#2 is your best. I'd go for a tighter crop, especially on top and a bit of a trim off the bottom. I see you have the 120-300 ... been thinking about that lens (even had one on my camera). I've heard that it is a slow focuser ... what has been your personal experience?
I agree #2 is the sharpest (although I personally like the expressions in #3). I hear you about the dead space in the photo. And, for internet posting I could always change the aspect ratio. But if I want to keep the aspect ratio it's either dead space or lose half of the girl on the right (which is something I'll try - it may be a worthwhile sacrifice).
Now, on to the 120-300. Man, I love this lens. I bought it back in March for spring sports. Is it slow to focus? I don't think so. I think where it suffers is when you compare it to Canon's 300mm 2.8 which may be one of the fastest focusing telephotos on the market. But the problem there is first: the Canon costs twice as much $4000 vs $2000 and you have the inherant problem of using a prime. You need a second body with say 70-200 2.8 on it. Well I couldn't afford to spend $4000 much less $5000 and there is simply no other option on the market period that gives you 2.8 with that kind of reach.
I've been very happy with the lens. Feel freee to take a browse through my galleries to see gallery level detail (hey any combo can produce a couple good shots out of 100) so you can see how this lens does when I'm not choosing my best. My soccer, baseball (except Cleveland Indians galleries)and softball galleries are all with this lens and my 2006 football galleries are also with this lens.
There are 2 drawbacks to the lens: It doesn't have a focus lock so in low light it may hunt if you're going from one extreme to the other or lighting is really bad (i.e. ISO 3200 2.8 1/250 bad). And, it isn't parafocal so you have to refocus after zooming.
So, is the lens better than Canon 300mm 2.8 on one body and 70-200 2.8 on a second body? No. Is it better than using just a 70-200 2.8 - ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!!!!
Others are like they were taken either too soon or too late ; it's a matter of seconds.
While the first one is quite good, it would have benefit a lanscape framing. You should give it a try at the next game
Did you use the "motor" of you dslr ?
Aint photography great? Three people look at the same three photos and each prefer a different one. I agree, the timing of #1 is the best - but it's softer than the other two (2 being the sharpest) and I still like the 3rd for the reaction of the striker and the goalie.
Yep, it was in multi-shot mode on the 20D. Now, the key here is: Canon advertises 5fps - that's true when you're not in servo mode. In servo mode on any camra the camera has to refocus and that takes time. Sometimes I'll still get close to 5 fps and sometimes I get only 2fps. If I'm not in Servo Ill consistantly get near the 5fps claimed. So, the timing is what it is: I hit my timing for the first shot in the series, the other 2 were out of my hands.
The moral of the story? Those with 3fps wish they had 5fps those with 5 wish they had 8 those with 8fps wish they had 10.
Thanks for looking and commenting - I think it's always interesting to get different viewpoints. It's amazing how many times shots we as the photographer like that others blow past and others will stop at an image we consider just OK and think it's great. At the end of the day, much of it is still art and thus still subjective.
Actually it's a matter of subseconds - all three were taken in less than a second, first to last.
As to landscape - I agree completely. I've found, however, that 75% of shots look better with a portrait orientation so I stick to that. Occasionally I get burned. Some day I'll get better about incorporating a faster decision into my brain and switching back to landscape.
Sure, photography is great when it's about sharing different opinions ; I adore arguments, too
About your sport photos: while I'm not a sport photographer, I happened to work at the Cannes Film Festival ; it's quite about sport when you're on the red carpet.
I've learned a lot, there, and I think the servo mode ain't the best for your : when it's about sport, set your lens at f8 (or 5,6) and give priority to the triggering. Then, you'll use the motor at its best so you won't miss important shots.
Sure, photography is great when it's about sharing different opinions ; I adore arguments, too
About your sport photos: while I'm not a sport photographer, I happened to work at the Cannes Film Festival ; it's quite about sport when you're on the red carpet.
I've learned a lot, there, and I think the servo mode ain't the best for your : when it's about sport, set your lens at f8 (or 5,6) and give priority to the triggering. Then, you'll use the motor at its best so you won't miss important shots.
Sports is a completely different animal. First of all, you don't want to use f8 - a key component to most sports shots is isolating your subject from your background - that requires faster apertures. 5.6 just won't cut it. There are times when greater DOF is desired but in general 90% of sports shots are better if shot wide open to get that subject isolation.
As to turning off servo - a sports shooter just can't live without it. Our subjects are changing focal planes too frequently (especially at the shallow dof we prefer) to allow us to take a single focus lock and run off 5 shots.
Everything is a trade-off. I'll take the shallow dof and worse frame rate every time. Especially with the horrible backgrounds most of us have to deal with. I appreciate what you're saying, but the standards are different between the 2 situations. In the red carpet situation, sharpness and expression are key (and as a bonus, the participants remain in the same focal plane much longer than a kid running full tilt on a soccer field). In most sports shots, a busy background is a stike against the quality of the shot. Subject isolation is a very important consideration.
And, even if you didn't desire shallow DOF for some reason, I'm shooting a night game - ISO 1600, 1/640 f2.8 If I closed down two stops, my shutter speed would drop to about 1/150 - completely unacceptable for most sports situations. So, while a good idea I just don't think it would work well in sports.
