Canon EF 200/2.8 L ; 300/4 L ; 400/5.6 L

I have the 3 lenses, was thinking about reselling the 300/4 L but now I hesitate.
In terms of C.A. and sharpness at full aperture, the 400/5.6 L is clearly superior to the 200/2.8 L.
I cannot decide with the 300/4 L: on some photos, the I.Q. seems to be like the 200/2.8L, sometimes like the 400/5.6 L.
What is your experience with the Canon EF 300/4 L ?

I had the original EF 300/4 L for ten years. I used it alongside the EF 70-200/4 L and Nikon 400/2.8 AI-S. It was sharper than the zoom but not as sharp as the 400. However, I always found it to have virtually zero CA, unlike the old 400.

CA was increased with the use of the EF 1.4x but was easily corrected. The teleconverter had no noticeable effect on AF.

I sold it in favour of the original EF 300/2.8 L but in my comparison tests, and subsequent similar images, I only see a marginal improvement in IQ and AF. I was hoping the f2.8 would be more useful with the EF 2x II, but while IQ is exceptional, the AF on my current DSLR is only 20% successful.

I often think about the possibility of returning to the far lighter 300/4 L for easier handheld photography.

While it is extremely useful to know how one's lenses, of different focal lengths, compare, one can't forget that they have different uses. When you fill the frame with any of these three lenses the results will be equally superb. Rest assured, the EF 300/4 L is a very good lens.

You need to ask yourself if you need a lens between the 200 and 400, and perhaps even if a zoom somewhere in there may be more useful than the prime. Of course it also depends on how much you use the 300mm focal length.

Good to find you on this forum!

While I have no experience with the 200 or the 400, I have had the 300 f/4L IS for little over a year. Though it is the image stabilised version, to my knowledge it is very similar to the non-IS version. In my experience it is very sharp, even at f/4. Stopping it down to f/5.6 or f/8 improves things even further. I have mostly used it on a 7D when there is good light and occasionally on a 1D X for low(ish) light or when the extra reach was not needed. I have used it for bird photography and other wildlife/animals and sometimes people as well. Focus is sometimes a bit inaccurate on the 7D, although using spot focus makes it more accurate (but less reliable), when there is sufficient light and contrast. Perhaps it needs some micro-adjustment or I am doing something wrong, or I just have too high expectations. Focus on the 1D X is significantly better.

Overall, I think, even on the cropped sensor, it is plenty sharp, and the biggest obstacle to getting sharp images is getting focus just right.

7D

7D

1D X

7D

7D

Really? When I had the 200 / 2.8L, it was wicked sharp wide open on the 5D (fullsize examples here). Never had the 400 / 5.6L, but it's not surprising that wide open at f/5.6 might be sharper than wide open at f/2.8.

I have the 200 2.8L and the 400 5.6L.. Yes the 5.6 is better wide open but it's 5.6. With the 400 there is no reason to stop down in terms of image sharpness. The 200 2.8L is certainly usable at 2.8 but it does improve with stopping down. Both of these lenses are so satisfying to use.

Thanks! I now did a comparison between the 200/2.8 L with the 1.4x EF-III converter versus the 300/4.0 L.
I am disappointed, the 300/4.0 L is clearly better (colors, sharpness, C.A.), but the 200/2.8x1.4 is lighter and is quasi-macro.
I think I will keep the Canon 300/4.0 L EF until I can afford the lighter Nikon 300/4.0 PF... and I will try one before buying, I wonder if the Nikon is as good as the Canon.

In case of 200 2.8L I purchased one years ago as a fairly cheap astrophotography lens. A kind of useful side-effect of chromatic aberration on this lens is that it's handy to focus on the stars; when there's no coloured halo around stars, the focus is pretty good.