New Sigma 50-150 telephoto

On 9/18/2012 10:04 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
PeterN writes:

I will have first choice of location, Flash is not permitted. I
assumed ringside, but is one spot better than others.

DOH! Um, gosh, that's a good question, and I really should have thought
of saying something about that already.

I've mostly been shooting from kind of the edge of turn 3 (third turn
after the jammer start line; end of the other straightaway). That gives
me the best shot at the FIRST action in each jam (they always start the
same place). Usually the jam goes on for several revolutions of the
track, so corner 1 is equivalent after the first revolution, if the
lighting is the same. (Where I shoot, the lighting is NOT the same, as
a consequence of which I basically skip the back straightaway that the
team benches are along; the lights back there are off to let the
projector that provides the scoreboard be seen by the audience.)

Playing around Saturday, I'm starting to like shooting from the apex or
even the outside of the ends of the oval. The tradeoff is that it lets
me see the front of the pack for less time, but it lets me see people's
faces when they look in and behind them more (and they look in and
behind them a LOT).

(I believe my "turn 3" terminology is correct and standard; if it seems
not to be, assume that my description is right and the turn # I'm using
is somehow wrong.)

Also, mostly I try to get down at least to sitting on the floor. I'm
taller than most derby girls (even on their skates), plus a lot of the
action happens when people are crouching and leaning forward. Also, it
helps block out background clutter, too.


Thanks.

The plan is to get there about 3:00 stake my spot and shoot some
practice. Then eat and come back. The game starts at 7.
The sponsor wants to get there early. The closest I've come to roller
derby was watching the film, Rollerball.

--
Peter

On 9/18/2012 11:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:04:52 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

PeterN writes:

I will have first choice of location, Flash is not permitted. I
assumed ringside, but is one spot better than others.

DOH! Um, gosh, that's a good question, and I really should have thought
of saying something about that already.

I've mostly been shooting from kind of the edge of turn 3 (third turn
after the jammer start line; end of the other straightaway). That gives
me the best shot at the FIRST action in each jam (they always start the
same place). Usually the jam goes on for several revolutions of the
track, so corner 1 is equivalent after the first revolution, if the
lighting is the same. (Where I shoot, the lighting is NOT the same, as
a consequence of which I basically skip the back straightaway that the
team benches are along; the lights back there are off to let the
projector that provides the scoreboard be seen by the audience.)

Playing around Saturday, I'm starting to like shooting from the apex or
even the outside of the ends of the oval. The tradeoff is that it lets
me see the front of the pack for less time, but it lets me see people's
faces when they look in and behind them more (and they look in and
behind them a LOT).

(I believe my "turn 3" terminology is correct and standard; if it seems
not to be, assume that my description is right and the turn # I'm using
is somehow wrong.)

Also, mostly I try to get down at least to sitting on the floor. I'm
taller than most derby girls (even on their skates), plus a lot of the
action happens when people are crouching and leaning forward. Also, it
helps block out background clutter, too.

I've never seen - let alone photographed - a roller derby, but I've
photographed greyhound races. I always shoot from a beginning of the
straight-away as the dogs come around the fourth curve. There's
action as the dogs come out of the curve, and I can pan on the action
at the beginning of the homestretch.




There is no chance that I ever wold support a dog race, in any fashion.
They are just too cruel to the dogs. Sorry


--
Peter

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:21:58 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
: Me writes:
:
: On 19/09/2012 1:12 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
: On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:11 +1200, Me wrote:
: : I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
: : version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
: : Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
: : 50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
: : I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
: : envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
: : is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
: : and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
: : as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
: : first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
: : best.
:
: Why do you prefer the f/4 to the f/2.8? Because it's lighter? The 70-200 I
: have is the f/2.8L IS II, and it's plenty sharp for my eyes. But it is heavy,
: and I seldom carry it outdoors for that reason. I consider it mainly an indoor
: event lens, and it's hard to beat in that role (although maybe a bit long for
: my 7D's).
:
: Yes - because it's lighter, much less expensive, and darned
: good. Perhaps check exif on files you've taken using the f2.8, even
: indoors, and see how often you actually use it fully wide.
:
: I'm guess quite possibly less than 50% of the time. On the other hand,
: I resort to fast lenses when it's dark.
:
: The concept of deliberately getting a zoom I plan to use a lot slower
: than f/2.8 is kind of appalling to me, I admit. That's *already*
: sacrificing a lot of speed by my standards.
:
: Depends what you shoot, of course.

