Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 21 Oct 2015 (Wednesday) 18:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Achieving 300 f/2.8L look for less $?

 
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,027 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2206
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Oct 22, 2015 01:28 |  #16

Charlie wrote in post #17755429 (external link)
wow, the guy went from absolute top notch seller to horrible guy. Must be going through some really tough times.

i'm not sure about 'horrible guy'...but i've been curious about it, since i was looking at older lenses that would need the adapter, he definitely hasn't posted here in a long time(ontarian) and seeing the ebay stuff, i just figured something was up...i did just notice he uses flickr still occasionally...but nothing about adapters...maybe he got sick of making all of them...he did seem to offer something nobody else was doing though


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,416 posts
Gallery: 211 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4074
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Oct 22, 2015 01:44 |  #17

The only thing I've seen is something about personal illness and injury coupled with production issues. All of which was just as vague as my previous statement made it sound.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smythie
I wasn't even trying
3,691 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 626
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Sydney - Australia
     
Oct 22, 2015 04:49 |  #18

Talley wrote in post #17755289 (external link)
If he likes the look of the 300 2.8 he should try the 300mm F2!

http://www.mir.com.my …s/telephotos/30​0mmedif20/ (external link)

I'd love to get my hands on one of those beasts. Pretty rare from what I can see.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,327 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Oct 22, 2015 22:53 |  #19

DreDaze wrote in post #17755176 (external link)
what are your typical subjects? the older 120-300f2.8's go fairly cheap, probably less than $1k, although i'm not sure how well they work...the newer os does better, and then the sport is even more money

High school sports. Night football, daytime soccer, baseball, softball, etc. AF must be top notch which is why I've ruled Sigma out.

Talley wrote in post #17755266 (external link)
200mm F2 will get you very close. But sounds like it is out of your budget. What exactly is your budget?

200 f/2, ah yes. Budget is $1500 or so. Assuming I sell my 100-400L.

Let's face it, if you're shooting sports on a less-than-300-f/2.8 budget there are very few choices. 200 f/2.8, 300 f/4L, 100-400L, 400 f/5.6L, 70-200 f/2.8L + 1.4 TC. All are great lenses but none do what 300 mm f/2.8 will do.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,601 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Likes: 6209
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
Post edited over 3 years ago by CyberDyneSystems.
     
Oct 22, 2015 23:12 |  #20

Used Tokina 300mm f/2.8 (EF mount with AF)
Used SIGMA 300mm f/2.8
Used SIGMA 120-300mm f/2.8

These three will do what a 300mm f/2.8 will do! :)


On the other hand, I shoot a lot with the 135mm f/2 and consider it to be optically a close compromise vs 200mm f/2 or 200 f/1.8


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
panicatnabisco
Senior Member
Avatar
968 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 306
Joined Apr 2012
Location: san francisco, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by panicatnabisco.
     
Oct 22, 2015 23:34 |  #21

I have the OP's combo (sorta), except its 200mm f/2.8 on my 70-200mm

All 3 will give you very different looks because of image compression from the focal length and aperture. I can go on about the technicality of things, but its much easier to understand it after viewing this gif of a cat taken at different focal lengths:

IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/EWpe9PX.gif

Canon 1DX | 6D | 16-35/2.8II | 24-70/2.8II | 50/1.8 | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 85/1.4 | 100/2.8 IS macro | 200mm f/2 | 400/2.8 IS II | 2xIII
Leica M8.2 | Noctilux 50 f/1 | Elmarit 90/2.8
afimages.net (external link) | Facebook (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,027 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2206
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Oct 23, 2015 01:38 |  #22

n1as wrote in post #17756697 (external link)
High school sports. Night football, daytime soccer, baseball, softball, etc. AF must be top notch which is why I've ruled Sigma out.

200 f/2, ah yes. Budget is $1500 or so. Assuming I sell my 100-400L.

Let's face it, if you're shooting sports on a less-than-300-f/2.8 budget there are very few choices. 200 f/2.8, 300 f/4L, 100-400L, 400 f/5.6L, 70-200 f/2.8L + 1.4 TC. All are great lenses but none do what 300 mm f/2.8 will do.

well with high school sports, it's not like you can all of a sudden get closer if you need 300mm, 135mm and moving closer isn't going to help you out much...for you budget you can probably find a 120-300OS in which case, i don't think you'd have any issues with the AF not being able to keep up


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smythie
I wasn't even trying
3,691 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 626
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Sydney - Australia
     
Oct 23, 2015 07:44 |  #23

panicatnabisco wrote in post #17756737 (external link)
I have the OP's combo (sorta), except its 200mm f/2.8 on my 70-200mm

All 3 will give you very different looks because of image compression from the focal length and aperture. I can go on about the technicality of things, but its much easier to understand it after viewing this gif of a cat taken at different focal lengths:

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

Whoa! that is a trippy animation!


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,078 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2744
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
Post edited over 3 years ago by Talley.
     
Oct 23, 2015 07:51 |  #24

n1as wrote in post #17756697 (external link)
High school sports. Night football, daytime soccer, baseball, softball, etc. AF must be top notch which is why I've ruled Sigma out.

