First 20D pics, first SLR camera and first critique post

[pcasciola]

Ok, so I have no lenses for my 20D yet other than the 50mm F/1.8 II (and the 18-55mm kit lens), and this is my first SLR/dSLR camera. I shot a bunch of pictures from the stands at my son's football game yesterday, from 50-60 yards away with the 50mm prime. So far, I find I do almost all my shooting in aperture priority mode so I only have to set my depth of field.

I attached two pictures here. The first one is the entire 8MP frame scaled down to 800x533, and the 2nd is a 1 for 1 pixel crop from the center of the image with no scaling.

I'm pretty happy with the overall performance of the 20D so far, and am thinking about getting a Canon 300mm F/4L IS and Canon 135mm F/2.0L as my next two lenses, primarily for sports shooting like this.

http://www.casciola.com/pics/football1.jpg
1/2000s f/10 @50.0mm iso800

http://www.casciola.com/pics/football2.jpg
1/2000s f/10 @50.0mm iso800 (1 for 1 pixel crop from center of image)

[pcasciola]

What I'm really looking for here is some guidance toward lens selection and shooting style for sports photography. I really like those kind of pics where the aperture is wide open and the main subject is in sharp focus with a blurred background, but I think I was too far away to achieve that effect with the 50mm prime. I did get some good pics at f4.5-5.6 with and ISO setting of 400, and F/10-F/16 with ISO of 800m but anything below F4.5 didn't come out very good with the 50mm.

Also, I seem to get the best results in aperture priority mode. Is that the best way to shoot sports other than manual mode which I am not ready for yet?

Thanks in advance.

[flyfishnj]

Go buy a long IS lens and get it over with ... It's Tuesday and game day is Saturday. What if your kid makes the big play and all you have is the 50mm or a kit lens? ... And practice out of the office window

[Belmondo]

Go buy a long IS lens and get it over with ... It's Tuesday and game day is Saturday. What if your kid makes the big play and all you have is the 50mm or a kit lens? ... And practice out of the office window

Good advice. The 300 f/4 IS is not a bad choice, especially if all your games are daylight. A better way to go, however, might be the 70-200 f/2.8L (IS if you're willing to invest that much). This lens works almost seamlessly with the 1.4X TC (somewhat less so with the 2.X TC), and will give you better light gathering in marginal situations. The 200 prime is a good lens, but not very versatile for the various distances you're likely to encounter in a football game. Of course, there's the 'cool factor' of having one of the big white lenses.

[pcasciola]

A better way to go, however, might be the 70-200 f/2.8L (IS if you're willing to invest that much).

Yes, I have also thought long and hard about the 70-200mm F/2.8L IS, especially now that you mention it works seamlessly with the 1.4x TC. I definitely plan to have both the 70-200mm F/2.8L IS and 300mm F/4L IS at some point, it's just a matter of which one to get first at this point.

Funny you mention the white 'cool factor', because B&H shows a gray version of the 300mm F/4L IS on their site, but I'm embarassed to call and ask them if they could send me the white one instead. :lol:

[Belmondo]

Actually, we use the term 'white' somewhat euphemistically. The actual shade is more like an off-white putty color. The photo on B&H’s website does tend to make it look gray.

[pcasciola]

I realize the photos sometimes look a little off color, but this is the B&H photo for the 300mm F/4L IS. Are you sure this is white, because there other lens pictures don't look anywhere near this gray.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/129188.jpg

[Belmondo]

Trust me. I own this lens, and it's exactly the same color as my 400 f/5.6L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 100-400L, 28-300L, and 70-200 f/4.

It's just a misleading picture.