Which lens to keep: 200mm/f2 vs. 300mm/f2.8

[rick_chen]

<p>Hi all,<br>

I have NAS (or whatever it's called) and a 200mm f/2 vr and a 300mm 2.8 vr. Both first generation VR. Also a 1.7X TC, among all the other lenses. I do a lot of general shooting and some portraits. It seems like I am only able to carry either lens out each time, but not both as they are really a burden to carry around. I never shoot sports. I love them both, but since I can only use 1 at a time, I start to think maybe I should sell one off while it still has some value. I know the plus of the 300mm is to couple it with a TC to get a cheap 500-600mm for birding if needed, while the 200mm has great bokeh and a f/2. Which one would u guys keep? <br />I am curious to know what others or professionals or semi-pros think...thanks</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>I've used the 200mm F/2 and I currently have the 300mm F/2.8, both VR 1s. The reason I opted for the 300mm F/2.8 over the 200mm F/2 was honestly there wasn't terribly lots of difference between the 200mm @ F/2.8 and the 200mm @ F/2. Sure the there is better Bokeh but rather than having one huge lens I prefer to have the 70-200mm F/2.8 which is a great all around lens and the 85mm F/1.4G which I feel is on the same Bokeh level as the 200mm F/2 but much easier to deal with and I don't have to be so far from my subject. Those lenses new together is about the same price as a used 200mm F/2, and I preferred the range. Also I feel the 300mm is better optically, especially between the VR 1 versions. Not to say anything against the 200mm F/2, she's a damn fine lens, but the 300mm is a damn near perfect lens ;).</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>sorry I meant the 70-200mm @ F/2.8</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Lenses are not like old bananas, they don't rot. Modern AF lenses will be marketable for a long time to come. Heck, even old manual focus lenses have risen remarkably in recent years as a result of their use in video. With "improvements" to a specific lens, the price inevitably goes up a lot, so the older versions retain a lot of value for people who don't need the latest thing.</p>

<p>So having lenses to use for different purposes is a <em>good</em> thing.<br>

If you don't need the money badly, you should keep what you already have. You really can't know what you might be shooting in a few years.</p>

<p>If you just want to go ahead and get rid of lenses you never use, that's ok, but you don't need to rationalize it as "sell now or it will spoil"</p>

<p> </p>

[Stephen L]

<p>If I shot portraits (or anything that didn't need reach) I would keep the 200 f/2. For anything else I would keep the 300 f/2.8. You don't say what else you have as far as glass is concerned and you mention NAS but don't indicate what you wish to buy with the cash you get from selling. You also don't mention what camera you shoot with.<br>

<br />In truth, I'd keep both and find money elsewhere with which to satisfy my NAS. In my opinion, once you get glass like this you keep it and enjoy it.</p>

[rick_chen]

<p>Hey Skyler, thanks for your input it helped a lot! Yeah sure they are very very fine glass so that's why i had a tough time parting with them, and yet I dont use them often enough, or at least both of them together.<br>

I totally agree on the 70-200 and 85 1.4G...really amazing and versatile glass for the money</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Richard, just because you would rather not carry both big lenses simultaneously does not necessarily mean that you need to sell one of them.</p>

<p>I have quite a few lenses and three that I consider big. I too rarely carry two of those simultaneously and certainly not all three, but I pick and choose depending on the occasion. Moreover, I rarely bring more than 6, 7 lenses, but I don't need to sell the other 23 or so. Again, depending on the situation, I may have 6, 7 lenses in total with me, but it is not always the same 6, 7.</p>

<p>Whether a 200mm/f2 or 300mm/f2.8 is more useful highly depends on what you shoot. You freqeuntly see reporters with the 200mm/f2 during the congressional hearings. Essentially it is a very fast lens for short to medium distance. The 300mm/f2.8 is more an indoor sports and beginning wildlife lens, especially with a TC attached.</p>

<p>Personally, I would rathter not to "waste" my capacity to carry a big lens with the short focal length of 200mm. As Skyler points out above, for 200mm, I have two 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR to choose from. When I carry a big lens, I carry one that is longer.</p>

<p>But your mileage may vary.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>How often do you use the 200mm wide-open Richard? If the answer is infrequently to never, you might consider trading it for a 70 or 80-200 f/2.8 VR zoom. This'll still be bulky and weighty, but much more versatile for your portrait interest. My personal opinion is that the excellent high ISO performance of today's DSLRs, and great VR technology, has largely obviated the need for huge glass - it was essential when film stuck you with 400 ISO, but not when you can regularly set 1600 ISO without even noticing a difference.<br>

