Baseball With New 1.4X Extender

Sledhed wrote in post #5883440
I disagree, I would rather use my 400/2.8. I have shot tons of youth baseball/softball this spring and almost all of it with the 400.

Not even a close consideration in youth sports (Baseball, softball, basketball, volleyball, exception for upper age group soccer). Why would one need a 400 when the availability to sit 15-30 feet from home, first or third unobstructed exists. What desireable shot can you get with a 400 of a play from 15-30 feet away that is not better framed with a 70-200? Eyeballs?
I love a 300 for HS football at night but the amount of successful, saleable shots at that venue is still much higher with a 70-200. Take the 300 and 400 to places where access is restricted and "distant" shots are the norm (college and pro venues), that makes sense, otherwise, not even a close consideration.
As also pointed out, how can one compare a 70-200 with 1.4 value for the majority of users on this forum to a 300 or 400 for the purposes stated. A little upity in my book.

KevReid wrote in post #5889119
Take the 300 and 400 to places where access is restricted and "distant" shots are the norm (college and pro venues), that makes sense, otherwise, not even a close consideration.

You do know that you'll get much better subject isolation from background by using a long telephoto, right? You don't have to be 15 feet from the action to get a good shot.

I shoot youth baseball with a 300 f/4 and a 1.4x Tc, and yes, you can stand farther away and get a better shot. ( and you don't have crazy parents screaming in your ear that way)

Kevin,

How do you guys get pitchers from behind the backstop with something like 200mm? I am total rookie in baseball but when I tried my 100-400L at 400mm it was short so I tried my 500mm f4 IS and even then I could crop from 2:3 to 4:3 ratio. Here is the shot I am taking about.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I have yet to sell a shot to a parent based on the subject isolation.

quote=dekalbSTEEL;5889​144]You do know that you'll get much better subject isolation from background by using a long telephoto, right? You don't have to be 15 feet from the action to get a good shot.

I shoot youth baseball with a 300 f/4 and a 1.4x Tc, and yes, you can stand farther away and get a better shot. ( and you don't have crazy parents screaming in your ear that way)[/QUOTE]

How do you know that? They may not know what to call it, but I bet they can tell the difference when they see it. (bobbyz's shot is a great example)

KevReid wrote in post #5889167
I have yet to sell a shot to a parent based on the subject isolation.

Hi there -

Subject isolation makes the big difference between what a parent can get from a point and shoot, to professional results. The parent doesn't understand what subject isolation is from a technical point of view, but those are the shots that draw the eye. The parents I have seen through my local town's little league, all comment on the quality of that type of shot to really highlight the subject, which is what isolation does. No they won't tell you exactly what it is, but believe me, that extra quality does sell shots.

If price and weight weren't so intimidating, you'd better believe a 400 2.8 would be something I'd consider.

Pat

Bobbyz's shot is a great example of how to use a long prime and not the point of my compliment to the original poster. The point is, a 70-200 with 1.4 allows a youth sports photographer great latitude to produce the MOST saleable shots during a given opportunity. Not just saleable shots but very professional images (for some here that seems to mean isolation). Reason being, the photographer is not limited to where they can be positioned during youth sports as they are during pro events.
Assuming I have only the 70-200 with or without the 1.4 and I want the shot like Bobbyz's. During a youth game, or warm up, I can go out on the field, get far enough back to isolate the background but close enough to fill the frame with the player and get the same shot. During the game, I can be at the dugout door, shoot tight at the plate and isolate the subject with, you guessed it, a 70-200. That's giving me the same shot as I would get out in the photographers area beyond the dugout at at pro game. We getting on the same page yet???
We haven't even discussed the crop factor.......Note the original poster is shooting a 40D.
Gentlemen, seriously, you are suffering major equipment envy if you think you can make better and or more saleable image with a 300 or 400 at a youth sporting event. Use your legs!!! 2.8 is 2.8 whether it's a 200mm at 30' or a 300mm at 50' or a 400mm at 75'.

dekalbSTEEL wrote in post #5889204
How do you know that? They may not know what to call it, but I bet they can tell the difference when they see it. (bobbyz's shot is a great example)