200 f/2, ah yes. Budget is $1500 or so. Assuming I sell my 100-400L.

Let's face it, if you're shooting sports on a less-than-300-f/2.8 budget there are very few choices. 200 f/2.8, 300 f/4L, 100-400L, 400 f/5.6L, 70-200 f/2.8L + 1.4 TC. All are great lenses but none do what 300 mm f/2.8 will do.


Your best bet is to pick up a used Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS non sport like mine. I got mine several years ago for 1675 and have since seen several sell in the 1400-1600 range. There is one currently in the classifieds for 1900 but typically I see them under 1700. This will give you what you need.

I've compared my 120-300 to the Canon 300 2.8 IS V1 which I owned first and sold it because the sigma I got for exactly half price. The sigma is 97% of the Canon or at least on my copies it was and the Sigma has the capability of zooming out to 120mm which is helpful alot of times even though I don't really ever go to 120mm I do zoom between 200-300 alot.

It's my goto sports lens for sure.

EDIT: http://www.ebay.com …nc&_trksid=p204​5573.m1684 (external link)

You can see several have sold at or under 1500 and if you keep an eye out you can get the even older non OS model for under 1000 although it's not as optically on par as the OS model which is what I would recommend.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,327 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Oct 23, 2015 13:53 as a reply to  @ panicatnabisco's post |  #25

Ugh, I think I'm gonna be motion sick ... :-(


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
absplastic
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 526
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Oct 23, 2015 16:02 |  #26

Whether or not a 300/2.8 shot looks similar to a 200/2.8 or 300/4.0 shot will depend a lot on the ratio of the camera-to-subject distance to the camera-to-backdrop distance, and whether or not the scale of the backdrop matters. Perspective of a human subject doesn't change that much from 300mm to 200mm, because with both lenses your camera-to-subject distance is much greater than the size of your subject's head. As your lens focal length goes up, your "perspective" view of them asymptotically approaches orthogonal projection (perspective you'd have from infinitely far away), and by the time you're at the working distance of a 200mm lens, you're already most of the way there.

To get the same degree of background out-of-focus-ness of a 300/2.8 shot with a 300/4.0, what you need is for the backdrop to be farther from the subject than it would need to be for the 300/2.8 shot. This won't produce exactly the same end result, of course, since the background will be at a different scale. Whether this matters depends on the nature of the specific background and how much you're blurring it. With a 200/2.8, you will get decent background blur, but again the backdrop will look slightly less blurred overall because of the wider view angle of the lens showing you more of the backdrop (less "compression"). Neither substitute is going to give you exactly the same shot, it just depends on what characteristic of the 300/2.8 photos matter to you, and how much your shooting locations allow for getting pretty close to the same look.


5DSR, 6D, 16-35/4L IS, 85L II, 100L macro, Sigma 150-600C
SL1, 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, 40 STM, 50 STM
My (mostly) Fashion and Portraiture Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link) (NSFW)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,327 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Oct 23, 2015 16:29 |  #27

In my situation, many of those distances are outside of my control. The football players and the crowd in the stands are both at fairly predictable distances. I can't get any closer to the players and therefore can't affect the relative distances between them. Well, I guess I could change my angle to shoot up/down the field rather than across but in sports photography, I'm focusing on positioning myself to get the best action rather than to maximize the look of the background.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
absplastic
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 526
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Oct 23, 2015 16:43 |  #28

Shooting down-angle at the players from far away, I would not expect a 300/2.8 shot to look that different from a 300/4 shot only due to the aperture difference. Of course if we're talking about the respective Canon lenses, obviously there is a quality difference between them that is more that just one f-stop. A $1200 lens shot isn't going to look like a $6000 lens shot no matter where you stand :-) But those little bits of extra sharpness, clarity, color accuracy and speed come with what many enthusiasts would consider a disproportionate and/or unjustifiable (for their use) price tag.


5DSR, 6D, 16-35/4L IS, 85L II, 100L macro, Sigma 150-600C
SL1, 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, 40 STM, 50 STM
My (mostly) Fashion and Portraiture Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link) (NSFW)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,078 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2744
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Oct 30, 2015 09:48 |  #29

n1as wrote in post #17757618 (external link)
In my situation, many of those distances are outside of my control. The football players and the crowd in the stands are both at fairly predictable distances. I can't get any closer to the players and therefore can't affect the relative distances between them. Well, I guess I could change my angle to shoot up/down the field rather than across but in sports photography, I'm focusing on positioning myself to get the best action rather than to maximize the look of the background.


http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/13895​16 (external link)

1150 for the older 120-300 non OS which would be fine for sports.

FYI.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nethawked
Senior Member
797 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 242
Joined Oct 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Oct 30, 2015 09:53 |  #30

n1as wrote in post #17756697 (external link)
All are great lenses but none do what 300 mm f/2.8 will do.

You just answered your original question. :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,856 views & 5 likes for this thread
Achieving 300 f/2.8L look for less $?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is achengpics
704 guests, 216 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.