# how to get 300 2.8



## lux (Sep 16, 2014)

I have long coveted 300 2.8. I have used 100-400 but heavy overcast, night games and sidelines with lots of clutter have stymied my photography. It is possible that I have made this complaint on more than occasion and my ruthless annoying complaining has finally worn the boss (my wife) down and I have been given permission to seek the 300 2.8. But how to obtain such nirvana.

1)300 2.8 L IS II…just kidding you didn't really think I could do that did you?
2)300 2.8 L IS I…seems like it can be purchased for around 3500 depending upon from where/condition etc
3)Sigma 120-300 sport (around 3500 again)

So 300 L IS I or sigma 120-300…

Primary purpose is for taking pictures of kids playing soccer. I use a 6D (though might someday buy a used 7DI as a second body). I shoot with a monopod when renting a 300 I which I have enjoyed. I have not ever used the 120-300. I would like to try some birding. I live near a lot of good birding locations. I would probably buy a 2xTC for that. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## viggen61 (Sep 17, 2014)

The 300 f/2.8L IS USM II is selling for $5,279.20 refurbished in the Canon USA store. Full 1 year Canon US warranty, and all accessories (caps, hood, straps and the suitcase). 

I doubt you can go wrong with either the original or the sequel, but if you can swing it, I'd try for the II. Especially at that price!


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 17, 2014)

Many claimed there is not much diff. in IQ between Canon 300mm f2.8 ver.1 and 2(only weight). I had the oppertunity shooting with ver 2 for over weeks. IQ is just SUPER. 

If I have to choose one one, I would go for Canon.


----------



## pwp (Sep 17, 2014)

Do a CR search...there have been useful threads on the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 right here on these forums.

I have the 300 f/2.8isII. Little needs to be added about this incredible lens. For some sports I often think it would be useful to have a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It's a lens that has intrigued me for years, but I've never gone through and bought one. When I shoot football (various codes...) I have the 300 f/2.8 on one body and a 70-200 f/2.8 on the other. A Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 would free me up to just work with one body for most shots, and leave a wide on the second body.

Unless you are Mr Muscles, this is a monopod lens. It's heavy. Much heavier than the Canon 300 f/2.8. Another thing to investigate further are reports that the Sigma may not be a true 300mm, more like 280mm though this may only be at the minimum focusing distance. Check it out and decide whther this is important to you or not.

https://fstoppers.com/gear/review-you-should-want-sigmas-120-300mm-f28-sport-lens-3096
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-120-300mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm
http://petapixel.com/2013/11/01/review-sigma-120-300-f2-8-one-sexy-beast/

And also check out the Fred Miranda user reviews:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=104

-pw


----------



## lion rock (Sep 17, 2014)

Lux,
Welcome to the dilemma.
My story is not much different from yours. I started drooling after the Canon 200-400mm lens, but after renting it for 2 weeks, I feel I can't wield the monster so well because of my 5'4" size. Still love the lens. So, after a long while sulking about the lens, I started lusting after the 300mm. Boss lady even went with me 3 weeks ago 520 miles to B&H to look at the 300! It is hand holdable, not sure how long I can shoot with it, though.
But, my thought is that with a X2 on my 70-200 f/2.8 II, I have the reach, maybe not the sharpness nor light gathering capability of a f/2.8. Still the combination on a full frame will give me enough use.
Now, my hope is for the introduction of the mark II of the 100-400. And hope that it would be a big improvement over the current model.
Now, unlike you, there is not many exotic wild life where I live (adjacent to the Jefferson National Forest), just small birds and deer, so a long lens is used only on occasion, and I travel to foreign countries annually, but air travel with heavy gear is not encouraged.
Hope you come to a satisfying decision. Keep us informed.
-r


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 17, 2014)

I don't recall how much the 300 mkii was with the cpw group buy... but I would guess used is the way to go. I haven't used either... but I kinda want it every now and then. 

I flirt with Sigma, but inevitably I come back to Canon. It just feel right. 

Ever mull over the 200mm f/2L and the 1.4 tc? It's not quite 300... it's not quite as sharp, though you also wind up with that extra stop of light if you are shooting indoors.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2014)

I have the MkI Canon IS, I recommend it highly and the IQ is stunning, the only real performance difference between the MkI and MkII is the use of the 2X TC, both take the 1.4X TC superbly, but the MkII takes the 2X TC very well too, it also has fractionally faster AF especially when using the TC's.

