I was using a 135mm with a 1.4 extender and the mark 3 canon. This could have been a great shot with the 400 2,8. I want it, but I also want to stay married. Cropped a bunch with no PP.
Tommy
1.
Mar 26, 2008 at 03:35 AM
Kelly Phillips Offline Buy and Sell: On
Great catch
Cool shot. I believe the 300 2.8 would work better than the 400 for baseball. I use a 70-200 because I'm broke, but with cropping I still got decent shots of the outfielders at 200mm. I hear the 400 is very heavy, I've never seen one in person, but today my back was hurting a bit with the 40D, 70-200, and a battery grip so I will probably stay away from anything bigger for awhile.
Mar 26, 2008 at 03:44 AM
Tom Rouse Online Image Upload: Off
Great catch
Yes they do get heavy. I have tennis elbow in my left arm and that is the main reason I now use primes. When I have to adjust the distance I use my legs instead of my arms. It's hard for me to get the outfielders and I can't buy the big primes at this time. A lot of my games are at dust and into the night, so any lense less than f/2.8 is out of the question.
Tommy
Mar 26, 2008 at 03:52 AM
Steve Ickes Offline Buy and Sell: On
Great catch
Yes, the 400mm f2.8 is heavy but for me it's worth it's weight in gold. Used to use a 300 f2.8 and it does work well for shots of infield from 1st and 3rd base lines. I've found though that shooting with a 70-200 on one body and the 400 on another (and a 1.4x TC) in my pocket, I'm pretty well covered.
Nice capture by the way. Great timing.
Mar 26, 2008 at 05:20 AM
John Reynolds Offline Image Upload: On
Great catch
Great catch, great shot!
Mar 26, 2008 at 04:04 PM
Rebel Guy Offline Image Upload: Off
Great catch
Great shot here! Nice pose, expression and action shot. A little tighter would have been better but great with what you got though.
-Frank
Mar 26, 2008 at 07:31 PM
DannWunderlich Offline Image Upload: Off
Great catch
the 120-300 is Perfect :P
Mar 26, 2008 at 11:05 PM
PierreB Offline Image Upload: On
Great catch
Really great capture. Maybe a little tighter would be nice but I'm not convinced that the crop really takes much away from the image.
And yes, the 400/2.8 is heavy - really heavy. In fact, it weighs more than the 600/4.
Pierre.
Mar 26, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Tom Rouse Online Image Upload: Off
Great catch
Thanks for the commits. I have got more good action from this player than any other. He is also a good hitter and the best pitcher on the team. He will steal home if given a small chance. He was a 4 year quarterback for the football team and won his region. He was a little weak in basketball, but a starter. So I know if I pay close attention to him, I will get a good baseball action shot.
Tommy
Mar 26, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Matt Shaw Offline Image Upload: Off
Great catch
I second that on the 300/2.8 for baseball, that's one of the main reasons I purchased mine, just add a 1.4x for football, soccer, etc. I love it, and its cheaper, lighter, etc.
Mar 27, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Wickedfn4u Offline Buy and Sell: On
Great catch
Kelly Phillips wrote:
Cool shot. I believe the 300 2.8 would work better than the 400 for baseball. I use a 70-200 because I'm broke, but with cropping I still got decent shots of the outfielders at 200mm. I hear the 400 is very heavy, I've never seen one in person, but today my back was hurting a bit with the 40D, 70-200, and a battery grip so I will probably stay away from anything bigger for awhile.
Not that heavy at all once you have it balanced on the stick. I use that and a second body on my 70-200 2.8. We just need to get you out to the gym.
Great catch