Another thing to consider is the focus shift on stopping down exhibited by many high aperture lens (>f/2.8). This effect can actually counteract any gain in focusing accuracy that you might expect from an increased aperture.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I see no need to carry both at the same time. I take lens(s) dependent on what I will be doing. If I am positive I will never use a specific lens I sell it. When I have made a mistake I buy another lens to replace it. I have do this a couple of times and now very rarely sell anything. Take some time to think about your needs and usage. It seems my crystal ball doesn't work very well.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I have only the 200 f/2 VR 1. For portraiture, for me, it's the best combination of ability to lose the background, good bokeh, and no visible LoCA. I tend to take candids, so the working distance isn't such an issue for me, although I admit that a 150mm f/2.8 Sigma macro is a tempting complement to it. A longer lens would probably be an issue when I do want to communicate with the subject - for me, 200mm is the combination between unobtrusively far away (for a big lens) and close enough. Plus, f/2 with VR (and a monopod) makes it a low light monster.<br />

<br />

I feel I can hand-hold the 200 f/2 for reasonably long periods. I absolutely can't hand-hold my (non-VR, AI-P) 500 f/4 reliably. I've handled a 300 f/2.8, and am concerned about how long I could hand-hold it, but maybe I need to work on my biceps.<br />

<br />

My feeling is that the 200 f/2 does something that the 70-200 doesn't (and my 80-200 definitely doesn't). Teleconverting gets me a 280 f/2.8, which is close enough to a 300 (if not quite optically) that I don't stress. Teleconverting a 300 would get me to the realm of my 500, and I prefer to have an actual 500 (albeit a cheap one in my case) that I can, in turn, teleconvert for wildlife. I don't see myself needing a 300 f/2.8 any time when I wouldn't rather have a 400 f/2.8, so I'm choosing to save for that instead (you know, after the D800).<br />

<br />

That said, the used prices on the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 (with the filter thread from hell) is kind of tempting.<br />

<br />

Anyway, with the big boys, everyone's use varies. I wouldn't turn down a 300 f/2.8 if someone wanted to buy me one, and I envy your problem. But, for the uses I put them to, I'd keep the 200. And not just because I really couldn't afford the 300. :-)<br />

<br />

(Btw, I'm purely an amateur. My lens is owned by my credit card company. Please judge my qualifications accordingly.)</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Well, I am the opposite, if I had 30 lenses I would be permanently confused about what to take with me on any day. Since most must overlap in focal length with others I would rationalize the outfit. In this case I would keep the 300/2.8 and sell the 200/2 and get a 70-200mm VRII - much more useful in my opinion. I realize not everyone has pure utility in mind when it comes to lenses. If you think the lenses are too cumbersome now then they will only get worse as you get older (and wiser).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I want to clarify: I bought my 200 f/2 as a replacement (if I'd actually got rid of it yet) for my 135 f/2 DC, because the LoCA of the 135 was unacceptable to me. The 70-200 is not free of LoCA; therefore it isn't a valid substitute for me. (This is why I spent much less on an 80-200 - I'm prepared to spend less for a lens with more optical issues.) The 85 f/1.4 options - especially the AF-S - also all have a great deal of LoCA (I went with a Samyang, for price/performance).<br />

<br />

So if LoCA bothers you, ditching a 200 f/2 in return for short, fast lenses would be a mistake. If LoCA doesn't bother you, I agree that the gain of the 200 f/2 over the 70-200 f/2.8 is incremental, the ability to lose the background compared with a shorter telephoto is highly distance-dependent, and the 300mm has significantly more reach. You could get the same LoCA-avoidance, with somewhat less background blurring, via either the mythical Voigtlander APO or the (more common) 150mm Sigmas. But at least it's the cheapest of the big boys.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I vote for a 70-200 2.8. The 200 and 300, IMHO, are way too long for portrait work. Yes, a 200 2.0 can have beautiful bokeh, but as noted above how often do you actually use it wide open? And the subject is so far from the camera, especially if you use a crop sensor camera, that you need to call them on their cell phone to tell them which way to pose. :) Even worse with the 300. These are realy more what I think of as sports lenses, not portait lenses.</p>

[rick_chen]

<p>Wow...thanks for the responses everyone..certainly a lot of stuff I never noticed or even think about. I currently use d800 and a d3s (again, i never use the d3s since i dont shoot low light much, and want to sell it off too..)<br>

Wow Shun you have 30 lenses how do you decide what to take out. Everytime before I leave I have to sit around deciding what to take out... I only have 10 and i am already confused<br>