I have felt no strong desire to upgrade from my MkI, mainly because I rarely use TC's. If longer than 300 is going to be a regular requirement I would suggest saving a bit longer and try for a MkII, if you really just want 300 and the occasional 420mm f4 then the MkI and 1.4 TC are very very good, and I can't see them depreciating much in the mid to long term either, I could basically get what I bought mine for ten years ago.


----------



## candc (Sep 17, 2014)

I have the sigma sport and it is a fantastic lens. From what i have seen It is not quite as good at 300 as the canon 300ii but its very close and its a zoom. It is really good with the canon 1.4xiii or kenko pro tc to give you 168-420 f/4. I am excited to see how it does with the new sigma tc's, the current ones are not the best.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 17, 2014)

The 300 f/2.8 L IS is easy to get. Just meet me at the local McD's with $3700 and I will trade you mine for the cash.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 17, 2014)

The 300 2.8 IS is pretty fantastic. The IS is a little bit old, but it's amazing. FF crisp corner to corner. Just crazy sharp. Beautiful bokeh, so smooth like a 135 2.

I haven't tried the newest Sigma 120-300. But the old pre-OS one, wasn't as good as the Canon prime. It was sharp but not insanely sharp, closer to the 300 f/4L sharpness. The Canon prime + 1.4x TC was still a full match for the bare sigma lens. The sigma was like 280mm and f/3.0 if you took the Canon prime to have been 300mm and f/2.8. The Canon has better AF too. The Canon prime weighs a bit less as well. Despite the prime being a prime and not being as flexible, I never once saw anyone take the sigma from the newspaper lens pool if a 300 2.8 IS was still available.

Anyway the old sigma certainly was a pretty good lens but normal standards, but it wasn't a match going by the insane standards of the CAnon super-teles.

That said, I do believe the new sigma 120-300 is supposed to have been improved. (although I believe it's even heavier in comparison to the 300 2.8 IS than the old one was).


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 17, 2014)

Two fliers on the plot:

200 f/2.8 & crop; it could work if you're not producing big prints.

300 f/4: Sharp, cheap, light weight, if you can afford a stop.

I put these to you as questions to consider to make sure you need to spend for a 300 f/2.8; you're the one who knows for sure.

Jim


----------



## nc0b (Sep 17, 2014)

Jim has a good point about considering other lenses if you are interested in birds. For a while I tried the 2X III TC on my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II for BIF. Perched, fine; in flight - forget it. If you lose focus, which is considerably slower with the 2X TC attached, you may never reacquire focus when it gets lost in a blue sky. On the other hand the 400mm f/5.6 or the 300mm f/4 will focus or refocus quite quickly. I have never used the 300mm f/2.8, so I am making do dispersions on the lens. The TC might be fine if you are shooting sports from above in the stands, but at least from my experience the 2X III TC isn't a good choice for BIF.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 17, 2014)

lux said:


> my ruthless annoying complaining has finally worn the boss (my wife) down and I have been given permission to seek the 300 2.8. But how to obtain such nirvana.
> 
> 1)300 2.8 L IS II…just kidding you didn't really think I could do that did you?
> 2)300 2.8 L IS I…seems like it can be purchased for around 3500 depending upon from where/condition etc
> 3)Sigma 120-300 sport (around 3500 again)



The main differences from my experience is that the MkII is lighter and has better IS. It is slated to take the 2xx MkIII TC better, focus slightly faster and be slightly optically sharper than the MkI, but I didn't notice that. 
I guess you already checked out Bryan's review on TDP.

Considering that the MkII is about 2x the price of a well-kept MkI (at least where I am), you need very (very) good reasons to go for the MkII.

The 300's are quite handholdable at 2,35-2,55kg, even with the 2x TC, whereas the Sigma 120-300mm is 3,4kgs.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 17, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Ever mull over the 200mm f/2L and the 1.4 tc? It's not quite 300... it's not quite as sharp, though you also wind up with that extra stop of light if you are shooting indoors.



I played with it last couple days. Just like many mentioned, the compression of 200mm and f2 are insane. 

My GAS status is now up-north. This could be the last purchase for 2014


----------



## kaihp (Sep 17, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> My GAS status is now up-north. This could be the last purchase for 2014



Famous last words, or just because you'll buy it on Dec 31st?


