Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 18, 2005, 7:51 PM   #1
JohnG's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529

Unfortunately seats were a bit too far away and up so I couldn't get facial details. But I'm still pretty happy for my first MLB pictures.

Canon 20D. Sigma 70-200 2.8. 1.4x


"A Deep shot to deep center field.....GONE!!!"

Admiring my (Ludwick's) shot:

Base Hit:

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 19, 2005, 5:46 PM   #2
Senior Member
r00022's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 164

great shots.
how do you like sigma 70-200mm?
does it compare to canons 70-200 "L" lens?

What iso did you use?
r00022 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2005, 6:18 PM   #3
Senior Member
bugshutter's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 106

Super!!! That Sigma looks good. Im contemplating something like a 70-300 for some baseball for the D-70. If a Sigma is looking that good I just might look into that lense. Did you handhold, or used a Pod?
bugshutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2005, 7:30 PM   #4
JohnG's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529

The shots were all handheld (although since I was sitting I could brace my elbow on my knee). The shots were a mix of ISO 100 & 200 with shutter speeds around 1/1000. With the teleconverter the lense was at f4.0. But, since I was pretty much at infinite zoom I found I got better images when I stopped down to f5.6 or f6.3. Not because the lense isn't capable of great shots at 2.8 or 4.0 just that I was having a hard time at that distance with getting the right things in focus.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"It is a wonderful lense - I bought it because I knew I would be shooting sports and felt I needed the 2.8 and it was about $400 less than the Canon 2.8. I must admit I've never used the Canon. But I never ran across anyone that was dissatisfied with the Sigma and couldn't find a good justification as to why the Canon was worth $400 more. Image quality and build quality of the Canon is supposed to be slightly better but I didn't find anyone who could state or prove that a human can tell the difference. So, $400 was a little too much just for the build quality. Money saved went into the 1.4x teleconverter and a circular polarizer (for the Sigma and a 17-40L). I have to be honest though in that I find the combination of the lense and TC tough to stabalize hand-held. The lense alone is no problem. But when I add the TC it's a little tough. Since I've never used another lense that long I'm not sure if it's a weight thing or just the fact you're trying to stabalize something with an affective focal reach of 448mm.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"I'm a firm believer though there is no substitute for lense speed with sports. You can get by with a 4.0 for outdoor sports in great lighting but for poor lighting or indoor the 2.8 is a must.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 AM.