bert_ashley

Shot my first baseball and softball games the other day. No problems

at the softball game, except that nothing much happened. Good action

at the baseball game, but my photos are trash.

 

Exposure during the softball game was easier because both teams wore

blue uniforms and the sky was nicely overcast. Focus was easier

because mainly there was nothing to focus on besides the players.

 

During the baseball game, the sun produced glare on the home team's

white uniforms. The visitor's dark jerseys came out fine, and the

shots aren't overexposed except for the glare. I also have several

photos with sharp backgrounds and out of focus players.

 

I'm a beginner, but I didn't have these problems shooting ice

hockey. The constant motion of hockey probably makes servo focusing

easier, though. I've been using a digital camera and I check the

histogram info frequently. I carry note cards on figuring exposure

and compensation in my camera bag because I'm still learning. As for

the focus mistakes, all I can think of is to be more careful.

 

I'm sure I'll learn through experience, but some tips on taking

baseball pictures might make my immediate experiences a little less

painful. Thanks in advance. Bert

What's likely to have better image quality at 400mm: a third party

prime or Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS) plus 2x extender? There's not a

huge price difference between a decent 2x TC and a used Tokina or

Sigma 400mm.

 

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is my only lens. I have a 1.4x TC and 1.6

crop factor camera, but I think I'll need more reach for field

sports and wildlife. I've read the posts favoring Canon's 100-400,

but I can't afford it.

Bert replies . . .

 

Thanks for all the answers! I've been looking for an 80-200 f2.8, but they don't come up very often--except on e-bay. KEH had two available about a month ago, but they were gone before I could get out my credit card. I've also had my doubts about f2.8 lenses for indoor sports, but that's what you can get in a zoom. Hockey's my sport of choice, and I think I'd find it awkward to use primes.

 

Ben S.: What TC do you use with your Sigma? How do I view your online portfolio? I probably should know this, even being new to photo.net. Sorry.

 

For anyone: What monopod do you use?

I need a fast lens for a variety of indoor and outdoor sports. I've

basically decided on a 70-200 f2.8--IS or not depends on available

cash. I'd also like to get a longer lens for wildlife. The question

is, "Which telephoto?"

 

I've thought about getting the 300 f4, but I'd have a 300 f4 just by

putting a 1.4x TC on a 70-200. I'd rather have faster lenses than

5.6, but maybe the 400 5.6 would be better than the 300 f4. I'm not

asking about the relative quality of the lenses. I'm just looking

for ideas about a combination for sports and nature/wildlife.

 

If you think there's a better way than combining 70-200 and a longer

telephoto, I'd be interested in your ideas. BTW, the longs are

longer on with the 1.6 crop factor on my digital. Bert

Thanks, Erik. You're right about speed and focal length. I've seen numerous photos recently that zoom in so close that all sense of action (or even context) is lost. I liked seeing the action in your Wildcats photos. I'm probably going to start with a 50mm on my digital and then reconsider my needs. I still hope to get a 70-200 f2.8 before I retire my film camera. In the meantime, perhaps using fixed focal length lenses will help my technique instead of just frustrating me.

This discussion is really helpful, even though I left out an important detail: I'm so used to thinking in 35mm terms that I didn't mention my film camera. I was going to use a 70-200 zoom or 200 lens with 35mm, and if I had the money I'd get the 70-200 IS. Going the fixed lens route is less expensive, and I expect to shoot digital more than 35mm. I could use the 200mm lens with film and 50mm with digital, but the best compromise might be to get a 100mm lens. Then I'd have 50mm and 100mm lenses for my 20D. With practice, I hope I can get decent images with the 20D at 800 ISO. What do you think of the 50mm, 100mm combination for hockey?

Which EOS lens would you recommend for hockey? I can't afford a

Canon 70-200 f2.8 (unless I keep saving), and the 70-200 f4 seems

too slow. I've considered Canon 200 f2.8 and Sigma 70-200 f2.8, but

there must be other choices for under 700 US$. Shorter focal length

might work because of 1.6 factor with my 20D.