<br />Yes whenever I use the 200 f2 I use it wide open. It seems like I only use it for the bokeh (not so much for headshots since the Dof is too shallow at 2), its lightning fast AF doesnt help much since I dont shoot volleyball and stuff. I definitely find myself using the 85 1.4g and 70-200vr a lot more though since they are more manageable, but I did not take note of the LoCA issues someone mentioned. I should definitely look into that...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>30 lenses is nothing compared to some other members here. For example, I have four macro lenses. They are out if I am not shooting macro.</p>

<p>Richard, essentially only you can make this decision. If you don't need the money, keeping both is always an option.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Richard - just to reassure you that you're not alone, I too usually use my 200 f/2 wide open, although I guess I may need to stop down a bit when a D800 comes my way. I'm unusually sensitive to LoCA (a bad experience trying to fix a friend's wedding dance photos which I shot on a 135 f/2 DC; this is my equivalent of tequila); most may not find the residual LoCA of the "lesser lenses" such an issue. I recommend you don't look into it, because if it's not already bothering you, it will start to do so once you notice it...<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, my 200 is one of my most-used lenses (most used is my 28-200, but only for snapshots). I doubt my (recently-acquired) 80-200 will catch up; my 85 f/1.4 gets used, but not as much. My 135 lives in a cupboard, but it's possible that it's behaviour is abnormally bad and it might see the sun again when I get the chance to have it looked at. I'd be taking my 200 to the Olympic tennis if I didn't think I'd have trouble persuading people it would fit in the size limit. I'm an amateur with a mere 15 F-mount lenses; I must try harder - anyone want to give me a 400 f/2.8?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Yes, a 200 2.0 can have beautiful bokeh, but as noted above how often do you actually use it wide open? </em><br /> <em><br /></em>I can't speak for the OP but I use mine about 70% of the time wide open when I don't have a TC attached. Good bokeh doesn't require shooting wide open, but the best background separation may be achieved that way. I find the 200/2's bokeh generally excellent at f/2.8 and f/4 also. <br /> <br /> <em>And the subject is so far from the camera, especially if you use a crop sensor camera, that you need to call them on their cell phone to tell them which way to pose. :)</em></p>

<p>The OP is using FX cameras. With the 200 you'd be maybe 5 meters from the subject for a half body portrait ... that doesn't require a cell phone to communicate! It's only slightly longer than a 135mm which is one of the standard portrait lenses (on FX). If you're doing a head and shoulders the distance is very short. The advantage of using a longish lens like this for portraits is the clean background. I do agree with you that 300mm is too long (but that's an aesthetic decision and there are no absolutes).</p>

<p><em>I vote for a 70-200 2.8</em></p>

<p>The problem with the current 70-200 II is that it's an extremely high contrast lens and at least I find the shadows too deep for portraits in many lighting conditions. Also the out of focus rendition at full body distances and longer is harsh. I might be inclined to believe that the shadows can be fixed in post-processing but when I see the same problem in images taken with Neil van Niekerk who is expert in location lighting, then I start thinking it's really a trait of the lens, not just my limitation.</p>

<p>This same characteristic makes the 70-200 II excellent for photographing landscapes in foggy/misty conditions; also for photography in any kind of really soft light. It has the ability to bring out details well in such conditions. But I just don't like the way it renders people. I much prefer my 85/1.4, 135/2, and 200/2 for that. The 200/2 is gentle on faces and produces an apparent three-dimensionality in its rendering because of its shallow DOF and perspective of typical shots.</p>

<p>I have to say that I would be happy to own a 300/2.8 (and 400/2.8) as long as I don't have to pay for them. However, they are somewhat difficult to transport as they would not fit into any of my regular camera bags and carrying a tripod, camera backpack and a separate supertele bag is too much for me! The 200/2 fits nicely in its own compartment of my Kata backpack. Its use requires practice because of its weight and shallow depth of field but it has that special something in the look of the images it produces. I use it typically together with 35/1.4 and 85/1.4. The three make a very nice people photography kit that you can use in pretty much any light where humans can see the subjects. I often am commented by people wondering about the depth, colour and three-dimensional feel of the images that I have shot with these three. I think it's a working recipe and don't want to break it.</p>