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 17, 2014)

I finally got an 85L mkii after about five deals that went bad and a year of pining. So my gas should be satiated for a few months. Having said that... I think I may wind up looking at the 200f2 or the 300 f2.8 sometime here in the not too distant future... It is quite troubling.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 17, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I finally got an 85L mkii after about five deals that went bad and a year of pining. So my gas should be satiated for a few months. Having said that... I think I may wind up looking at the 200f2 or the 300 f2.8 sometime here in the not too distant future... It is quite troubling.



Congrats JD
I think 85L II and 200mm f2 will be great for kids. Want to race to 200mm f2 finish line with me? ;D


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 18, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I finally got an 85L mkii after about five deals that went bad and a year of pining. So my gas should be satiated for a few months. Having said that... I think I may wind up looking at the 200f2 or the 300 f2.8 sometime here in the not too distant future... It is quite troubling.
> ...



With your wife, I think you have an insurmountable head start. Does she know that we are all green with envy with her level of understanding?

Having said that... I have 2 grand in my camera fund, and I would probably sell my 70-200mkii for 1900ish, so I'm only a few grand away...


----------



## NancyP (Sep 18, 2014)

Rent it? My local camera shop has one for rent, apparently it is popular. That way, you get to handle it and see if it suits you.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 18, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


Good compliments on her NEW hand bags & shoes will earn a lot of credit 

I like your thinking about selling the 70-200 when 200mm f2 is in consideration. I'm few steps away from that 200mm f2 IS. I'm working on a deal package right now, including 35mm f1.4, 16-35 f4 IS and 200mm f2 IS. The store manager is playing hard-to-get right now(he thinks I want those lenses). I'm trying to keep my cool during negotation(I'm drooling from the inside though ;D).


----------



## johnhenry (Sep 18, 2014)

I found a secondhand but pristine 200mm f/1.8 USM and use mine with a 2x


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 18, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Good compliments on her NEW hand bags & shoes will earn a lot of credit
> 
> I like your thinking about selling the 70-200 when 200mm f2 is in consideration. I'm few steps away from that 200mm f2 IS. I'm working on a deal package right now, including 35mm f1.4, 16-35 f4 IS and 200mm f2 IS. The store manager is playing hard-to-get right now(he thinks I want those lenses). I'm trying to keep my cool during negotation(I'm drooling from the inside though ;D).



I'm starting to lean towards primes in my "old" age... Sure the 24-105 has been a solid option along with the 70-200, but good... just not good enough. I like indisputably great... and I find the primes get me there... I'll probably pick up another 70-200, maybe the f4 is because of its small size and solid performance, but I did like the 70-200 f/2.8L usm... oh geesh... I might as well just keep the 70-200 f/2.8 L is mkii and suck it and up and have some redundancy. Damn you photography!!!

I will say that my camera gear has kept its value a hell of a lot more than my baseball cards from the early 90's.

as for the negotiation... I find that having an alternative vendor really helps to push the deal. Maybe contact Canon Price Watch and see what the "street" price for that package would be... Maybe they will come close or beat the asking price... and then explain that you want to buy from them, and it's not all about the money, but it's something you can get and do now... and lord knows that this isn't the end of the line... and if they want to keep your business, they do have to EARN your business.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 18, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Ever mull over the 200mm f/2L and the 1.4 tc? It's not quite 300... it's not quite as sharp, though you also wind up with that extra stop of light if you are shooting indoors.
> ...



There is no such thing as "lens compression" it is perspective, that is all.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 18, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



It's time for bed... I read that as


> there is no such thing as lens comparison...



I was about to lose my mind...


----------



## Steve (Sep 18, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> There is no such thing as "lens compression" it is perspective, that is all.



What do you think the term "compression" means?



Perspective Distortion Wiki said:


> Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion and* compression distortion*, also called wide-angle distortion and long-lens or telephoto distortion,[1] when talking about images with the same field size.


----------



## stein (Sep 18, 2014)

I had the 300/4 and 100-400L for years and thought it was OK - BUT when I bought a 2nd hand 300/2.8L IS from Adorama in 2011 I started thinking WHY I had not bought this first. It makes a difference that is unbelievable!
I use it most of the time for birds with 5DIII and a 1.4IIIx attached - a great tool (but a little heavy..)
Maybe the new 400/4DO will do job, looks great!
See the first photo I took with the lens + an old 1.4xI handheld http://tromsofoto.smugmug.com


----------



## lux (Sep 18, 2014)

The original question was used 300 2.8 l is or new 120-300 2.8 sigma sport. I would love to get the 300 2.8 ii but that just isn't going to happen and if I wait 3 years saving money for it my eldest will be almost done with high school soccer. 

