how to get 300 2.8

[lux]

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]

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

What do you think the term "compression" means?

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.

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]

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]

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

What do you think the term "compression" means?

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.

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?

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

 

[privatebydesign]

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]

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

What do you think the term "compression" means?

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.

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?

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

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]

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]

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

What do you think the term "compression" means?

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.

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?

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

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.

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]

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]

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.........

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]

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.........

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.

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]

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.........

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]

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.........

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?