Achieving 300 f/2.8L look for less $?

I love the look of the 300 f/2.8 but it is not in my budget. Period.

Will the 200 f/2.8L or 135L give a similar look provided you're closer to your subject?

The DoF calculator I checked said the depth of field was the same for these 3 configurations:
1. 300 f/2.8 at 30 yds
2. 200 f/2.8 at 20 yds
3. 135 f/2.8 at 13.5 yds.
Which suggests to me that all 3 lenses at f/2.8 with the subject the same size in the frame would give similar images (not exact of course).

Yes? No?

The perspective would change with each combination because of the variation in distances between the camera and elements of the scene.

Yes, perspective would change. And I realize that the background blur would appear to be more in the longer lens due to this. So maybe that is my answer. Maybe that is why the 300 f/2.8 is so magical, because it combines f/2.8 DoF with the extra blurring from long focal length limited background.?

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

n1as wrote in post #17755064
I love the look of the 300 f/2.8 but it is not in my budget. Period.

Will the 200 f/2.8L or 135L give a similar look provided you're closer to your subject?

The DoF calculator I checked said the depth of field was the same for these 3 configurations:
1. 300 f/2.8 at 30 yds
2. 200 f/2.8 at 20 yds
3. 135 f/2.8 at 13.5 yds.
Which suggests to me that all 3 lenses at f/2.8 with the subject the same size in the frame would give similar images (not exact of course).

Yes? No?

If you currently have lenses that have a variety of focal lengths (either primes or zooms), you can do the test yourself. You may need to be at f/4 or f/5.6 rather than f/2.8, but it will show you how the background varies depending on your focal length and distance from the subject. The biggest difference is the amount of background in the photo. A 100mm lens will show a much wider background than a 300mm lens. Because of that, the background of the wider lens just looks messier.

If you want the "look" of the 300 2.8, you might want to give the 300 f/4 a try. It will give exactly the same composition as the 300 2.8, and you lose just one stop of DOF.

n1as wrote in post #17755064
I love the look of the 300 f/2.8 but it is not in my budget. Period.

Will the 200 f/2.8L or 135L give a similar look provided you're closer to your subject?

The DoF calculator I checked said the depth of field was the same for these 3 configurations:
1. 300 f/2.8 at 30 yds
2. 200 f/2.8 at 20 yds
3. 135 f/2.8 at 13.5 yds.
Which suggests to me that all 3 lenses at f/2.8 with the subject the same size in the frame would give similar images (not exact of course).

Yes? No?

200mm F2 will get you very close. But sounds like it is out of your budget. What exactly is your budget?

There is always the Tokina 300mm 2.8 and use a FD to EF adapter: http://www.ebay.com …m:mAXA0NQU5gRTx​wrBJU1_0Dw

cheapest way to 300 2.8 out there.

Or the FD 300 2.8L with an EdMika adapter. A little bit more, but damned good optically.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17755276
Or the FD 300 2.8L with an EdMika adapter. A little bit more, but damned good optically.

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/

Talley wrote in post #17755269
There is always the Tokina 300mm 2.8 and use a FD to EF adapter: http://www.ebay.com …m:mAXA0NQU5gRTx​wrBJU1_0Dw

cheapest way to 300 2.8 out there.

If the adapter is glassless, he losses the ability to focus to infinity which kinda defeats the 300mm. And if it's got glass the quality will really suffer. Unless FD means something else than Canon's old FD/FL mount.

Scooby_Doo wrote in post #17755345
If the adapter is glassless, he losses the ability to focus to infinity which kinda defeats the 300mm. And if it's got glass the quality will really suffer. Unless FD means something else than Canon's old FD/FL mount.

I have an EdMika adapter that has no glass. I have an FD 300 2.8L. It focuses to infinity.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17755347
I have an EdMika adapter that has no glass. I have an FD 300 2.8L. It focuses to infinity.

But this is still no 100% indication for the Tokina with FD Mount.
It is possible that the Tokina has less Focus ability behind infinity than the Canon Fd 300mm/2.8 - and this could reduce the maximum focus distance on EF.

ZoneV wrote in post #17755378
But this is still no 100% indication for the Tokina with FD Mount.
It is possible that the Tokina has less Focus ability behind infinity than the Canon Fd 300mm/2.8 - and this could reduce the maximum focus distance on EF.

On my FD it was simply a matter of adjusting the focus stop under the focus ring grip. My main points being that : A) there are good glassless adapters out there, and B) you can use one and retain infinity focus.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17755347
I have an EdMika adapter that has no glass. I have an FD 300 2.8L. It focuses to infinity.

but that doesn't mean the adapter would work with the tokina...if there is no glassless adapter for it, then it's either no infinity focus, or a mini teleconverter, so it's not a 300mm f2.8 after all...even the FD 300mm f2.8's are around the same price as the 120-300f2.8 non OS lens

but back to ed mika, i do wonder what really happened to him(i would guess a health, or personal issue), he's got nothing on ebay for sale any more, and his feedback in the last 6 months is rough, to say the least...his adapters seemed to work for many, but doesn't seem like it's a viable thing going forward if you ask me...

his feedback:
http://feedback.ebay.c​om …ika&ftab=Feedba​ckAsSeller

wow, the guy went from absolute top notch seller to horrible guy. Must be going through some really tough times.