Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Sports & Action Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 6, 2006, 10:03 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 256
Default

Here are a few from Thursday evening. Played with the crops a bit after reading your other.

I still need to work on the vertical stuff. My primary preference, for a number of reasons, is to shoot in landscape and crop from there. The challenge, obviously, is my 50mm lens is just a bit to long to capture everything when I am on the floor and shooting in landscape. The other issue is that my primary use of the pictures I shoot is making slide shows, set to music and played on a television via DVD. The overwhelming feedback is that people want their screen filled with the action and in a vertical shot, thats not possible.

I will continue to work on all aspects of my shooting. I have only been at this about 2 months and I think I am moving forward and not backwards!

Comments on these pictures?

Thanks!








Attached Images
 
davidreeves is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 6, 2006, 4:44 PM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Well, there is an important message here:

The customer is always right. If your customer doesn't like the look of vertical shots (I'm assuming you showed some vertical shots and they said they like the original horizontals better) then do what they want. It really is about making them happy. I would also agree that you are making very good practice. I'm actually jealos as I don't have any sports work to do right now.


One other thing though - this also means you are not locked in completely into 2:3 aspect ratio - much like a newspaper you can crop whatever ratio works best. This can be very beneficial.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2006, 5:01 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 256
Default

yea, ya know, you can mask the fact that a picture is shot or cropped vertically when making a print but when you display it on a computer or television, generally people dont like the effect. Perhaps all the black space is a distratcion in itself that you dont see in a newspaper or print.

I am anxious for tax return time and my ability to purchase the Sigma 28- 70 f2.8. I think that will make a huge difference for me in that I can get wider and capture all of the limbs invloved in the action!

I will keep trying the verticals, however. I have to conciously tell myself "shoot vertical" as the action comes at me.

Thanks for your thoughts, John.
davidreeves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2006, 2:46 PM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

David,

Out of curiosity have you talked to anyone that uses the sigma for sports shooting? I've heard good things about the lens but never from anyone that uses it for sports. Just curious how fast the focusing is on it. I know for instance that not all Canon USM lenses focus as fast as others so I'm wondering if Sigma is the same (I have the 70-200 and it works great and I know the 100-300 and 120-300 work great for sports but never heard about the 28-70). Let me know, I'm curious.

John
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2006, 9:12 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 256
Default

John

I cant seem to find anyone who has that lens so I am going purely on specs and hoping I dont make a 300 dollar mistake. I have seen some photo examples but not sports shots.
davidreeves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2006, 3:46 PM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

this is a great shot! i dont think i have seen this one before...
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2006, 5:19 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

I use a Tamron 28-75 with good results for indoor.

I'ts a nice range but it might be a litte short for you at the telephoto end.

Maybe look at something 28-120 or something like that.

Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2006, 5:45 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 256
Default

Terry

I think the 28 - 70 will do for me based on where I shoot.

I know that in the HS gym I shoot in, the 50 is often to long and at times a little short. The 100 is always to long.

In the college venues, the 100 seems to work out fine, at times being a tad short and at times a bit long. If I was shooting on the floor at the two colleges I shoot, the 50 would be perfect. In fact, I have shot from the floor at one of the colleges and the 50 is clsoe to perfect about 75% of the time.

As most of the shooting is HS and some is college, I think the 28 - 70 will work out perfectly. At 289 bucks it also fits my budget, a major consideration.

I havent looked at the 28 - 120 you mentioned but I am certain it is not 289 bucks and is way beyond my means. I do love that range. Maybe after I hit the lottery

Would you do me a favor? Next time your near Fenway, get me one of those sweet italian sausages with everything on it from one of the cart vendors outside the park and send it my way. God I do miss those!
davidreeves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2006, 2:08 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 171
Default

I am curious why so many people have mentioned the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8. from the lens tests I've seen the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is a better lens.

I recommend you check out Pop Photo's test of both and photography reviews feedback from users of both. You'll find the optical bench tests shows the Tamron is sharper and has half the distortion as the Sigma. In addition to the extra 5mm, the users feedback is also better.

The Tamron proved to be such a good lens that Minolta contracted with Tamron to rebrand it with their name on it. That's right the Minolta or Konica/Minolta or Sony is manufactured by Tamron.

If you want a good Sigma in that range look at the 24-60 2.8 - again better sharpness and less distortion. I perferred the extra reach of the Tamron to the extra width of the Sigma but that's a personl preferrence.

Africa:?:
Africa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2006, 2:22 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 171
Default

John - You're right, that Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 can hold its own with any lens in that range.

As for the the 120-300mm f2.8 I saw two pros at a recent bowl game using it, both had high praise for the lens and the Pop Photo tests are very good. In its zoom range (120-300mm f2.8) it has no competition and several peole on SportShooters.com have high praise for the massive piece of glass.

But I think the 28-70 falls short, see my previous post. Better choices are the Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 and the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8.

Africa
Africa is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:47 AM.