2007 motorsport with an 80-200 2.8 (+ should I upgrade?)

ukaskew

ukaskew

Messages
3,839
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
With 2007 now being over I've been looking back at what I've managed in my first year of DSLR use, and what I can do in 2008 to improve.

I currently have a D50 and Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-S. Incredibly sharp lens with unbelievable auto-focus but I've found it to be far too short. I picked up the new Nikon 1.4 TC but the quality was way-off unless I was using a slow shutter speed (oddly), so I'm reluctant to go down that route again. Anyhow, as I couldn't do much with reach I decided to see what I could come up with at my relatively limited 200mm...

(anything above 200mm is with the TC attached)

1/25 @ 145mm
173285413-M.jpg


1/200 @ 280mm
198958646-M.jpg


1/60 @ 145mm
207613512-M.jpg


1/100 @ 200mm
170529895-M.jpg


1/125 @ 145mm
157174834-M.jpg


1/160 @ 230mm
207584607-M.jpg


1/15 @100mm
173258171-M.jpg



The question is, should I get a Sigma 100-300 f4? I'm concerned primarily about sharpness and auto-focus speed. All the reviews have been positive in both respects but coming from an 80-200 I wonder if it will be up to what I am used to..?
 
Wow, you've got a few crackers there, particularly 2, 5 and 6. The last one is good too, I'm just a little distracted by the back end of the car, but I guess it must be hard to pan diagonally!

This is something I've wanted to try, I just haven't had the time to go and find some races!
 
They're sharp enough for me - and the reach is fine. Can't really help with your lens issue as I don't use Nikon stuff. But judging by that lot, I'm not sure what you will gain by using slower glass with an unnecessary longer reach.
 
great photos but like others have said the back end of the cars if a little off and takes away from the sharpness of the picture. Your seems to have a very good panning technique.
 
You don't say what aperture you're using with these shots, but any zoom won't be it's sharpest wide open. Bearing that in mind, how much do you have to stop the Sigma down until it's as sharp as the Nikon? I have the 80-200 f:2.8 AF-D and want to upgrade it to the 70-200 f:2.8 AF-S VR which is oner of the best zooms you can get and should give better results than the ones your currently experiencing with the 80-200.

If you really want a longer lens though, if I were you, rather than look for a zoom, why not have a look at the Nikkor 300mm f:4? It will give you the extra reach plus with the advantage of being a prime should be sharper wide open.
 
NorthernNikon said:
You don't say what aperture you're using with these shots, but any zoom won't be it's sharpest wide open. Bearing that in mind, how much do you have to stop the Sigma down until it's as sharp as the Nikon? I have the 80-200 f:2.8 AF-D and want to upgrade it to the 70-200 f:2.8 AF-S VR which is oner of the best zooms you can get and should give better results than the ones your currently experiencing with the 80-200.

If you really want a longer lens though, if I were you, rather than look for a zoom, why not have a look at the Nikkor 300mm f:4? It will give you the extra reach plus with the advantage of being a prime should be sharper wide open.
Click to expand...

I use shutter priority all the time so don't really take much notice of aperture, but reviewing them now most are f5.6-f11 or thereabouts, due to the really slow shutter speed it never really gets anywhere near wide-open. Even on really really overcast days I've never touched my ISO settings, at these shutter speeds I never get anywhere near the limit of the lens.

1/160 @f8 (full-size)
http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/207583541-O.jpg

I'm not worried about more sharpness, I've got the rarer AF-S version of the 80-200 and it's on a par with my 50mm 1.8 right through the range, I've not read anything to suggest the 70-200 would be any better and I'm not interested in VR. I should point out I'm not replacing my 80-200, I love it to death and it's awesome in all situations. I'm just looking for something with more reach as I've really struggled at some circuits during the past year.

I've been reading reviews of the Nikon 300mm f4 and everyone suggests very slow auto-focus speed, that's what put me off of that particular lens. I probably didn't make it clear but I'm concerned about the sharpness of the Sigma 100-300 f4 (not my 80-200), it's the only one that has ticked all the boxes so far.
 
JamesM said:
great photos but like others have said the back end of the cars if a little off and takes away from the sharpness of the picture. Your seems to have a very good panning technique.
Click to expand...

It's something I do intentionally, I know quite a few people don't like it but it's an effect I enjoy capturing. I just got bored of seeing the exact same shots from 10 different photographers after each event I go to, I get bored shooting at faster speeds such as 1/200 as it's just the same shot over and over with a 99.9% hit-rate, so I decided to see what else I could do.

Here is my favourite example as I managed to get an almost identical spot on each lap...

'Standard' (1/200)
207614567-M.jpg


Slow-pan (1/60)
239884210-M.jpg


The first does nothing for me, the second I love. Yet I know most people think the first is better and think something is wrong with the second!
 
I found my (Canon fit) Sigma 100-300 f4 to cope admirably with everything I've thrown at it, including F1 cars, pretty sharp throughout. Focussing speed slows with a t/c, but thats only to be expected.

