rashardw

<p>Here's a great resource that you can use to learn about the exposure triangle quickly.<br /><a href="http://digital-photography-school.com/learning-exposure-in-digital-photography">http://digital-photography-school.com/learning-exposure-in-digital-photography</a><br /><br />This will break down aperture, shutter-speed, and ISO's relation to proper exposure. The aperture section will be very beneficial considering you're interested in depth of field.<br /><br />I think with the shot that you posted, you were a victim of mis-composition. I do believe you were using the center focus point, but because of your wide open aperture (2.8), only the player in blue's elbow/arm was perfectly in focus, since that's what your AF point focused on. Anything in front of or behind that focal plane will be out of focus. In order to get what you expect, you're going to have to increase your depth of field (increase the number of your aperture).<br /><br />Normally, the "sweetspot" for most lenses is around F4-F5.6 (based on reviews I've read) and especially sport photography, it's just as important to have focused faces of the alternative players in the frame just as much as the main subject. So increasing your aperture to that "sweet spot" area is going to be important.<br /><br />Shooting at the "beginning" of your aperture range is going to always produce a softer-edged image. You want to get those razor-edged so shooting RAW is going to help as well. You can underexpose the image in the camera so that you can shoot at F4, and then change the exposure 2-3 stops in post production (which you have to do for noise reduction anyway). That way, you can have sharp images, but still have perfect exposure. I think with what you'll gain in the crispness, the payoff will surpass the little extra time necessary to process from RAW to JPG.<br /><br />Personally, I think 160 is too slow to get the ball frozen as well. In most sports photography, that's just as important as getting the face frozen. I normally start at 250, and work my way backwards until I get motion blur on the ball. That tells me where my shutter speed HAS to be. The ball is going to move faster than the person, so I normally try to get that frozen as a rule. Once again, don't be afraid to underexpose your shots a bit in the camera if you're shooting RAW it's all part of the process, what's important is capturing the image. You can change the exposure in PP. You can also do this with JPG don't get me wrong, but it is damaging to the image.<br /><br />Hope this helps and provides the info you were looking for.<br /><br />PS.. Brian, you'll LOVE your 7D.. I just got mine a couple months ago (upgraded from the 20D) It's simply AMAZING. And yes, it's 19 pts, but still I only use 1 (center)</p>

I have a 75-300mm to take care of my telephoto zoom work, so that focal range is covered. Thanks for the inupt.....I didn't even think of a converter. I am going to look into that.... But as for now, anyone need a 28-135 IS lens?? LOL!!!

I am consolidating my equipment and I keep trying to decide if I need

to keep my canon 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS lens

(http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?

act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7337) because I have my

Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 (http://tamron.com/lenses/prod/2875mm.asp) lens. I

know that w/ the Tamron I can shoot in lower light, and that is good

to have, but I love the IS on the canon. I have to admit I shoot w/

my Tamron 90% of the time, and since I have bought it, the IS hasn't

come out of the bag.. I guess what I am asking is when would it be

better to shoot w/ the Canon over the Tamron? I can't think of a

situation. Maybe when I didn't want to increase the ISO and just

shoot at a slower shutter speed hand held? I don't think I would do

that. I would more than likely shoot at a higher ISO since my camera

(Canon Digital Rebel) doesn't have bad noise till ISO 1600 anyway. I

don't know, what do you think?