300 f/2.8 vs 200 f/2?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by EyeCandyXposure, Nov 12, 2012.

  1. EyeCandyXposure

    EyeCandyXposure

    30
    Jul 26, 2012
    Florida
    Whether it be nikon or canon version if I mainly do outdoor swimwear shoots at beach would you opt for the 200 over 300? I was leaning towards 300 in case I needed longer focal length for things other than outdoor portrait type images?



    Thanks all
     
  2. Sure you do, that's why you have to ask :eek: Same cough gear list in your profile
    over on FM as "NikonForLife"....does your Mom know you're on the internet again :rolleyes:
     
  3. nextelbuddy

    nextelbuddy

    Jul 15, 2010
    atlanta
    why would you ask this if you supposedly have the 200 f2 for your canon 1Dx?

    if you have the gear you say you do then:

    1. you should have the experience from using your 200 F2 on the canon to know if the focal length is what you need vs the longer focal length and loss of light on the 300 2.8
     
  4. EyeCandyXposure

    EyeCandyXposure

    30
    Jul 26, 2012
    Florida
    I'm getting back into photography after 3 yrs away n the equipment listed in my signature is what I'm tentatively leaning towards
     
  5. Taken at face value then from someone who doesn't do that kind of shooting but I would say:

    200/F2 as you can get better subject separation from the background, and can always add a 1.4TX and end up with almost as good as a 300/F2.8.
     
  6. +1.....what the grumpy old man said:smile:
     
  7. CAJames

    CAJames

    Sep 6, 2006
    Lompoc, CA
    I see what you mean :wink:.
     
  8. LXShooter

    LXShooter

    Feb 28, 2008
    Wisconsin
    :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
     
  9. Man, what a schoolyard this place is.
     
  10. First, you shouldn't have to ask if you plan to buy one of those lenses.

    Second, the 200/2 is absolute perfection for portraits and subject isolation.

    Third, the 200/2 is much easier to hand hold.
     
  11. Lance B

    Lance B

    Jan 13, 2011
    Australia
    ?? I think it a fair question. IMO, the 200 is more for static subject matter for portraits and swimwear modelling etc. The 300 can also be used for this, but is better suited for wildlife as well.

    I just spent a week on Lord Howe Island shooting the birdlife there using my 300 with and without TC's, and it was the perfect combination for this trip. A friend who went with me, for some unknown reason, decided to take his 200 f2 and use TC's instead of taking his 200-400. He regretted doing it and said he wished he'd taken the 200-400 and also said that the 300 was a better lens for this situation. The 200 plus TC's was quite useless for birding as the AF was not quick enough and the VR was slow also.

    It should have the same isolation properties as the 300 f2.8 wide open for both:
    On FF, 200mm f2 @ f2 and 5mts = 7.2cm total DOF
    On FF, 300mm f2.8 @ f2.8 and 7.5mts = 7.2cm total DOF
    Courtesy of the on-line DOF calculator.

    Having used both, there is little difference between the two, they both weigh the same but the 200 is a little shorter. The 200 can be a little more difficult to use as tripod mount is close to the focus ring both in situation and also the fact that it also sits close to the focus barrel and so the focus ring can be inadvertently moved whilst holding the lens by the unusually forward placed tripod mount, which I find a little difficult to get used to. Not a big deal, but you do need to be aware of it.

    The 300's tripod mount is further away and more centrally located for better balance and has a larger gap between it and the focus ring barrel, so inadvertenly moving it during focusing is not a concern.
     
Loading...