The trade off is sharpness for zoom and weight considerations. Has anyone used both lenses? I'm never going to have two great full frame cameras. Maybe a used 7d and my 6d but that is likely the best I could have in the foreseeable future. I don't see myself therefore using 2 bodies during a game.


Oh and someone was suggesting 85 ii for kids...maybe if they are sedated. 85 1.2 plus some Benadryl and you can get great pictures


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 18, 2014)

lux said:


> Oh and someone was suggesting 85 ii for kids...maybe if they are sedated. 85 1.2 plus some Benadryl and you can get great pictures



My 1 year old loves to crawl into my 3ft minimum focusing distance. Considering I have to get on my butt to get down to her level, I wind up scooching back... only to rinse and repeat.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 18, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Good compliments on her NEW hand bags & shoes will earn a lot of credit
> ...



Me too - Seems like you and I are on the same path JD. I start leaning to primes. 

It's a cycle that many photogs(like you and me) have to go through. . I'm a bit worry, one day we might go back to zoom.


----------



## niteclicks (Sep 18, 2014)

I bought a used vI and it is great on the 5DmkIII, but it even brought new life to the 40D. My favorite before it was the 200 2.8 II , Still is my go to for the kids playing outside .The 300 is sweet just is not as grab and go. My intent was also for soccer just have not had the time.

300 on 40D


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 18, 2014)

Since you already have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I'd nix the Sigma, especially if you pick up a 1.4x as that combo is awesome and will work well with the 300 f/2.8 as well. I have the 300 f/2.8 IS II, but as many have said, the Mk I is an excellent lens and the only significant difference is in the IQ with extenders. If you can find a good deal on one, I'd definitely go for the Mk I. 300mm at f/2.8 is an awesome thing, especially for sports!


----------



## tron (Sep 18, 2014)

I wouldn't waste my money on Sigma. I would definitely choose Canon 300 2.8.


----------



## PFerrara (Sep 18, 2014)

Hello Everyone. New poster to the forum here (been watching for a while, though). I've got a similiar decision point coming up with my primary activity being kids playing soccer vs. HS football.

Since he has the 70-200 II 2.8 already, would purchasing a new crop sensor camera like the new 7DMkII accomplish the same? Would that turn his lens into a 112 - 320 f2.8? And pick up better focusing & fps in the process?

I know we don't have any data yet on the 7DMkII low light performance, and that must be very important for night football, but for me with most all day games of soccer I am leaning toward this route (after I see some real reviews of course on the 7DMkII).


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 18, 2014)

PFerrara said:


> Hello Everyone. New poster to the forum here (been watching for a while, though). I've got a similiar decision point coming up with my primary activity being kids playing soccer vs. HS football.
> 
> Since he has the 70-200 II 2.8 already, would purchasing a new crop sensor camera like the new 7DMkII accomplish the same? Would that turn his lens into a 112 - 320 f2.8? And pick up better focusing & fps in the process?
> 
> I know we don't have any data yet on the 7DMkII low light performance, and that must be very important for night football, but for me with most all day games of soccer I am leaning toward this route (after I see some real reviews of course on the 7DMkII).



The 6d has a really good center focus point, so as long as he uses that in conjunction with af servo, he should be able to stay on his subject. Also, the low light performance is, presumably, still 2 to 3 times better than any crop sensor.

A crop body may give you reach, but the image is still basically the same as a full frame, but if you cropped of the edges... so the perspective/ subject isolation isn't improved...

It is just a mirage really.


----------



## westr70 (Sep 18, 2014)

I noticed the remark about the 300 f/2.8 IS Mk 1 having a significant difference from the MkII with the TC extenders. If that's true I'll have to rethink the whole thing again. IQ + Cost are the major considerations.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 18, 2014)

westr70 said:


> I noticed the remark about the 300 f/2.8 IS Mk 1 having a significant difference from the MkII with the TC extenders. If that's true I'll have to rethink the whole thing again. IQ + Cost are the major considerations.


Yes - here's the bare lens - very close:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

and with the 2x III - definitely a noticeable difference:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=249&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

And according to DxO's review, Canon EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM review – Straight from the top drawer:

"Taking a lens launched in 1999 and testing it against more current models is always going to be an interesting exercise. Fortunately for the EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM, the test data backs up what users have known for years – it really is very good. If you’ve got one and have been considering an upgrade to the Mark II version, you will find improved optical performance, though not by much. The main benefits will be in the reduction in weight (2,550g vs 2,400g) and the improved Image Stabiliser that offers up to four stops rather than two stops. Canon also claim the AF of the Mk II version is improved.

