Baseball and DOF/F-stop

[Bill S]

I noticed looking a exif data that most infield plays shot with a fast lens in good light are shot closed down a bit 4-4.5. I guess in most instances blurring the background is not as critical as when there is a batter at the plate. Am I reading this correctly? Are people stopping it down to increase sharpness and DOF?

In my first outing I kept it (sigma 120 300 ) wide open. With a 1.4 converter it is a little softer then I’d like.

Am I on the right track? Thanks in advance for your help

[basroil]

since there's a lot of distance between the subject and background, stopping it down to 5.6 can increase dof and also puts your lens close to it's maximum sharpness, while still keeping a blured background. remember, the closer you stand to the subject, the smaller the dof will be. since you'll have more than enough light outdoors even at 5.6 and iso 100 (maybe 200 if it's later in the day), stopping your lens down can't hurt.

[MJPhotos24]

I stick around 3.5-4.5 at all places because the Sigma 120-300 is not to sharp opened up. I have been extremely happy with the results during day games but still playing when the sun is going down, night I stay open at 2.8 using 1600/3200 ISO (yes noise). Usually sticking around 200 during the bright days, haven't tried 100 yet but will. If the background (either the batter or the outfield) is not cluttered then you don't have to worry about blurring it out, but usually there's always something that you don't want to stick out in the background.

[Croasdail]

It shouldn't be all that soft... period.... unless your shooting raw which yeilds soft looking images to me. At least that is my experience.

[MJPhotos24]

sigmas seem to be hit or miss to me...some are crystal, some are duds...mines not crystal and thats for sure...

[Bill S]

I find the lens to be sharp. With a 1.4 TC is softens a little.
The reality is that a shot that is "soft" by my standard is still a great shot.

The pixel peeping is a bad habit.