300mm 2.8 - pointless for a car shoot?

[shabba]

Hi all,

Got a couple of car shoots coming up, maybe both this weekend.

I have a 40D with the 17-55mm 2.8 IS, 50mm 1.8 Prime and a Sigma 70-300mm (the cheapo one, I don't like this at all, only use it for sports when I have to). I know a guy who lends me stuff on a cheap rate, he has a sigma 70-200mm 2.8 which is quite nice and covers me nicely on the longer range.

However it is not available this weekend, he does have a 300mm 2.8 prime (!) though..........but I'm guessing this would just be pointless for a car shoot, way too long right (on a crop remember).

A static shot taken from far away would not be that good? Also panning I could stand some distance away but I guess 300mm equals about 40-50m in distance? (i.e me in the middle of a field.

Just wondering if its worth borrowing this or just having to make do with what I have, panning with a 17-55mm doesnt really work that well!

 

[Dal]

I've done plenty of shots at 200mm for static car shoots. It gets the car in a nice proportion. Not seen many 300mm shots though.

Depends how cheap you can get it for?

*EDIT*

Pretty sure this was 200mm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/darrenthorndick/4867488106/in/set-72157624668995218

 

[ecniv]

Stationary?
Moving/racing?

Might be useful for racing shots, although you'd perhaps be more on getting close up detail of driver/parts of car?

Probably depends on how close you intend to be... ie if drag racing and you are further down the track, some nice leaning over barrier shot way before they get close...

 

[shabba]

it is a car shoot for some friends, will be a mix of static and mving, at local locations out and about.