On the other hand, if you’re in the market for a 300mm lens and don’t currently own one, then your main deciding factor will be price. The EF300mm f/4L IS USM may not be quite as good as its more expensive stable-mates, but it still puts in a very respectable performance. Equally, if you can’t stretch to the cost of the latest Mk II 300mm f/2.8L, then picking up a second-hand EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM is going to offer you very similar performance, for quite a lot less money. In fact, if you don’t need the extra IS stops and the 150g weight difference is not an issue, then the older lens is probably the pick of the trio as it blends great performance with a more affordable second-hand price tag."

Keep in mind that DxO did not test the lenses' performance with extenders, which is why they don't comment on that difference.


----------



## niteclicks (Sep 18, 2014)

I have used the 2xmkiii with the v1 . I am trying to learn BIF so this is not a good example probably, but its all I have available on this computer. Remember in some else's hands I think it would be much better. But maybe it will help. 
handheld 2x mk3


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 18, 2014)

niteclicks said:


> I have used the 2xmkiii with the v1 . I am trying to learn BIF so this is not a good example probably, but its all I have available on this computer. Remember in some else's hands I think it would be much better. But maybe it will help.
> handheld 2x mk3


niteclicks - using the 2x on the Mk I lens definitely works and it's almost as sharp in the center as the Mk II. BIF shots are really hard, but keep practicing and you'll nail one soon. It's a great feeling when you get a great one!


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 18, 2014)

niteclicks said:


> I have used the 2xmkiii with the v1 . I am trying to learn BIF so this is not a good example probably, but its all I have available on this computer. Remember in some else's hands I think it would be much better. But maybe it will help.
> handheld 2x mk3



Like mackguyver mentioned, It will be little challenge(especially the condition in your photo).

Keep shooting


----------



## Too_Many_Hobbies (Sep 18, 2014)

For what it is worth, I have the 6D, 100-400, and Sigma 120-300 S. I used to have a 7D but sold it(would like to get a 7D II or more likely a 5D Mark IV or III down the road). I miss the 7D for the tracking of BIF, frame rate, and buffer. I love the 6D's IQ and low-light performance, though, and think I made the right choice for me.

Personally I think my keeper rate/sharpness is better with the Sigma + 1.4 Canon Teleconverter II than the 100-400. I stop it down to F4.5 with the 1.4 converter and still love the results. Personally I'll probably keep saving for the 400 2.8, 500 4 or 600 4 way, way down the road as realistically I have every lens I really need except an UWA and I'll look into the Canon 16-35 F4 and Tamron 15-30 2.8 next year.

I did purchase my Sigma refurbished directly from sigma for $2,700 US last year.

If you are interested, I have a few pictures with the 120-300 here (with both the 6D and 70D):

https://www.flickr.com/search/[email protected]&q=120-300


----------



## lux (Sep 18, 2014)

Thank you all for the advice. The search continues. "Too many hobbies" nice chick-a-dee photos…I know they are common but I'm quite fond of them. The primary purpose is kids soccer. I have three kids that play and I typically am at 3-5 games a weekend if I'm not working. 

For fun for me I would love to someday sit in my canoe with a used 7D and a cheap tele zoom and try to do some birding that way. (I just can't imagine flipping the canoe with a 6D and 300 2.8)

Reading through the responses:
120-300: those who have it say that it focuses fine and they like the zoom but they also seem to always state that for the same price they would have gotten the canon (unclear if these folks have the newest sigma or an earlier lens). I do have the 70-200 ii and there is a lot of overlap. 

300 mk 1 everyone says that the mk 2 is better especially with the extenders…that being said I won't be using 2xextenders for my primary purpose..maybe the 1.4. The 2x would only be for secondary uses like birding. 

some have suggested that the 70-200 plus 1.4 is essentially the same as the 300 2.8. I would say this…for night games and heavy overcast games I'm at ISO 6400 to 12800 with the 70-200 2.8 in order to get a shutter speed to 1/800 or better. one stop just to F4 makes that Iso 12800 to 25000 which is no good on a 6D. I can't imagine that it would work on the new 7DII

keep the advice coming. I appreciate all of it


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as "lens compression" it is perspective, that is all.
> ...



I think the term compression means "the action of being compressed", I believe compressed means "squeezed together".