The way I'd put it is that since a 70-200 is too heavy to carry for very long
on the trail, it's primarily an indoor lens. And an indoor lens has to be no
slower than f/2.8.

Bob

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
The concept of deliberately getting a zoom I plan to use a lot slower
than f/2.8 is kind of appalling to me, I admit. That's *already*
sacrificing a lot of speed by my standards.

In the days of film I'd agree totally.
In these days of usable ISO's to 6400+, and blur options easy to do in PS, I
have to say that a cheaper, smaller, lighter lens that is less critical to
focus has far more appeal these days.
Less than f4 creates it's own problems with low light viewing and focussing
though, so f4 is my new limit, to 400mm anyway. And I sure as hell wouldn't
be buying a 400mm+ f2.8 lens! :-)

Trevor.

On 9/19/2012 9:32 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:21:58 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
: Me writes:
:
: On 19/09/2012 1:12 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
: On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:23:11 +1200, Me wrote:
: : I think the new OS 50-150 is quite a bit heavier than the older non OS
: : version you have, hence most of my negative comments.
: : Yes - Sigma make a 70-200 f2.8 OS, less than 100g heavier than the OS
: : 50-150, and about $1250 street price. It's probably okay.
: : I'm not a Canon owner. There are two things in Canon land that I really
: : envy. One is the 17mm TSE, the other is the 70-200 f4 L IS. The latter
: : is what you should be getting your wife for Xmas. I have used that lens,
: : and it's an absolute gem (on 5D and 5DII bodies). In fact I'd go so far
: : as to say that if I decided to buy a Canon body, I'd buy the darned lens
: : first, then cart it around camera stores to decide which body suited it
: : best.
:
: Why do you prefer the f/4 to the f/2.8? Because it's lighter? The 70-200 I
: have is the f/2.8L IS II, and it's plenty sharp for my eyes. But it is heavy,
: and I seldom carry it outdoors for that reason. I consider it mainly an indoor
: event lens, and it's hard to beat in that role (although maybe a bit long for
: my 7D's).
:
: Yes - because it's lighter, much less expensive, and darned
: good. Perhaps check exif on files you've taken using the f2.8, even
: indoors, and see how often you actually use it fully wide.
:
: I'm guess quite possibly less than 50% of the time. On the other hand,
: I resort to fast lenses when it's dark.
:
: The concept of deliberately getting a zoom I plan to use a lot slower
: than f/2.8 is kind of appalling to me, I admit. That's *already*
: sacrificing a lot of speed by my standards.
:
: Depends what you shoot, of course.

The way I'd put it is that since a 70-200 is too heavy to carry for very long
on the trail, it's primarily an indoor lens. And an indoor lens has to be no
slower than f/2.8.


Mine isn't that heavy when I start. It has a habit of gaining weight
after a short walk. Indeed, it seems to now gain weight faster than it
used to.
I am now more inclined to endure the slow focus of my 80-400, or put up
with the softness of a 70-300.


--
Peter

Robert Coe writes:

The way I'd put it is that since a 70-200 is too heavy to carry for very long
on the trail, it's primarily an indoor lens. And an indoor lens has to be no
slower than f/2.8.

95% or so of my photography is indoors, so *every* lens I have is an
indoor lens :-).

And the REALLY heavy things, the actual super-telephotos, are primarily
outdoor lenses. (But then, I feel immense sympathy for people whose
photography requires them to haul 5kg lenses miles through swamps.)
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

"Trevor" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
The concept of deliberately getting a zoom I plan to use a lot slower
than f/2.8 is kind of appalling to me, I admit. That's *already*
sacrificing a lot of speed by my standards.

In the days of film I'd agree totally.
In these days of usable ISO's to 6400+, and blur options easy to do in PS, I
have to say that a cheaper, smaller, lighter lens that is less critical to
focus has far more appeal these days.

6400 is finally getting up to what I need; I can't afford to **** it
away on cheap glass. Depth of field has alwasy been a desirable quality
for me, but one I can't get in a lot of shots due to lighting
constraints.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

PeterN writes:

On 9/18/2012 10:04 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
PeterN writes:

I will have first choice of location, Flash is not permitted. I
assumed ringside, but is one spot better than others.

