> Jack [mailto:jcasner3@;comcast.net] wrote: > Marc, I believe I would rethink my position on having > anything to do with some of these games. In the first set > it looks like the players are bent on killing each other
No, they're all friendly (mostly) and it is "Touch", not tackle, Football (a tap constitutes a tackle) > and would not hesitate to run over an innocent > photographer out on the sidelines. ...on this, however, you are absolutely correct. They would not hesitate to to run me down :-) They'd be most apologetic about it though <g> > Of course, a VERY long telephoto might help. Yes, I wish for longer. Actually, I'm considering a secondhand D30, for the extra reach from the focal-length "magnification". > John Lovda [mailto:jlovda@;yahoo.com] wrote: > How can ANY f5.6 lens be good for sports/action except > under the most optimal sunlight conditions? I've used the 100-300 4.5-5.6 at the 300 end right on sunset (sun still just fully above the horizon), and still got adequate speeds (you can see it in some of the softball photos). Of course, this is print film, non-blow-ups, and on the web, but it was perfectly adequate for my needs (though faster would have obviously been better - I like this lens, but that doesn't mean I don't want something faster :-) ) > Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) [mailto:peterk@;avaya.com] wrote: > Fast film works wonders. If you need F2.8 it will exceed your > budget. You had asked for a F4.5-5.6, not much difference there > either. For the money get the Sigma 75-300 DL Macro. For a few > extra $ the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX is a bargain (especially used). Although 200 is too short for footy, I think I could get away with it at softball (where I'm allowed anywhere on the field, at my own risk <g>). I *would* like that 70-200 L IS of Canon's with a 2x convertor (the IS would be nice in my coffee-addled hands). I respect your opinion Peter, and would definitely be asking you to talk me into alternatives if you thought there were any (and Chip to convince me otherwise of course). Oh, and I use 400ISO *print* film, so there's greater latitude there (though I try to avoid any possibity of underexposure, as they tend to "wash out" then). ...but now I've hijacked someone's thread. I stand by the 100-300, but for nature you the original poster *might* want to consider something else (with abilities for longer than 300). I'm just an amateur, so I bow to the wisdom of the more experienced :-) > NK Guy [mailto:tela@;tela.bc.ca] wrote: > http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300 This link is also part of what made me decide on the 100-300 4.5-5.6 (that, and a secondhand 100-3005.6L was difficult to find, and thus I eliminated it from the shortlist to stop the dilemma). Frankly, I think I would have been happy with the IS lens too, though I make a point of always using my monopod (actually, my tripod *as* a monopod usually). It makes a hell of a difference to my latte-tremors. Cheers Marc Sydney, Oz * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
