I bought a lens.

<p>After getting more great advice from our local camera store, I ended up buying the Sigma 70-200. They also recommended the 50 1.4 to go with it, but I didn't buy it today. I also had to buy a new camera bag and, frankly, it was hard for me to spend the money on the lens. Once I recover from that, I'll probably order the 50mm, which is more my speed. (I loved its size.) They also recommended a monopod but I want to try out the new lens for a few days before buying one.</p>

<p>Just wanted to thank everyone again who gave me advice. </p>

<p>Good solid choice - have fun with it and post some photos for us to see!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Hi Lisa<br>

It is futile spending a lot of money on a monopod unless you are a pro. Take a look at Amazon and order a cheap 10-15 dollar Chinese made monopod.<br>

Unless you need the extra stop why not take the cheaper option of 50 f/1.8?</p>

<p>Starvy, that was my first thought about the monopod. I'm not sure I need an expensive one and I'm trying to decide if it will simplify or complicate things. I need the 1.4 because I have the D5000 and the 1.8 doesn't autofocus on my camera. Frustrating, but that's the way it is.<br>

Dave, if I get enough confidence I'll post a picture. Our next meet is in 2 weeks. Right now I'm practicing on my border collie. </p>

 

<p>Lisa, not sure of the weight of your setup but unless its heavy the cheap monopod like Starvy mentioned will work for now. I have a $20 monopod from Walmart and I couldn't do without it! I did bend the bottom section because of the weight of my setup (50D with grip, 70-200mm 2.8 IS, and 2X TeleConverter not sure on exact weight) but it saves me from a very sore arms, shoulders and back! I shoot a number of sports but I find it most helpful on baseball where you could stand for 10 minutes waiting for one shot. It also helps me to get the shot off faster because I have the camera ready where I anticipate the action and just have to make last second adjustments. Good luck with the new lens!</p>

<p>Lisa,</p>

<p>Great choice on the 70-200<br>

I highly recommend a monopod. This is not necessarily to steady the camera, but to save your arms from fatigue.</p>

<p>Personally, I like the Manfrotto 681B. It's about $60; is a great size and weight; and most importantly, I don't have to slouch over to see through my viewfinder. Having to slouch for a few hours is really uncomfortable and is the reason I looked for a more robust tripod than the $20 Wal-Mart ones. </p>

<p>I'd also suggest staying away from the 4-section tripods...the last leg is just too flimsy, and without it, you're back to slouching. </p>

<p>Lastly, remember that if you get a monopod attach it to the LENS. You should have a tripod foot with the Sigma and you should use it. I've seen far too many people shooting with their monopod attached to their camera bodies. This puts undue stress onto the lens mount on your camera body and can bend or break it. Remember...the lens is MUCH heavier then your camera body.</p>

<p>Good luck shooting!<br>

RS</p>

<p>Thanks for the extra comments about the monopods. I'm thinking them all over. The store salesman did show me how to attach the lens to the monopod and he recommended the Manfrotto. I'm planning to use this lens for my son's acrobatic gymnastics meets (http://www.photo.net/sports-photography-forum/00WDuQ) but I'll just be shooting photos of our team. I won't be using it all day and their routines are about 2 1/2 minutes. I guess my biggest question is whether I will end up tethered to a spot and not have the flexibility to move my camera as they move around the floor. (I know it should be easy, just rotate. But I can see myself tripping over something.) </p>

<p>The lens is heavy and big and I have small hands. (One reason I love my D5000.) I'm still trying to figure out how to quickly zoom in and out. I'm not sure I'm ready to add a monopod to the equation.</p>

<p>If I get the chance, I'm going to ask the coach if I can take a few pictures of one of their practices. Otherwise, I'm practicing with my border collie who loves to run around the yard (much faster than our gymnasts, so I figure if I can get good shots of him, I can handle the gymnasts).</p>

<p>Lisa,</p>

<p>I don't believe you will have to "quickly zoom in and out"</p>

<p>Here's a few tips:</p>

<p>~PRE-ZOOM In other words, treat your zoom as if it were a few different prime lenses all built into one. Frame the shot in your mind, zoom to the necessary focal length, and shoot away.<br>

<em><strong>Remember:</strong> Your zoom is really an infinite number of prime lenses that you don't have to change. Proper use of a zoom is the same as proper use of a prime. Instead of changing whole lenses you turn a ring. Like using 3-4 primes, you should know by the framing in your mind where to set your zoom ring before you look through the viewfinder, not the other way around.</em></p>