I also reassert that there is no such thing as "lens compression" and the linked Wiki article is a very badly written and illustrated example of writing by committee.

If you take a shot with any lens from the same place then the perspective is the same, crop the wider angle down to the longer focal length framing and the "lens compression" is identical, ergo, there is no such thing as "lens compression". Change focal length and move to maintain subject size and you have changed your perspective, not your "lens compression".


What do you think the term "perspective" means?


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2014)

Dude, you might want to check the part where it says "when talking about images with the same field size". 

We all understand that it is perspective but when using actual photographic lenses in real world applications, the distortion effects are clearly observable. Its not really possible to crop a 16mm to a 300mm fov in the real world, nor can you make the 300mm replicate the perspective of the 16mm when shot close up. That's why real people talk about "compression" when discussing long lenses and portraiture or landscape. We know that the lens isn't literally casting a magic spell to literally warp the fabric of spacetime and literally crush a model's face flat. Compression is a photographic term to describe a photographic effect and everybody knows what you mean when you say it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 19, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Call it whatever you want. That extra stop makes different compared to my 70-200. It's compression under my dictionary


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> Dude, you might want to check the part where it says "when talking about images with the same field size".
> 
> We all understand that it is perspective but when using actual photographic lenses in real world applications, the distortion effects are clearly observable. Its not really possible to crop a 16mm to a 300mm fov in the real world, nor can you make the 300mm replicate the perspective of the 16mm when shot close up. That's why real people talk about "compression" when discussing long lenses and portraiture or landscape. We know that the lens isn't literally casting a magic spell to literally warp the fabric of spacetime and literally crush a model's face flat. Compression is a photographic term to describe a photographic effect and everybody knows what you mean when you say it.



Why, it is so badly written as to cause half this confusion.

As for _"We all understand that it is perspective"_ well, that isn't true, many don't, and because of that we constantly hear this "lens compression" meme.

No, "compression" is an uneducated term to describe what photographers see when they mean perspective, "compression" isn't a _"photographic effect"_ it is what is seen from the viewpoint you have. 

If you want the background to appear larger in relation to the subject make the distance between you and them similar, if you want the background to be smaller in relation to the subject make the distance between you and the subject smaller than the distance from the subject to the background, this has nothing to do with the lens. The "effect" is perspective, another, inaccurate, term for it really isn't needed.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 19, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Steve said:
> ...



Well Dylan you are introducing yet another inaccurate term, and I would be remiss if I didn't try to help.

The only thing one more stop can do is reduce your dof, that has nothing to do with "lens compression" or perspective. DOF is DOF, an 85 f1.2 has less dof than a 200 f2 at the same subject size, so does a 50 f1.8, but what a 200 f2 does give you is a unique combination of DOF and perspective.


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2014)

I don't even know what you're on about, other than some weird pedantic crusade. If I talk to any decent photographer about compression, they are going to know exactly what I mean. I'm sorry if that makes you mad for whatever reason.

Anyway, I'm sure this thread has more than served its purpose to guide the OP in purchasing a lens so no point derailing further


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 20, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I understand your points.

Besides me, there are few more of us out there call it as "compression".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGQuuhEKN-g (@ 6:03 to 6:05)


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I understand your points.
> 
> Besides me, there are few more of us out there call it as "compression".
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGQuuhEKN-g (@ 6:03 to 6:05)



And that makes it correct? I don't see the smug satisfaction in refusing education and reveling in repeating inaccurate statements from self taught YouTube experts. But hey, have at it.........


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand your points.
> ...



This conversation is starting to piss me off... 

When I was 19 I was "dating" this really hot dumb blonde girl... and I mentioned to her grandfather that we were off to play some billiards... and he indicated that billiards is specifically in reference to a table with no holes... 

Per the dictionary, yes, the billiard table does not have any pockets... BUT the world's vernacular has morphed into billiards meaning what we call pool/8 ball etc. 

You may be technically right, but it doesn't mean that the world isn't leaving you behind.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



And far be it for me to piss you off, I am so sorry.

There is a big difference between language morphing and uneducated dumbing down, please forgive me for trying to accept the former whilst holding firm against the latter, but like I say, if it makes you happy have at it. I can understand people not knowing, I can't understand people refusing to learn.

I have been doing this photography gig for over thirty years, I still learn stuff here from other members and pretty much every week out in the field. I find learning stimulating and exciting, I don't rail against it, and, on the occasions my experience and education have been found wanting and have made mistakes I invariably apologize, not that I want or expect anything back, but why the hostility to a simple, accurate, correction.