I'd certainly recommend one.
 
sorry to disagree with some of the posts, but the reason for the whole car not being sharp has nothing to do with the aperture.. If you pan a car at a very slow shutter speed and its not traveling on a path with a constant distance to your camera (i.e. a curve with its centre point being you) then the photo wont be sharp all over. This is because not all of the car is moving in the same way relative to your camera.
Whilst the shutter is open the sharp bit of the car has hardly moved on your sensor, but the blurry bit (in this case the back) has moved a little, and the background has moved a lot. Only way to stop this is to increase the shutter speed, until you get the perfect balance.
I hope i've explained that well, its very difficult to explain, but i can give it another go if you like
 
ukaskew said:
I've been reading reviews of the Nikon 300mm f4 and everyone suggests very slow auto-focus speed, that's what put me off of that particular lens. I probably didn't make it clear but I'm concerned about the sharpness of the Sigma 100-300 f4 (not my 80-200), it's the only one that has ticked all the boxes so far.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure you need to be that worried about AF speed. If you're using the apertures you listed then pre-focusing will probably be better for you no matter what lens you're using.

Also, bear in mind that the 300mm prime will be lighter and easier to handle than the 100-300 zoom.
 
badgerbaiter said:
sorry to disagree with some of the posts, but the reason for the whole car not being sharp has nothing to do with the aperture.. If you pan a car at a very slow shutter speed and its not traveling on a path with a constant distance to your camera (i.e. a curve with its centre point being you) then the photo wont be sharp all over. This is because not all of the car is moving in the same way relative to your camera.
Whilst the shutter is open the sharp bit of the car has hardly moved on your sensor, but the blurry bit (in this case the back) has moved a little, and the background has moved a lot. Only way to stop this is to increase the shutter speed, until you get the perfect balance.
I hope i've explained that well, its very difficult to explain, but i can give it another go if you like
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me.
 
badgerbaiter said:
sorry to disagree with some of the posts, but the reason for the whole car not being sharp has nothing to do with the aperture.. If you pan a car at a very slow shutter speed and its not traveling on a path with a constant distance to your camera (i.e. a curve with its centre point being you) then the photo wont be sharp all over. This is because not all of the car is moving in the same way relative to your camera.
Whilst the shutter is open the sharp bit of the car has hardly moved on your sensor, but the blurry bit (in this case the back) has moved a little, and the background has moved a lot. Only way to stop this is to increase the shutter speed, until you get the perfect balance.
I hope i've explained that well, its very difficult to explain, but i can give it another go if you like
Click to expand...

That's exactly right (as I know it, anyway), I have read various explanations before but they all amount to the same thing. Funnily enough I explained the exact same thing in a guide I wrote for a few people yesterday. It's just that I often read it as being a bad thing, but I don't see why really. If you can control it then it becomes quite good fun to work with.
 
ukaskew said:
That's exactly right (as I know it, anyway), I have read various explanations before but they all amount to the same thing. It's just that I often read it as being a bad thing, but I don't see why really. If you can control it then it becomes quite good fun to work with.
Click to expand...

IMHO there is no right or wrong.. If you arent shooting for a client and you like the photo then its 'right'

Just for the record i like thats style too, makes a car look even faster
 
badgerbaiter said:
IMHO there is no right or wrong.. If you arent shooting for a client and you like the photo then its 'right'
Click to expand...

Precisely :) I'm only taking them for myself as I love doing it, so I have no need to create a record of a particular event. I also find playing with extreme shutter speeds helps me develop. I do everything handheld, so after a bit of practice trying to get some 1/25 shots, shooting at 1/200 becomes incredibly easy.
 
andrewc said:
Sigma 100-300 - 1480g
Nikon 300mm f/4D AF-S IF ED - 1440g

Not much in it...
Click to expand...

Not to worried about that to be honest, I have the heaviest version of the 80-200 (1550g) and I can happily shoot with that for 6hrs + handheld all day. I like the extra weight, makes smooth panning easier.
 
andrewc said:
Sigma 100-300 - 1480g
Nikon 300mm f/4D AF-S IF ED - 1440g

Not much in it...
Click to expand...

Well, you learn summut new everyday. It would be interesting to see how the two line up aginast each other but I'd be more interested in seeing a comparison test between the Sigma 100-300 and the Nikkor 70-200 with a 1.4 TC (98-280mm f:4 equiv)
 
I've got a mate who uses the 100-300 for motocross, never been an issue with focussing speed or sharpness as far as I know. I'll see if I can find a linky
 
these are all I can find. Don't have an exif viewer on here at the moment but 99% sure these are all with the 100-300
 
dod said:
these are all I can find. Don't have an exif viewer on here at the moment but 99% sure these are all with the 100-300
Click to expand...

Cheers for the pics.

I'm now debating whether a Sigma 100-300 or a Nikon D300 would be the better purchase to 'further' my photography. Having just read some D300 reviews it's extremely tempting to say the least, upgrading the camera never interested me before as it would have little effect on what I'm doing, but the D300 seems a genuine step forward, and the extra 6mp would help with cropping anyway.
 
Joe T said:
The lens you want is the Sigma 120-300 2.8.......if your budget will stretch! :)
Click to expand...

£1000 is already waaaay too much (my Ipod Touch, Epson Photo Viewer and a few other things are going towards financing whatever I buy here!) so £1600 is probably not ever going to happen.

Saying that in the long run it would probably be better to save for another year and buy something really special, at the end of the day I'm only going to want to upgrade again if I don't buy the absolute best I can possibly afford (ideally a Nikon 200-400 f4 would be nice, even selling my car wouldn't cover that though!)

Decisions, decisions!
 
I agree with the back end of the car being blurred being a nice asethic touch, A lot of mky rally shots are done like that. I would rare pan with a high enough speed to keep the rear end from blurring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top