<p>~IF YOU FIND YOURSELF ZOOMING A LOT... cradle the lens between the focusing ring and the zoom ring. This will give you quick and easy access to both.</p>

<p>~WHEN YOU GET A MONOPOD... see tip #2. Hold the lens in the same position that you would without the monopod. When you do this you should realize how much easier it is to zoom when you don't have to support the weight of the lens. </p>

<p>Hope this helps<br>

RS</p>

<p>I second the recommendation for the Manfrotto 681B. I've been using one for over 4 years, primarily for ice hockey. It is extremely well made and has saved my arms while using a D300 and a 80-200mm lens in a cold environment for over 2 hours.</p>

<p>Richard: Wow, thanks! I don't know why I hadn't thought of the zoom like that. (Obviously, because I'm still new at this.) But I think that's what I usually do when I'm taking photos of my kids playing with the dog in the yard - I station myself in one corner of the yard and zoom to a place where I can get a good view of the yard. Suddenly, I can see how it all works!</p>

<p>Thanks, Glenn. After thinking it over last night, and reading Richard's post, I can start to visualize how to manage the monopod. So now it seems like more of an asset than a complication.</p>

 

<p>I also think the Manfrotto monopods are good. £200 for a Gitzo!!! Crazy.<br>

I DO like 4 section pods though, the reason being that if you're sitting on the ground most 3 section ones will be too high to see through the viewfinder even at minimu extension.<br>

Good lens choice I'd say. Have fun.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Here's my advise on a monopod: if you're interested in really shooting sports and getting the best shots you can, the monopod isn't what you should be investing in right now. Unless you are almost exclusively shooting sports like baseball or tennis where you're pretty much sitting in the same exact spot the entire game, the monopod is just going to be an excuse to stay in one spot when you shouldn't be.</p>

<p>At every single soccer game you'll see someone standing at midfield, panning back and forth with their monopod. That's a fantastic strategy if you mostly want to get shots of the backs of players from far away. If you really want nice shots from any sport like soccer, football, lacrosse, etc, you definitely want to be mobile and going to where the action is. You also usually don't want to be standing up. Having a monopod is a good way to get in the habit of standing up in one spot.</p>

<p>Since you just dropped how ever much money on this nice lens, I'm assuming you're not looking to just grab some OK snapshots (but if that's the case, more power to you). I'm assuming you want to work at getting really great shots, and to continue to learn and grow as a sports photographer. If that's the case, a nice strap like a BlackRapid RS-7 will go a lot further than a monopod. It's a great way to give you a lot of mobility as you move up and down the field but keeps the camera right where you need it for quick access. It's also just a great strap in general for your non-sports shooting. I've never done anything but hand-hold 70-200s on even the heaviest bodies, and I couldn't beat a flea in arm wrestling; using a good strap or just resting it on the ground when you're not shooting is really all you need to make it through even the longest games without any support.</p>

<p>Again, if all you're shooting is baseball then monopod is definitely a good choice. If you're shooting other stuff too, you're either going to find you don't need a monopod for this kind of lens or you're doing something wrong.</p>

<p>Thank you for offering advice, Christopher. I agree with your point about moving around. (By the way, I love the pictures you have of the beagle on your photo.net gallery. One of my favorite subjects is my dog.)</p>

<p>Also, I've never heard about the strap you recommended.</p>

<p>Here's the deal: my son is competing for the 2nd year in acrobatic gymnastics. I'm the only parent with a DSLR and I love the challenge of taking action shots. So I find myself taking lots of photos of our team at the meets and sharing them with the other parents. At this point, I have no intention of becoming a sports photographer. I'm just having fun and learning a lot about photography at the same time. (I think I put a link to the original question somewhere in this thread.)</p>

<p>Usually I can get fairly close to the gymnastics floor at meets, so I expect to use the 70-100 end more often than the far end. What I really needed is the aperture for the terrible light. But the lens is heavy and I'm not a big person.</p>

<p>But I'm still debating about the monopod. Typically at our Acro meets, there are only a couple of unobstructed areas from which parents can take pictures so I won't be moving around. I put the lens on my tripod this week to take photos of my dog catching tennis balls. I found it much easier to concentrate on the action when I didn't have to support the weight of the lens. I would prefer a tripod. Sometimes there is room for a tripod at meets, sometimes there isn't. Anyway, I'm going to go look at the monopod again this weekend. I'll ask about the strap while I'm there. </p>

 

<p>For a 70-200 lens I agree with Christopher, I wouldn't use a monopod either, but I suppose it does depend upon how able you are to hold the heavy-ish lens for long periods. I use the 200 f2 and don't use a monodpod with that either, but that does get a bit heavy. I only use the monopod for the 400 2.8.<br>