For years I fought against the "pixels on duck" meme, pointing out that the theories just don't pan out in the real world, now those observations of mine are being accepted as closer to the truth, was I wrong to stand my ground? There are too many "teachers", pontificators, and theoretical adherents, it causes confusion especially when there is already 100% accepted terminology for the false observations that they believe they are seeing.

Lenses do not cause compression, that is just a fact.

I have posted this illustration many times in similar discussions, one is with a 200mm lens and one is with a 17mm lens, shot from the same place the "compression" which everybody with any hint of a photography education knows as perspective, is the same.

Lens compression is a bullshit term used by people who don't know what they are talking about to describe a phenomena that visual artists have well understood for hundreds of years and is universally called perspective.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand your points.
> ...



I appreciated your attempt to correct my word. If you and the world both understand the term compression in photography, then why are we having this discussion?

Sorry OP for Hijacking your thread..........I'm done.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Because _"Lens compression is a bullshit term used by people who don't know what they are talking about to describe a phenomena that visual artists have well understood for hundreds of years and is universally called perspective."_

Just like so many memes, if it isn't corrected by anybody then the true learners can't learn. Understanding and controlling perspective is unutterably more important than thinking focal length changes anything, besides, you even introduced dof into the confusion that has become "lens compression".

I am not being elitist or pedantic here, I am just pointing out a commonly (and increasingly so) held misconception, I even posted two illustrative images to demonstrate how wrong the saying is.

Again, if you want to wallow in your own ignorance then have at it, but don't think you are doing those trying to learn any justice.


----------



## Logan (Sep 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, you might want to check the part where it says "when talking about images with the same field size".
> ...



What on earth are you on about. This is a well known and well understood concept. Quit being pedantic and trying to change commonly accepted terms to suit your fancy. Has nothing to do with cropping to get the same fov or some BS. Its as if you have never taken a landscape shot in your life, but i know thats not the case, so are you just trolling or what. Telephoto compression is not some new thing the kids are on about. You learn about it in art class for gods sake, when drawing perspective.

all you did was crop your 17mm to 200mm. do you not understand crop factor either? what gives?


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 21, 2014)

This discussion reminds me of people calling ammo magazines clips. Totally derails firearms discussions and doesn't really matter as long as the firearm doesn't jam and you make the shot. 

I will admit that I have used a similar cropped picture many years ago when I was teaching a basic photography course to demonstrate perspective but some still called it compression and it didn't matter if they made the shot.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 21, 2014)

I thought of this last night, but I had reservations about posting it because it seems harsher than what is warranted....

But in the Big lebowski, Walker asks, Am I Wrong? And the dude responds, You're not wrong, you're just an asshole.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2014)

Real classy jd, real classy. 

It is particularly funny because I have been an actual licensed Dudeism minister for years and have conducted legally recognised marriages, as well as being appointed the "Arch Bishop of the Virgin Islands and Caribbean", it is great for getting flight upgrades and entrance to government functions.

So my internet friends, lets see how well you can live by your opinions, what focal length compression are you seeing in these two shots?


----------



## SoullessPolack (Sep 22, 2014)

It amuses me how many people here blindly believe this "compression" effect exists because they've heard other people use it. I can tell you there's no such thing, but you won't believe me, because you've heard something and now refuse to believe anything else. 

Why don't you go out and do an experiment for yourselves? It's fairly easy. I would hope you guys wouldn't be so unintelligent as to not be able to figure out how to set it up. When you come back, you'll realize there is no magical compression effect.

It's simple math, really. But apparently that is too much for some of you folks. If you stand somewhere, and object A is 50 ft away, and object B is 100 ft away, you have a 1:2 ratio. When you increase your focal length, you yourself are not moving. You're simply getting more magnification. Do you think your lens has this magical ability to magnify an object more than another? No, it doesn't. That's why lenses have one magnification value for their focal length. If this magical compression effect did exist, there'd be difference magnification values depending on how far away something was. That's not how it works. 

The only way to do this "compression" effect is to change the ratio of the distance to object A to the distance to object B. Basically, you have to move. If you don't move, then your lens is magnifying everything in your field of view the same amount. If your lens is 2x magnification, then object A will appear to be at 25 ft, but object B will appear to be at 50ft, and the ratio is still 1:2. 

