Pitchers

noworries22 wrote in post #5551901
Great shots! Looks like you had several games up there, the layout for the 2A state is pretty lame this year.

I was debating whether to head up to Everett for the 4A games or Bellevue for the 3A games. Decided to head to Bellevue since I coach at Newport and know the Issaquah coaching staff.

MLB site, photos section, May 12th WSH vs NYM

RonnieA wrote in post #5552084
His skin may be a little on the pinkish side. Too much contrast? Or possibly he just has pink skin ... like me.

May 12th image??

wow 300 f/4? great inexpensive option (relatively speaking) for
daytime sports...

Those are really nice pictures.. great job

great shots

DaveL wrote in post #5553569
wow 300 f/4? great inexpensive option (relatively speaking) for
daytime sports...

That's my thinking too. Slap my 1.4 TC between it and my Mark II and I have an equivalent focal length of 546mm at f/5.6 (without TC = 390mm f/4). Workable for day time sports, I think. After two test drives (rentals), I am sold on its performance and plan to purchase it soon. Focus is attentive and it handles a 1.4 TC well in both terms of AF speed and IQ. And I also have read its a fantastic macro lens - something I want to explore.

I'm stealing them all to show my hooligans that I'm not as dumb as I look and what I mean when teaching them how to pitch - if I show them pro players they argue they're not pros - well fine, I'll show 'em high schoolers!

Nice shots Ronnie, as for #6 it has its purpose and I've shot it before - as well as most baseball photogs as I've seen it published several times in news stories. Expressions do sell these though.

RonnieA wrote in post #5554900
That's my thinking too. Slap my 1.4 TC between it and my Mark II and I have an equivalent focal length of 546mm at f/5.6 (without TC = 390mm f/4). Workable for day time sports, I think. After two test drives (rentals), I am sold on its performance and plan to purchase it soon. Focus is attentive and it handles a 1.4 TC well in both terms of AF speed and IQ. And I also have read its a fantastic macro lens - something I want to explore.

Ronnie - you almost answered my question before I asked. How about comparing the 300 to your 70-200 + the 1.4TC? Thanks.

Ronnie - When I first started shooting baseball I was using a 300 f/4 and I loved it too. There are times when I wish I had never sold it, I was thinking about picking another one up for my daughter to use.

The kid in #1 is my partner in my physics class. Funny to see him here. For the shots of Kemmerer, I like #5 better than #6, just because of the force that is shown. Great work Ronnie, and of course, Go Issaquah!

What effort! It's no wonder these guys can't throw much more than 90 pitches twice a week.

Did you shoot the pitchers behind a fence?

Chandler. wrote in post #5555309
The kid in #1 is my partner in my physics class. Funny to see him here. For the shots of Kemmerer, I like #5 better than #6, just because of the force that is shown. Great work Ronnie, and of course, Go Issaquah!

Your physics partner is a good guy, Chandler. I've worked with him on his pitching and know him pretty well.

I think Issy has a chance to repeat.

MJCoco wrote in post #5555083
Ronnie - you almost answered my question before I asked. How about comparing the 300 to your 70-200 + the 1.4TC? Thanks.

I haven't performed any side-by-side tests, but I'd say it's a toss up, with and without the 1.4 TC.

Galaxy99 wrote in post #5555345
Did you shoot the pitchers behind a fence?

Yes. Though some were taken between a 3-4 inch gap that runs around the perimeter of a chain-link door cut into the fence. I had some difficulty acquiring focus while shooting between the gap and at times resorted to manual focus.