<p>The 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 would, for me be used in outdoor concerts in the summer and some figure skating in the winter. I am not a fan of huge lenses though - I have had some back problems in the past and hand-holding a 5kg rig is probably not so good for my health - so I have no trouble putting off any such purchase, even without consideration to the fact that I simply don't have the money to spare right now. However I do run into situations, especially when photographing dancers and musicians on stage where the 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 would make for killer shots. I just have to accept that there are limitations to what I can do. It's not such a big deal actually - there is no shortage of subject matter even without a proper super tele. </p>

<p>However, if somehow I had managed to acquire a 300/2.8 there's no way I'd give up either that or the 200/2. I would not be able to carry both at the same time but there are applictions for both and they do not cover each other's territory. The 200 takes priority with me because I prefer the shorter focal length for aesthetic reasons but for another photographer it might be the 300mm. Certainly if I photographed wildlife instead of people I would want my big lenses to be longer (300, 400, or 500mm; 200mm is just too short for that). But for people subjects I think there is something to be said for doing the necessary preparation to be able to shoot from a close distance. (I know this doesn't always work, but I think it's a good general principle.)</p>

<p>Right now I consider my lens lineup almost perfect for my needs and the lens that I would jump to buy is a 135/1.8 VR (rumored) if materialized to a product. This would be a big deal for me as it would allow me to get close to similar results I get with the 200/2 but with a much lighter lens. The current 135/2 is a good lens stopped down but its imprecise AF prevents me from getting reliable results at f/2 and sometimes also f/2.8. The 200/2 is much better in this respect (as does the 85/1.4 AF-S) but as everyone knows, the 200 is a huge brick and rather attention grabbing. Of course the good side is that the results also tend to be noticeable.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

You know everyone has kind of said the 200mm is really good for portraits the 300mm is really good for wildlife\sports (well maybe not

"really" good, but much better than the 200mm). None the less for whatever its worth I tend to use the 300mm for portraits regularly.

While it is cumbersome, there have been several scenarios where the 300mm was a better choice for a portrait than 200mm, 135mm, &

85mm. I'm not at a computer but I get back I'll post an example. And honestly on full frame its not bad at all, 300mms, on DX its really too

long because you have to be so far away, but on FF, the 300mm gives a lovely compression shorter lenses just don't.

 

I agree with Ilkka, I was just shooting the 24mm & 85mm F/1.4G lenses last night at an event and they give a wonderful 3D effect to

images, except I do wish I had the 35mm, it is much better for people. I really feel the 135mm F/2 is in the 85mm class while the 200mm

is kind of in a class all its own, and a nice compliment to the 35mm\85mm setup. I think if you are gutsy, or you have 3 bodies for events,

those are really the only 3 lenses one would ever need for people shooting, 35mm, 85mm, & 200mm (that is people who aren't playing

sports). While I love the 300mm and as I said I do use it for portraits, it is just a tad long often times :(. The 200mm fits the people bill

better, of course there are places where the 300mm is a better choice, hense the reason you should keep both, ya just never know when

you'll need one or the other.

 

I am very annoyed with your post Richard, please do not do this again, because now you have me wanting to pick up a 200mm F/2, from

all this dicussion I realize how nice it would be to have both! I hope you realize the stress you've put on my wallet! Shakes head. Just

remember all the people like me that envy your situation, and be thankful you have both at your disposal, although it maybe cliched its

worth noting you don't know what you have until its gone!

[rick_chen]

<p>Thanks guy...after reading everyone's comments, I decided to keep them both, even though i dont use them a lot....I hope I dont lose too much value in them years down the road. For sure when I do need them, they always do the job very nicely</p>

[cyrus_procter]

Rick,

I am very happy about your decision, now that you are keeping both lenses, and you don't use them that often maybe I

could borrow the 200mm from time to time?! Lol, good choice!

[fnu_jeffrey_brawijaya]

<p>I have 300mm vrII, and to lug it around, my back always have disagreement with my desire. I am thinking to acquire 200mm f/2. So, what is the real difference between vr1 or vr2 except their price tag, Nano coating and 4 times VR? Are there any meaningful differences? </p>

[sam_hunt]

<p>I have the 200 f/2 VR II version. I haven't used the previous version. I would suggest that you buy the earlier version if you can find one at a good price. While I'm delighted with the VR II, I don't think, from what I've seen on the web at least, there is much of a difference if any between the IQ of both lenses. It's an absolutely stunning lens and very sharp. I sold my 70-200 VR II a few days after aquiring the 200 f/2 VR II. There's just no comparison IQ wise between the two.<br>

I use mine wide open 90% of the time and the bokeh and 3D effect of the lens at that aperture is amazing. Even an ordinary shot looks good because the background just melts into a kind of impressionistic blurr.</p>

<p> </p>