Just look at the example privatebydesign posted. Perfect example right there. There is no "compression". The only difference between the photos is the one from the 200mm lens is more out of focus in the background, because of depth of field. Framing wise, everything is in the same position, whether it's a 200mm lens, or 200mm from cropping a wider focal length. Sorry to disappoint, but there's no mechanism for making an object physically move closer or farther by pointing a lens at it.

Any of you "compression" believers have any sort of science to show this effect you speak of? This is of course a rhetorical question, because the science does not exist, because the effect does not exist except in the minds of those refusing to believe reality.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Real classy jd, real classy.
> 
> It is particularly funny because I have been an actual licensed Dudeism minister for years and have conducted legally recognised marriages, as well as being appointed the "Arch Bishop of the Virgin Islands and Caribbean", it is great for getting flight upgrades and entrance to government functions.
> 
> So my internet friends, lets see how well you can live by your opinions, what focal length compression are you seeing in these two shots?



The Dude abides...


----------



## lux (Sep 22, 2014)

I can't believe I'm adding to this but I'm asking a question. 

Regardless of what it is called. If I use a telephoto background looks closer than it is. 

That is, the pictures of my kids with the elk in the background using the telephoto gets me in trouble with my wife while the one with the wide angle is fine. 

Is that because my eyes are about 50mm and the elk looks 4x closer using the 200mm zoom?


----------



## jrista (Sep 22, 2014)

Are we sure this isn't just a term simply used to _describe an effect_, rather than some assumed real-world quirky behavior of lenses? 

I believe the proper term is "background compression", not "lens compression." PBD is right in that lenses do not "compress", Souless described it aptly by stating that lenses do not magnify objects at different distances differently. 

Background compression, the term I am familiar with, simply refers to the way background objects appear to get closer and larger as _perspective changes_:







You have to keep in mind, both the subject distance and focal length have to change for this effect to occur. If you only change focal length, this effect is not going to present.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2014)

lux said:


> I can't believe I'm adding to this but I'm asking a question.
> 
> Regardless of what it is called.  If I use a telephoto background looks closer than it is.
> 
> ...



That is where you are tripping up, that statement is not true, the background *and* foreground look closer, as Souless said, they are both magnified, equally, to keep your kids in the fov you have to move back, this keeps their magnification constant but increases the background magnification *in relation to them*. This is perspective, not "lens compression".

Look at the three images Jrista posted off Wikipedia, the bottles are the same size, if you stand closer to the pink bottle the blue bottle looks smaller in relation, stand back and zoom in and the blue bottle appears to grow, but obviously it isn't, however to your eye the pink bottle just gets smaller, which is intuitive as you maved away from it and it takes up less of your fov. They appear to change size in relation to each other and they both become more distant to you, as a percentage the pink bottle gets smaller faster. If you stood 30' away they would both look smaller, but the same size as each other, because the distance between them becomes so much smaller than your distance from you to them.

So if your kids are the pink bottle and the elk the blue bottle, stand close and use a wide angle and your kids appear much bigger than the elk, or a building, or if they are on a ski slope bigger than a mountain or village in the valley, this is because you are closer to them than the elk, mountain or village. Now zoom to a longer focal length and what do you have to do? Move back, once you move back you have changed perspective, you have decreased the size of your subject in relation to yourself.

Perspective is about the relationship of space and the distances between the objects in the image in relation to the observer, it doesn't even have anything to do with a camera or lenses.

I posted the 17m and 200mm images earlier, obviously the 17mm image is cropped, when I took the image I had a much wider fov but if I focused my eye on the girl then I saw the same thing as both, her size in relation to the tree etc was the same.

This is a very misunderstood aspect of image making, I watched a video recently of a respected landscape shooter who insisted he got much better "lens compression" by stitching 50mm images than taking one 24mm image for the same framing from the same place. That is complete bullshit, not only did I lose all respect for him but it annoyed me that people will now repeat that, to be sure, i didn't lose respect for him because he taught something wrong, we all do that sometimes, I lost complete respect for him because he has clearly never looked at his comparative images with a detailed and critical eye, if he had he would have observed that what he was saying simply is not true. Look at some of those gigapan images shot with hundreds of images with super tele lenses, they have the same "compression" and perspectve as one shot from the same place, they do have a lot more detail, obviously, but the same "lens compression" and perspective.


----------



## lux (Sep 22, 2014)

So with the telephoto the kids looked larger but so did the Elk so it gives the illusion that they are closer together. I guess I wasn't paying attention to the distance to the kids...just the buck


----------

