disappointed in my Nikon 50 mm 1.8 (Page 6): This is how it came out of the camera, shot with the 50mm 1.8. No zooming was involved.

kenpic Loc: Edmonds, WA

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

So, were you were zoomed in tighter than 50mm for these? Glad you worked out the problem.

This is how it came out of the camera, shot with the 50mm 1.8. No zooming was involved.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

kenpic wrote:

This is how it came out of the camera, shot with the 50mm 1.8. No zooming was involved.

I'd like to see the photos re-posted and have you check "store original." Photos are always sharper when they can be downloaded. Also, I think the 50mm did a pretty good job capturing the action.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

kenpic wrote:

This is how it came out of the camera, shot with the 50mm 1.8. No zooming was involved.

SteveR wrote:

I'd like to see the photos re-posted and have you check "store original." Photos are always sharper when they can be downloaded. Also, I think the 50mm did a pretty good job capturing the action.

I'm curious as well. I'd like to know, were you @ 1.8?

You got me curious, and although I do not shoot indoor (nor other) sports much, I tried last night, but came away a bit underwhelmed with my results.

kenpic Loc: Edmonds, WA

SteveR wrote:

I'd like to see the photos re-posted and have you check "store original." Photos are always sharper when they can be downloaded. Also, I think the 50mm did a pretty good job capturing the action.

Here you go. These have been dumbed down to about a meg (vs the full six meg file.)

(Download)

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

On a totally non-photographic note, it took me longer than I would have liked to figure out why the text on the white team's waistbands is backwards and everything else is not.

kenpic Loc: Edmonds, WA

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

I'm curious as well. I'd like to know, were you @ 1.8?

You got me curious, and although I do not shoot indoor (nor other) sports much, I tried last night, but came away a bit underwhelmed with my results.

Both images were at f3.5, the first at 1/400 and the second at 1/500. ISO 6400, WB on Auto, shot in Aperature Priority, Matrix Metering. I was set to Dynamic Area AF, and though shooting in Continuous High, I only fired off one shot on both of these.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

kenpic wrote:

Here you go. These have been dumbed down to about a meg (vs the full six meg file.)

Those are nice sharp images. Despite what anybody might say, the 50mm works here as a sports camera. It takes in more than you might want in your final print, esp. in #2, but the photo is so sharp that you will be able to crop to get the shot that you want. #1 has a lot of interesting extraneous items.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

kenpic wrote:

Here you go. These have been dumbed down to about a meg (vs the full six meg file.)

Those are nice sharp images. Despite what anybody might say, the 50mm works here as a sports camera. It takes in more than you might want in your final print, esp. in #2, but the photo is so sharp that you will be able to crop to get the shot that you want. #1 has a lot of interesting extraneous items. Nice composition.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

kenpic wrote:

This is "before" any cropping.

Still good shots. The club is great for helping all of us.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

I'm curious as well. I'd like to know, were you @ 1.8?

You got me curious, and although I do not shoot indoor (nor other) sports much, I tried last night, but came away a bit underwhelmed with my results.

I get my best results at 2.8 with your lens. I have the same one. Might want to try a few shots. I find my focus at 1.8 must be dead on. Basketball is so fast I am unable to get that sharper focus.

(Download)

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Jules Karney wrote:

I get my best results at 2.8 with your lens. I have the same one. Might want to try a few shots. I find my focus at 1.8 must be dead on. Basketball is so fast I am unable to get that sharper focus.

The advantage of an f1.8 is that when the camera focuses, the lens opens to its widest aperture, the f1.8 at the time of focus. That's why it's called a fast lens. It's able to focus fast. It doesn't mean that f1.8 is the best aperture to actually shoot at.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

I asked because I was hoping that my D750's high ISO performance would compensate for the variable aperture of my 28-300, but it appears not.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

I asked because I was hoping that my D750's high ISO performance would compensate for the variable aperture of my 28-300, but it appears not.

Steve....It might not be a great lens indoors, although I've used it to take video of 3 year old soccer, but it should be good for daytime baseball, etc.

btbg

Jules Karney wrote:

These photos are really good. Just need to crop more.

If he shot with the 70-200 he wouldn't need to crop and would consequently have better images.

For anyone who didn't notice though the really interesting thing is the score. It's 77-16 with the visiting team ahead and 5:40 left in the game.

Ken, which team were you there to photograph?

SteveR Loc: Michigan

btbg wrote:

If he shot with the 70-200 he wouldn't need to crop and would consequently have better images.

For anyone who didn't notice though the really interesting thing is the score. It's 77-16 with the visiting team ahead and 5:40 left in the game.

Ken, which team were you there to photograph?

The images are so sharp that cropping will not hurt. Also, in sports, it's difficult to frame that perfect picture. Better to have a wider frame and crop later.