR, 80-200/f2.8 AFS and a 200/f4 AFD Micro. Now I want a 200/f2 VR and a 200-400/f4 VR. (Between this one and the 200/f2 thread, I now think of 400/f4 as "slow!) Between them I'll have 200mm covered at all apertures from f/2 to f/5.6... As someone else put it, I guess you can't be too careful with the 200mm length!
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
1,998
Location
New Jersey
For field sports, you want the longest, fastest lens you can afford. 200-400 only worth it if you shoot mostly during the day. Not as useful in the fall if you plan to shoots sports events that start later in the dya. i.e 4-6
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
469
Alex,

Your lens list just KILLS me. The only thing I think you are missing is a 28 1.4, and maybe a 85 PC. :smile:
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
7,892
Location
East TN
He's a pro, his list should kill, and of course, does. :) I expect he doesn't have them because either he doesn't neet them, or a pro recognizes it's stupid to pay a bloody fortune for a lens if he doen't need the capability or has it covered already with skill... But that's just an outside obervation from a passing buy guesser.
 
Top Bottom