It's definitely easier to follow action without a monopod, there's nothing so fluid as your body when panning along with the subject, so if you can avoid it I would.<br />The only other consideration would be your subject - acro gymnastics. A lot of shots would be fairly static, a lot of the moves are lifts and holds, so you could easily shoot 1/60th sec with good timing, in which case a monopod would be useful (as would VR) for keeping camera movement steady. <br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>So I really don't know the specifics about acro, but I did a bit of googling. It seems like there's a good deal of vertical elements involved, which is another factor that I take into consideration when deciding if I'll need a support. Even if I were sitting in the same spot all day I think I would be changing angles drastically enough (going from shots of people on the ground to people in the air) that I would just leave the monopod at home. You mention using a tripod, which isn't something I would ever consider for any type of sports shooting, and I'd be hesitant to recommend it for use at any level; it's just way too limiting even for acro. But that's just my gut feeling from looking at a few pictures online. Re: that strap, there are quite a few bandolier-style straps showing up now, so BlackRapid is just one company, but they're the only ones I've used and can recommend. But to be honest, the situation with acro seems like you'd need neither a *pod or a strap; if you're just going to be in the same spot handholding should be very doable if you learn how to hold the camera in a nice, balanced way. Just my opinion though, definitely do whatever you feel will work best for you and allow you to get the shots you want. (also, if I could shoot my dog all day I would, more shots in my flickr gallery! )</p>

<p>Bear in mind that you won't be able to move during a performance anyway. Here's a few of my shots from the British Chanpionships.<br />Steve</p>

<div></div>

<p>These sort of holds can be shot at virtually any speed.</p><div></div>

<p>I seem to have used the 85 a lot! 1/500th sec ISO3200</p><div></div>

<p>As I said early in the thread, I agree about the limitations of monopods but I was surprised by how "freeing" it was not to have to support the weight of the camera/lens. That's why I'm thinking more seriously about it.</p>

<p>So, back to the camera store tomorrow and ask about the strap and look at the monopod. In the meantime, I have time to go outside and practice with the dog again and see if I can get used to the weight. </p>

<p>Christopher, I just glanced at your flickr page but I loved your dog photos! I'm going to show them to my children later today.</p>

<p>Steve, I noticed that you used the 85 when I looked at your pictures before. I'm putting that on my list when Nikon makes an AF-S one. I think that would be just about perfect for me. And may I ask one more question? (Forgive me if you've already answered this. I've lost track.) Did you use noise reduction software on your pictures? The camera store guy told me to turn off noise reduction because it slows the autofocus. Then, he recommended Noise Ninja for removing noise. I'm just wondering what a picture looks like after the noise reduction software.</p>

 

<p>I shoot NR Off, then use exactly that, Noise Ninja. Here's crop with and without.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<div></div>

<p>Don't know how all those extra posts got in there!</p>

<div></div>

<p>For what it's worth, I've never heard of or experienced in-camera noise reduction affecting auto-focus; are you sure he didn't mean vibration reduction? If you're shooting raw, which is probably the way to go especially for indoor low-light conditions, in-camera noise reduction won't even actually be doing anything in the camera; it just picks a starting value for the raw processor on the computer to use. Regarding Noise Ninja, up until this year I would have said it was an essential piece of software for this sort of thing; the upcoming release of Adobe Lightroom 3 does an as-good if not better job I think, without the need for an extra specific application. The noise reduction in the Lightroom 3 pre-releases has been incredible.</p>

<p>Steve: thanks. I wondered if the pictures would look any softer after the noise reduction. (I'm still trying to figure out how all the technology works.)</p>

<p>Christopher: I may be wrong about the reasons why. This is all a bit intimidating for me. I tried to take in as much information as I could that day, but was mainly thinking about the lens. I haven't yet shot in raw because it means more software on my computer (right now I just have Elements 7, which has been more than sufficient) and I leave the techie stuff to my husband and son. But that's one of the next things on my learning list. If I can get my son to help me look through systems requirements today, I'll look into it. (I can easily see him majoring in some field combining art and technology.)</p>

<p>Lisa, you can see if you look at my comparison shots there is some softening. But it's definitely more than compensated for by the noise removal - to me it looks sharper with the Noise Ninja, until you start looking for bits of detail where you can see finer detail but it looks horrible as it's full of multi-coloured noise.<br>

Having said that, it's obviously amazing how good the D3 looks at ISO3200 even without noise reduction applied!<br>

Steve</p>