p.1 #3 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
I like it, Dann. Got some dirt flying from both shoes, good seperation between subject and background, good emotion, nice and sharp except for the ball/throwing hand. Hard to believe that's motion blur at 1/4000 so I'm going to assume it's DOF-caused.
p.1 #6 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
Dann, only thoughts I have are show some more! This looks great on my home monitor. Tack sharp, good facial expression and color saturation. Really pops.
p.1 #7 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
Looking good Dan. I'm slated to get on some softball, soccer and LAX there in a week or two so you should stop out. It is not easy to shoot that field until the grass greens up because of the rise in the outfield. Looked at the site- good stuff.
That Siggy seems pretty comfy in your hands- Seems almost a shame you don't own that lens right now. If I owned that lens I'd probably give it to you as a graduation gift.
(Remember you said I get $20 for throwing in the plug to Dmwierz)
Been meaning to tell you all the prints you have up around the school are the most well done ones we have ever had. What is the yearbook going to do without you next year
p.1 #8 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
M Skarr wrote:
Looking good Dan. I'm slated to get on some softball, soccer and LAX there in a week or two so you should stop out. It is not easy to shoot that field until the grass greens up because of the rise in the outfield. Looked at the site- good stuff.
That Siggy seems pretty comfy in your hands- Seems almost a shame you don't own that lens right now. If I owned that lens I'd probably give it to you as a graduation gift.
(Remember you said I get $20 for throwing in the plug to Dmwierz)
Been meaning to tell you all the prints you have up around the school are the most well done ones we have ever had. What is the yearbook going to do without you next year
p.1 #13 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
James Broome wrote:
That's quite a blanket statement.
I agree. My 400mm f5.6 was sharper wide open at f5.6 than at f8. I thought something wrong with it but then I found other users of same lens who reported same thing.
p.1 #15 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
Dan why did you post that twice?
Anthony - thank you thank you, ill try to post more
Thank you Mr. Skarr, i appreciate that- i am working on finding a replacement with the draw of using a FREE 30D and 70-200 2.8 and 580exII. i am also working on dennis ever so slowly
Dennis -just hurry up and DIE so i can all of your stuff. ok too far
i like separation in my shots...if you buy a $2700 lens it should be sharp at 2.8 because that it what you boughht it for
p.1 #17 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
Bobby,
Not at all a waste of money..
It will still focus faster, accept Teleconverters, and you could always open up more if you had to if the light was disappearing.
I just Googled "lens sweet spot" and came up with about 12 pages and the majority of the pages said the same thing.
A very good friend of mine who is a Master Photographer and teaches wildlife photography all over the world proved this to me when we were on a trip shooting in Florida. In a nut shell, I was shooting with my 1D and a 300 f/2.8 L set at wide open. He grabbed the camera, put in his card, and shot away. Back in the hotel, his stuff was MUCH sharper than mine.. when I asked why, he explained the whole thing. Ever since then, my images have been much much sharper.
p.1 #18 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
When we first get into sports photography, the wide open mantra is pounded into our brains. I can tell you now after having shot over 1 million sports images, that if you're aiming to get the sharpest possible images from your lens, don't shoot wide open. Dan is right.
With the 300 and 400 primes, I'll stop down to f/5 or even f/5.6 especially with a TC on. Everything is tack sharp and when you have both an offensive and defensive player in the frame, both are tack sharp, with little to no difference in the bokeh of the BG. As long as your conscious of all the other things that make for a great shot, your keeper rate will go. Having a 2.8 or 1.8 lens is never a waste of money... you can go wide open when you need to under low light conditions. You don't have that flexibility with 5.6. Plus the quality of the photo is heads and tails above a cheaper lens. You do get what you pay for.
p.1 #19 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
P Alesse wrote:
When we first get into sports photography, the wide open mantra is pounded into our brains. I can tell you now after having shot over 1 million sports images, that if you're aiming to get the sharpest possible images from your lens, don't shoot wide open. Dan is right.
With the 300 and 400 primes, I'll stop down to f/5 or even f/5.6 especially with a TC on. Everything is tack sharp and when you have both an offensive and defensive player in the frame, both are tack sharp, with little to no difference in the bokeh of the BG. As long as your conscious of all the other things that make for a great shot, your keeper rate will go. Having a 2.8 or 1.8 lens is never a waste of money... you can go wide open when you need to under low light conditions. You don't have that flexibility with 5.6. Plus the quality of the photo is heads and tails above a cheaper lens. You do get what you pay for....Show more →
Dann - Paul really knows this stuff, and has shot the 120-300 f/2.8 quite a bit. Stopping down one stop (or even more, if the light allows) is something you should try.
Since this week is Spring Break, the games will be played earlier, and the light should be better than it has been so far this year.
p.1 #20 · Baseball: Working for the tack sharp shot
Paul:
I have seen your advice about shooting at 5.0 or 5.6 before. I mainly shoot soccer in the daytime. Does stopping down affect the focus speed? I am using Mark 2 and 300 2.8.