DOH! Um, gosh, that's a good question, and I really should have thought
of saying something about that already.

I've mostly been shooting from kind of the edge of turn 3 (third turn
after the jammer start line; end of the other straightaway). That gives
me the best shot at the FIRST action in each jam (they always start the
same place). Usually the jam goes on for several revolutions of the
track, so corner 1 is equivalent after the first revolution, if the
lighting is the same. (Where I shoot, the lighting is NOT the same, as
a consequence of which I basically skip the back straightaway that the
team benches are along; the lights back there are off to let the
projector that provides the scoreboard be seen by the audience.)

Playing around Saturday, I'm starting to like shooting from the apex or
even the outside of the ends of the oval. The tradeoff is that it lets
me see the front of the pack for less time, but it lets me see people's
faces when they look in and behind them more (and they look in and
behind them a LOT).

(I believe my "turn 3" terminology is correct and standard; if it seems
not to be, assume that my description is right and the turn # I'm using
is somehow wrong.)

Also, mostly I try to get down at least to sitting on the floor. I'm
taller than most derby girls (even on their skates), plus a lot of the
action happens when people are crouching and leaning forward. Also, it
helps block out background clutter, too.


Thanks.

The plan is to get there about 3:00 stake my spot and shoot some
practice. Then eat and come back. The game starts at 7.
The sponsor wants to get there early. The closest I've come to roller
derby was watching the film, Rollerball.

With any luck, this will be a LOT less bloody :-).
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In article ,
"Trevor" wrote:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
The concept of deliberately getting a zoom I plan to use a lot slower
than f/2.8 is kind of appalling to me, I admit. That's *already*
sacrificing a lot of speed by my standards.

In the days of film I'd agree totally.
In these days of usable ISO's to 6400+, and blur options easy to do in PS, I
have to say that a cheaper, smaller, lighter lens that is less critical to
focus has far more appeal these days.
Less than f4 creates it's own problems with low light viewing and focussing
though, so f4 is my new limit, to 400mm anyway. And I sure as hell wouldn't
be buying a 400mm+ f2.8 lens! :-)

I just bought the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 and I'm very happy. Yes, it
is very slow, but autofocus is "acceptable" and the image stabilizer
is top notch. And with my D3s, I have tons of ISO to make up for the
slow lens. I will use it mostly in concert settings where I've used my
Nikkor 24-120/4 lens (which I *love*) or my Tamron 70-200/2.8 earlier.

Here's a pic of it:

http://instagram.com/p/PEGZFHMD8I/





--
Sandman[.net]

On 9/20/2012 1:17 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
PeterN writes:

On 9/18/2012 10:04 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
PeterN writes:

I will have first choice of location, Flash is not permitted. I
assumed ringside, but is one spot better than others.

DOH! Um, gosh, that's a good question, and I really should have thought
of saying something about that already.

I've mostly been shooting from kind of the edge of turn 3 (third turn
after the jammer start line; end of the other straightaway). That gives
me the best shot at the FIRST action in each jam (they always start the
same place). Usually the jam goes on for several revolutions of the
track, so corner 1 is equivalent after the first revolution, if the
lighting is the same. (Where I shoot, the lighting is NOT the same, as
a consequence of which I basically skip the back straightaway that the
team benches are along; the lights back there are off to let the
projector that provides the scoreboard be seen by the audience.)

Playing around Saturday, I'm starting to like shooting from the apex or
even the outside of the ends of the oval. The tradeoff is that it lets
me see the front of the pack for less time, but it lets me see people's
faces when they look in and behind them more (and they look in and
behind them a LOT).

(I believe my "turn 3" terminology is correct and standard; if it seems
not to be, assume that my description is right and the turn # I'm using
is somehow wrong.)

Also, mostly I try to get down at least to sitting on the floor. I'm
taller than most derby girls (even on their skates), plus a lot of the
action happens when people are crouching and leaning forward. Also, it
helps block out background clutter, too.


Thanks.

The plan is to get there about 3:00 stake my spot and shoot some
practice. Then eat and come back. The game starts at 7.
The sponsor wants to get there early. The closest I've come to roller
derby was watching the film, Rollerball.

With any luck, this will be a LOT less bloody :-).


G

--
Peter