Little League shooters... is 200mm long enough?

ThatCanonGuy · January 8, 2011

Yeah, the answer's no, right?

I remember using a 200mm awhile back and from what I remember it wasn't long enough. I guess most of you use 300 2.8s:D or some type of 300mm. Even a 300 f4 non-IS is out of the question. Does anyone use 200mm?

So, assuming 200mm is NOT long enough, I've got two options. I can get a 1.4x TC (version 1, since my 70-200 isn't weather-sealed anyway) for around $200. That would get me a 98-280, close enough. Or, I can borrow a friend's 10D. 6mp is OK with me. Not the latest and greatest, but hey, it does the job. I can get a 100-300 USM, and have a 2-body combo: 1DII with 70-200, and 10D with 100-300.... The 100-300 I could get for around $150-$200. The 100-300 is slow, 4.5-5.6, but I'd be shooting during the daytime. Slow aperture is not a problem. The problem with the 100-300 is, despite its fast USM AF, that it's still not as fast as my 70-200. The IQ isn't as good, but I think I can deal with that.

The 100-300 is what I used on my 1DII last season, and it got me some good shots. My only concern is the AF. It's fast. Is it fast enough? Few of you can answer that, I know it's discontinued and hardly known. I could try it, it would give me two bodies to use, and would save me $50.

Opinions? And what focal lengths/body setups do you use?

Scott293 · January 8, 2011

What sport are you wanting to shoot?

JimKarczewski · January 8, 2011

Wouldn't your 70-200 be a 127-364? You aren't adding the 1.3x for your body in your calculations. 200*1.3x = 260mm. 260 x 1.4x = 364.

jonh68 · January 8, 2011

For little league it should be fine. Without knowing how close you can get, most little league allows some kind of close access. I shoot girls hs softball with a 70-200 when I don't feel like lugging a 300 2.08.

ThatCanonGuy · January 8, 2011

Scott293 wrote: »

What sport are you wanting to shoot?

Little League Baseball.

JimKarczewski wrote: »

Wouldn't your 70-200 be a 127-364? You aren't adding the 1.3x for your body in your calculations. 200*1.3x = 260mm. 260 x 1.4x = 364.

Actually, yes. I left that out because most of the time sports shooters are using crop anyway, and I'm used to the 1.3 crop on everything. Yes it does make it longer, and that helps.

jonh68 wrote: »

For little league it should be fine. Without knowing how close you can get, most little league allows some kind of close access. I shoot girls hs softball with a 70-200 when I don't feel like lugging a 300 2.08.

That's the same size diamond as little league fields, so that helps, thank you... in our league we have some of the best fields in the area including an astroturf one (I guess I'm just bragging:D), and I can get right up and shoot through the [chain-link] fence. Problem is there's like 10ft between the backstop and home plate, so it adds a little distance. During pregame warmups I'm allowed on the field (usually) so that's always an opportunity for nice close shots.
I know 200mm is enough for the home plate area, and likely the pitcher, but I'm mainly concerned about the infielders.

ThatCanonGuy · January 9, 2011

I'm sure there are more Little League baseball/softball shooters here... does 200mm get you close enough to the infielders?

GadgetRick · January 9, 2011

You should be fine for shooting the infielders. Outfielders will need a little more reach.

ThatCanonGuy · January 9, 2011

Thanks, I've tried to get outfielders and even with 300mm they're in a small part of the frame... I usually wait till the coach puts those kids in an infield spot to take pics of them:D

jonh68 · January 10, 2011

Even if you have 300 mm or more, shooting behind the plate will be frustrating for outfield unless you live with the crops. You will need to get past the first and third bases and camp out along the foul line.

beetle8 · January 10, 2011

The problem with the 100-300 variable ap isn't just the focus speed and lack of light. At 5.6 sure during the day you'll get plenty of light, and so what if it takes a second longer to focus, the problem is the added depth of field. I'd go with the 1.4tc then just know your limits. If you can get on the field pre-game, get some head on shots of the pitcher then, other than that there are not too many reasons to be shooting from behind home plate. If you ask nice you may be able to shoot from the dugout, otherwise shoot next to it. Shoot some of the game from the first base side and some from the 3rd base side. There are plenty of great shots to be had with a 70-200 2.8 but if you try to go long and crop with it then it doesn't look professional.
I shoot baseball with a full frame and a 1.5 crop body, a 70-200/2.8 and a 300/2.8, a 1.4tc, and a wider lens for candids. I swap the glass from body to body to get longer on the 300, or shorter on the 70-200.

dirtfan21 · January 11, 2011

I use a 70-200mm f2.8 and a TC1.7 EII which is Nikon and it works for me. Iam following the foul line for outfield shots.

ThatCanonGuy · January 11, 2011

jonh68 wrote: »

Even if you have 300 mm or more, shooting behind the plate will be frustrating for outfield unless you live with the crops. You will need to get past the first and third bases and camp out along the foul line.

I don't plan on doing much outfield. I'll try what you suggested. I wasn't hoping to get outfielders from behind home plate; I was mainly worried about the infielders.

ThatCanonGuy · January 11, 2011

beetle8 wrote: »

The problem with the 100-300 variable ap isn't just the focus speed and lack of light. At 5.6 sure during the day you'll get plenty of light, and so what if it takes a second longer to focus, the problem is the added depth of field. I'd go with the 1.4tc then just know your limits. If you can get on the field pre-game, get some head on shots of the pitcher then, other than that there are not too many reasons to be shooting from behind home plate. If you ask nice you may be able to shoot from the dugout, otherwise shoot next to it. Shoot some of the game from the first base side and some from the 3rd base side. There are plenty of great shots to be had with a 70-200 2.8 but if you try to go long and crop with it then it doesn't look professional.
I shoot baseball with a full frame and a 1.5 crop body, a 70-200/2.8 and a 300/2.8, a 1.4tc, and a wider lens for candids. I swap the glass from body to body to get longer on the 300, or shorter on the 70-200.

My 70-200 is f4 already. The TC would make it 5.6.

I don't really need beautifully blurred DOF, I don't have 2.8 lenses and I'm not gonna. I know my limits, and I know that there's usually a lot of space between a subject and the fence behind him (infielders and pitchers, yes, but not batters unless I'm shooting from behind the plate). That helps. Usually. And, I can always blur it a little is PS, although I don't like spending a lot of time on each image.

I do try to move around a lot, I love the 1st base side for batters and runners and I do a lot on the 3rd base side and around the dugouts.

konomaniac · January 12, 2011

I WISH I could bring a camera onto the Little League field with me - I might be able to convince some of the parents that little Johnny really was out at the plate - not that they'd believe that either :bash

Seriously though, talk to your league officials - depending on the layout of the field, there might be somewhere on the field that you can shoot without getting in the way of the game. Just remember, your camera isn't a glove - don't try to catch the ball with it.

Little League shooters... is 200mm long enough?

Comments