Originally posted by PeaceFroggy Shot with the SMC Pentax-M 135mm F3.5
That lens is a winner. I have a scrap book of newspaper articles where I shot school sports with an M 135/3.5 mounted on an original Pentax (1/25, 1/50, etc) and later a KX and still later an SF-1 because it had a winder. The paper was the Abbotsford, Sumas and Matsqui News, and in the late '70s and early '80s the paper was regularly ranked third in weekly sports sections in Canada. I think I shot my children's sports for 2 or 3 months before the first photo was accepted. The didn't care what the name on the camera was, nor did they care what the name of the no cost stringer was: they just wanted the photo because photos sell papers.
[OFF TOPIC]
There was no cost to me for this, I went to the games anyway (my wife had a shift work job, so I did the taxi services) and they handed me two rolls of ISO 400 black and white for a soccer game (72 exposures total) and said go take pictures. The day after the paper went out, the editor would come to me with the contact prints and point out why this shot was almost good enough, all I had to do was take the shot when the ball was right next to the player's foot on the way out. Or at a track and field event with a confusing background that made the shot useless. Or ...... My glorious success was the whole front page of the sports section (broadsheet, yet) with two vertical shots I took; one of the meet's gold medalist crossing the finish line of a foot race; the other was a broad jumper coming straight at me. I was on my belly and got him against the a dark hill above the spectators behind.
Darned good training is all I can say. Anyone trying to learn how to take sports should find a local weekly paper and get snapping. Pictures of Johnny playing badminton results in several extra copies of papers to send the clippings to Grandma and Aunt Jane. They love to have people working for no more than a by line. [/OFF TOPIC]