Quote:
|
Even though it has 100mm lens than the 300, the 200 seems much much better than the 300 indeed!
|
All things being, equal, a 300mm is usually better than a 200mm, but in this case things aren't equal, as the 70-300 trades two stops of light for the 100mm of extra reach. Often, it isn't worth the two stop loss of light.
Comparing the 70-200mm f/2.8 to a 300mm f/2.8, this is the difference:
200mm:
300mm:
Neither image was cropped; both were only formatted for web-viewing. Shooting position was approximately the same, but the images are from one and two months ago, so I'm not 100% sure. Not very many different places to be at this venue anyways, so I'm always about the same distance from the players.
Ignoring the obvious differences in sharpness (different lenses, obviously) and content, with identical available apertures and identical subject to camera distance the longer lens affords, in addition to a tighter view allowing for more pixels on the subject, greater separation from the background.
(By the way, I wouldn't consider these fantastic images, but they were what I had from about the same spot. The first one suffers from motion blur despite the 1/500 second shutter speed and the second's got an obscured face)