Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Sports & Action Photos (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/sports-action-photos-75/)
-   -   Cleveland Indians baseball (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/sports-action-photos-75/cleveland-indians-baseball-89892/)

JohnG May 16, 2006 6:21 AM

All with 20D and 100-400L. THis is a great lens for shooting from the stands. Light enough and the IS really helps when you can't hold the camera in the desired fashion (do to big heads in front :-)). Taken about 30 rows up from the 1st base dugouts.

http://www.jagsportsphotos.com/photos/69800050-M-1.jpg

http://www.jagsportsphotos.com/photos/69801464-M.jpg

http://www.jagsportsphotos.com/photos/69801719-M.jpg

http://www.jagsportsphotos.com/photos/69802212-M.jpg

http://www.jagsportsphotos.com/photos/69803122-M.jpg

http://www.jagsportsphotos.com/photos/69803848-M.jpg

http://www.jagsportsphotos.com/photos/69804793-M.jpg

http://www.jagsportsphotos.com/photos/69795358-M.jpg

http://www.jagsportsphotos.com/photos/69796219-M.jpg

http://www.jagsportsphotos.com/photos/69796521-M.jpg

SuzF May 16, 2006 9:22 AM

JohnG,



As always, great photos! I can't tell you how much I enjoy your work.

I love photographing sports, especially baseball and your photos do inspire me.







klfatcj May 16, 2006 9:38 AM

Some great shots/great timing. Certainly as good as any you see in the newspaper by photographers who get better access. How much cropping was involved? They don't seem to suffer at all on the monitor.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Kevin

JohnG May 16, 2006 12:09 PM

Kevin,

I really didn't have to crop too much except for the outfield shot. The 640mm equivelent focal length of the lens on the 20D really covers a lot of ground. It also helps being in the lower deck. Still not as low as I would obviously like but even at the middle level (club seats) I'm going to be at this weekend, the angle is really too much and faces in the infield probably aren't going to be seen.

GM2006 May 16, 2006 12:27 PM

Good shots! I agree that this lens is very nice and I would like to have it but in my opinion it is just to expensive. I am wondering if Sigma will ever consider 'upgrading' their 80-400 with HSM? That would make Sigma about $200 more expensive (my guess) and kind of close with price and performance to Canon. Than you would start thinking really hard which one to select ...

To equip yourself with solid DSLR and lenses, one has to spend around $5000-$6000 CAN (body, three zooms, flash, cards, tripod, bag, filters etc) or more. Probably one of the most expensive hobbies! But many of us are ready for such kind of sacrifice ...


JohnG May 16, 2006 12:44 PM

GM2006 wrote:
Quote:

Good shots! I agree that this lens is very nice and I would like to have it but in my opinion it is just to expensive.
And, for sports shooting it just gets worse. There is no one lens fits all solution. This lens was great for this type of situation. But it's not so good when shooting high school or little league from the ground - where the 5.6 aperture just doesn't give enough subject isolation. And forget about using it in low light. As it was, I was sometimes at ISO 800 for the game (a 1:00 pm game too).

My current sports lens - Sigma 120-300 2.8 ($2200 USD) works very well but it will be too long and not fast enough for most indoor sports come next winter. And currently it's too long for the base I'm covering from (i.e if i'm on the 1st base line it's too tight to shoot action at first base) So, then it will be time to upgrade from the 50mm 1.8 to the 85mm 1.8 ($350 USD). Then it will be time to upgrade to a second bodyso I have a long and short lens. then it will be time for...... It just never ends.

klfatcj May 16, 2006 1:08 PM

Not to argue that photography isn't expensive, but I remind myself that many friends and colleagues upgrade their vehicles every 3 years. While none of them consider this a hobby, I would argue that it is no different - hours spent looking at magazines, more hours debating the merits of relative horsepower, test drives, etc...now that gets expensive. At least when I get a lens to fill a niche, I can still find a use for the old ones.

Of course, I agree with the idea that as I want to use two lenses at some games, the draw of a second body is getting stronger monthly and the costs won' t end there.

Does anyone have experience with the Sigma 28-70 f2.8? I am wondering about it for indoor sports. Most of the gyms I have been shooting in let me get away with 1/250 at worst the my 70-200 f2.8 so I am thinking 2.8 should be okay. I considered the 85mm, but I think it will be a bit long if I am along the baseline and try shooting around the hoop - 40mm - 50mm seems the best here.

Kevin

JohnG May 17, 2006 11:24 AM

Kevin - on the Sigma 24-70 2.8:

I know there's at least one shooter on this site that has the lens and likes it. I've heard a number of negative complaints on other sites from sports shooters who have tried it though - the biggest knock seems to be it's low light focus vs. the Canon 24-70. Not a big deal for non sports shooters and non sports shooters seem to like the lens. But I've read from at least 3 different people who have tried both for sportsand thought the Canon performed much better. But I have no personal use with which to give my recommendation.

tmilner May 18, 2006 1:42 PM

Nice shots. I can relate to the expense issue. I shoot my daughter's softball games, and have invested in a couple of L lenses and upgraded from a Rebel 300D to a 20D. Even after taking that hit, I still "need" more. There's always another lens to be saving for, and once you get it, you need a bigger bag to carry the new stuff in, then you need a better, lighter monopod because the old one is too long and heavy to carry with all that other stuff, then you need to buy a bigger compact flash card because they've gotten so cheap now, then you have to replace all the stuff you bought before you knew what you know now....etc.etc. My wife is ready to strangle me!

GM2006 May 18, 2006 4:41 PM

It is all because of advance of digital I think. Before 30D I was using Elan-II and just had two cheap lenses with it. Pictures were ok - I am just casual shooter, but nothing to be imressed with (in terms of 'technical' quality). I never wanted to pay more for really good films and always looking for cheap lab (Costco for example).

In my opinion, with digital era and especially DSLR, average technical quality of photography has been raised. I still can use cheap lab and get much better prints. I can see my work instantly on LCD screen. LCDsare just very affordable so you even do not need to develop anymore.Home printing is kind of affordable and with pritty good quality to.

Before I didn't care much about all this talk about how good is this and that, but now I doo because I can instantly see the difference. And after one lens comes the other, and other, and other ... till wife decides to put something in the beer. :lol:

Eventually this will draw the prices even more down. Maybe even for the lenses as companies like Sigma and Tamron continues to produce good and CHEAPER lenses.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:50 AM.