200mm is just not enough

Shot my first baseball game the other night and all though I think the images suck they were good enough for the team and I have been invited back to shoot again.

I did notice though that my 70-200 is not long enough

Aslo I had to shoot these at a high ISO so the noise sucks on them.

CC Welcomed

1:

huh? they look very good to my eye.

Yah, they look fine to me. Quit complaining.

Some look a little grainy but you can clean those up nicely in LR4.

Are these crops or no?

It doesn't matter how much focal length you own, you'll always need more.

Heck, I just bought a Tokina 11-17mm. Talk about technique adjustments.

I would shoot every sport with a 500mm if I could lol

Brandon:

Generally look good. If you have the $$$ the 300f2.8 is a beauty for baseball. If not and light permits, throw on a 1.4 extender to the 70-200 and you will be a bit happier with range, but will lose a stop of light.

As to the images themselves, a few specific comments:

1. Nice mascot shot
2. Really nothing happening here not sure why you selected it, it'd be a delete for me
3. Nice shot of the toss...would like to see next frames in sequence of SS going to bag and then runner sliding in to break DP if that was happening
4. Lots of folks here seem to like bat on ball (BOB) shots but 99.9% of time you don't see the batter's face. sports photography is very much about faces and expressions and as I don't see those here, it is not one for me. Try and keep shooting batters as they follow through on their swing and bring their eyes/face up to follow ball.
5. No face, no real action, kimd of a ho hum photo
6. Not bad action, but missing faces (tough sometimes I know depending on your position)
7. Now we are getting there but what was your position, imagine how great this shot would have been if you were positioned more behind first base and shooting toward second. I'd also crop this much tighter to remove most of bottom grass as well as fielder on RH side.
8. Not a bad contextual photo. I think we all understand that the batter probably struck out, would have been better perhaps a split second earlier and with more of ump in frame ringing him up.

My sense was you were shooting from spots generally closer to home plate? Try and move a bit further down the foul lines and this will give you better angles on batters at plate, as well as on plays at second and also pitchers. Where permitted and possible, I like to be just past first or third for probably 90% of the shots I take.

Keep shooting a posting!

I think your shooting location is more important than a 300
I think the shots are very good with a 200

if you cropped them a lot then maybe

but they are good

I agree with cstewart, camera man, rick,

best shots are 3 and 7 for action

Have any pictures that aren't cropped? Just to see the range.

Love them!!! Great Job

cstewart wrote in post #14555614
Brandon:

Generally look good. If you have the $$$ the 300f2.8 is a beauty for baseball. If not and light permits, throw on a 1.4 extender to the 70-200 and you will be a bit happier with range, but will lose a stop of light.

As to the images themselves, a few specific comments:

1. Nice mascot shot
2. Really nothing happening here not sure why you selected it, it'd be a delete for me
3. Nice shot of the toss...would like to see next frames in sequence of SS going to bag and then runner sliding in to break DP if that was happening
4. Lots of folks here seem to like bat on ball (BOB) shots but 99.9% of time you don't see the batter's face. sports photography is very much about faces and expressions and as I don't see those here, it is not one for me. Try and keep shooting batters as they follow through on their swing and bring their eyes/face up to follow ball.
5. No face, no real action, kimd of a ho hum photo
6. Not bad action, but missing faces (tough sometimes I know depending on your position)
7. Now we are getting there but what was your position, imagine how great this shot would have been if you were positioned more behind first base and shooting toward second. I'd also crop this much tighter to remove most of bottom grass as well as fielder on RH side.
8. Not a bad contextual photo. I think we all understand that the batter probably struck out, would have been better perhaps a split second earlier and with more of ump in frame ringing him up.

My sense was you were shooting from spots generally closer to home plate? Try and move a bit further down the foul lines and this will give you better angles on batters at plate, as well as on plays at second and also pitchers. Where permitted and possible, I like to be just past first or third for probably 90% of the shots I take.

Keep shooting a posting!

Pretty much right on. #7 I'd crop out the outfielder, he's not bringing anything to the photo. Ball on bat is fine and people seem to really like it, but it's obvious from where he's hitting the ball on the bat that unless a miracle happened, this was a pop out, broken bat, etc. The better shot would have been after he's hit the ball and his face is pulled around to follow the ball. That's where you get the best shot IMO. This photo is just for an example; you've got the player's face, he's following the ball, the catcher is starting to raise up, there's action, tension, etc. Overall, I think you did pretty well and I would also recommend checking out the 300F4 is most of your work is in the daytime. Great lens for baseball.

1831 x 1373

EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE: http://imageshack.us/a​/img607/7817/g57c1647.​jpg Click here to see our image rules.

elray is the man

I think they are good shots... a little work in lightroom should be able to clean up the noise

They are cropped quite a bit, I went looking for the uncroped file of the images but I already deleted them.

Im thinking of getting a 300 2.8 since I would use that for hockey (the main sport i shoot) but coming up with the 2.5K that a used one would be will take forever.

Brandon Anderson Photos wrote in post #14559868
They are cropped quite a bit, I went looking for the uncroped file of the images but I already deleted them.

Im thinking of getting a 300 2.8 since I would use that for hockey (the main sport i shoot) but coming up with the 2.5K that a used one would be will take forever.

You deleted your originals, that's like throwing out your negatives after making a print!

300 2.8 is something you pay off as you go, it's an investment, so is every big purchase if you want to work in the field. It's why tell people there's good reason I'm not working free! Don't care who it is or what they want, unless it's charity, they're paying.

...the given example looks like a foul ball to me, getting the batter coming around on his follow through is a standard shot (here), but just need to make due with what you have for now if you can't get the 300. Christian's advice is very good, get a 1.3 or 2x extender, cheaper and can use it as you build up your bank.

The first half of this gallery was taken with the IV + 300, the second half was a mix of the 70-200 as well - can you tell the difference?

http://www.maxpreps.co​m …a3-4253-8e1d-9a82b1efffb8

Start saving for the 300mm. Used 300 f/2.8 lenses offer a tremendous value and the resale should be stable or even increase slightly over time.

If you know someone who has one that you can borrow (instead of renting, put the rental fee toward your purchase), try out the lens in either baseball or hockey (or almost any field sport). I think you will be convinced of the performance/value of the 300.

It's obvious that you can shoot. Your are correct, 200mm is just not enough.