John,
Really nice captures Once I think I have picked my fav, I change my mind again....
Love the tightness Although I have to admit, that when I first viewed these shots last night, I noticed the same issue that Antoine brought up. IMO, these would have benefited from a landscape orientation I read your response, so no need to explain again what happened.
I've been shooting a lot of soccer lately and it seems vertical allows one to get tighter, fill he frame ... but horizontal allows one to follow the action better (at least for moi).
Comments
"AMATEURS try till they get it right, PROS try till they cannot possibly get it wrong."
Gallery - http://stephaniewilliams.smugmug.com
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
I agree #2 is the sharpest (although I personally like the expressions in #3). I hear you about the dead space in the photo. And, for internet posting I could always change the aspect ratio. But if I want to keep the aspect ratio it's either dead space or lose half of the girl on the right (which is something I'll try - it may be a worthwhile sacrifice).
Now, on to the 120-300. Man, I love this lens. I bought it back in March for spring sports. Is it slow to focus? I don't think so. I think where it suffers is when you compare it to Canon's 300mm 2.8 which may be one of the fastest focusing telephotos on the market. But the problem there is first: the Canon costs twice as much $4000 vs $2000 and you have the inherant problem of using a prime. You need a second body with say 70-200 2.8 on it. Well I couldn't afford to spend $4000 much less $5000 and there is simply no other option on the market period that gives you 2.8 with that kind of reach.
I've been very happy with the lens. Feel freee to take a browse through my galleries to see gallery level detail (hey any combo can produce a couple good shots out of 100) so you can see how this lens does when I'm not choosing my best. My soccer, baseball (except Cleveland Indians galleries)and softball galleries are all with this lens and my 2006 football galleries are also with this lens.
There are 2 drawbacks to the lens: It doesn't have a focus lock so in low light it may hunt if you're going from one extreme to the other or lighting is really bad (i.e. ISO 3200 2.8 1/250 bad). And, it isn't parafocal so you have to refocus after zooming.
So, is the lens better than Canon 300mm 2.8 on one body and 70-200 2.8 on a second body? No. Is it better than using just a 70-200 2.8 - ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!!!!
My galleries are on: www.jagsportsphotos.com
Others are like they were taken either too soon or too late ; it's a matter of seconds.
While the first one is quite good, it would have benefit a lanscape framing. You should give it a try at the next game
Did you use the "motor" of you dslr ?
Aint photography great? Three people look at the same three photos and each prefer a different one. I agree, the timing of #1 is the best - but it's softer than the other two (2 being the sharpest) and I still like the 3rd for the reaction of the striker and the goalie.
Yep, it was in multi-shot mode on the 20D. Now, the key here is: Canon advertises 5fps - that's true when you're not in servo mode. In servo mode on any camra the camera has to refocus and that takes time. Sometimes I'll still get close to 5 fps and sometimes I get only 2fps. If I'm not in Servo Ill consistantly get near the 5fps claimed. So, the timing is what it is: I hit my timing for the first shot in the series, the other 2 were out of my hands.
The moral of the story? Those with 3fps wish they had 5fps those with 5 wish they had 8 those with 8fps wish they had 10.
Thanks for looking and commenting - I think it's always interesting to get different viewpoints. It's amazing how many times shots we as the photographer like that others blow past and others will stop at an image we consider just OK and think it's great. At the end of the day, much of it is still art and thus still subjective.
Thanks again for taking time to look and post!!
Actually it's a matter of subseconds - all three were taken in less than a second, first to last.
As to landscape - I agree completely. I've found, however, that 75% of shots look better with a portrait orientation so I stick to that. Occasionally I get burned. Some day I'll get better about incorporating a faster decision into my brain and switching back to landscape.
About your sport photos: while I'm not a sport photographer, I happened to work at the Cannes Film Festival ; it's quite about sport when you're on the red carpet.
I've learned a lot, there, and I think the servo mode ain't the best for your : when it's about sport, set your lens at f8 (or 5,6) and give priority to the triggering. Then, you'll use the motor at its best so you won't miss important shots.
Sports is a completely different animal. First of all, you don't want to use f8 - a key component to most sports shots is isolating your subject from your background - that requires faster apertures. 5.6 just won't cut it. There are times when greater DOF is desired but in general 90% of sports shots are better if shot wide open to get that subject isolation.
As to turning off servo - a sports shooter just can't live without it. Our subjects are changing focal planes too frequently (especially at the shallow dof we prefer) to allow us to take a single focus lock and run off 5 shots.
Everything is a trade-off. I'll take the shallow dof and worse frame rate every time. Especially with the horrible backgrounds most of us have to deal with. I appreciate what you're saying, but the standards are different between the 2 situations. In the red carpet situation, sharpness and expression are key (and as a bonus, the participants remain in the same focal plane much longer than a kid running full tilt on a soccer field). In most sports shots, a busy background is a stike against the quality of the shot. Subject isolation is a very important consideration.
And, even if you didn't desire shallow DOF for some reason, I'm shooting a night game - ISO 1600, 1/640 f2.8 If I closed down two stops, my shutter speed would drop to about 1/150 - completely unacceptable for most sports situations. So, while a good idea I just don't think it would work well in sports.
Really nice captures
Love the tightness
Very good job
Steve
Unsharp at any Speed