basic on lens types for matorsport.

[Duncan16]

Hi all

Please could anyone give me a little insight into basic lens, for use on a 450d and motorsport. I have a 70-300 but seem to see people talking about a 70-300 non lens and how good the results can be etc.

Also people talking about converters?? how could I get closer shots with my set up??

 

[SoDoSoPa]

Not sure I understand what you are asking, Can you try to explain a bit clearer.

 

[DazJW]

I think you need to proof read your post, it makes very little sense.

You probably want whatever the best telephoto lens you can afford is (this doesn't mean wide/standard lenses don't have a use for motorsport, but generally you'd use a telephoto). The Canon 70-200mm L lenses are popular for motorsport along with the Canon 100-400mm L. There's a couple of big Sigmas I've seen a few people use and then other than that it's normally a 70-300mm like what you've got.

Unless you can afford one of the something-to-400mm or something-to-500mm lenses you're going to struggle to get longer that 300mm without using a teleconverter which is going to make autofocus poor or useless.

However, looking at your Flickr photostream you don't seem to be having any trouble getting close shots (some are partial shots of bikes filling the frame) so I'm a bit confused if you really want closer shots or if you've used the wrong word?

 

[Duncan16]

Hi, thank you for the reply. I guess I was trying to find out the difference between the two lens. I have been told that a 70-200 2.8 would somehow give me a better shot than my current lens.
I was also asking what are the converters used for?
Sorry if this sounds a daft question.

 

[Duncan16]

Sorry it should have said 70-200 non lens

 

[DazJW]

Hi, thank you for the reply. I guess I was trying to find out the difference between the two lens. I have been told that a 70-200 2.8 would somehow give me a better shot than my current lens.

Sorry it should have said 70-200 non lens

Firstly if you don't know why a lens is better I wouldn't worry about it as you're probably not going to appreciate it. Wait until you've learnt enough to get the absolute best from the equipment you have and until know why the new lens would be better.

But if you do want to know:

I guess by 70-200 "non" lens you mean the "Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM" or the "Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM" as these are sometimes referred to as the non-IS lenses because there are also versions of them that feature IS. There are four Canon 70-200mm lenses which get progressively more expensive.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM - £508
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM - £939
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM - £998
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM - £1920
(Prices from Calumet Photographic's website)

Everything* about the 70-200mm L lenses is better than what you have (the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM) except the fact yours is 100mm longer (which might matter a fair bit if you're photographing bikes) and two of the four 70-200mm lenses don't have IS.

*Image quality, build quality, the 70-200mm are a sealed unit whereas yours extends for focusing and zooming and has a rotating front element, the 70-200mm have ring USM whereas yours has the slower micro-motor usm, faster maximum aperture so you can get the same shutter speeds at the same ISO in lower light (and it should help with autofocus a bit).

I was also asking what are the converters used for?

The converters make a lens' focal length longer. For example if you put a 2x converter between your camera and your 70-300mm lens the lens would become a 140-600mm lens. However, they also make your maximum aperture smaller so your 70-300mm f/4-5.6 with a 2x would become a 140-600mm f/8-11 lens which means you lose a lot of light. The autofocus on a 450D won't work if the maximum aperture is smaller than f/5.6 so if you put a converter between the lens you have and the camera you have you would lose autofocus.

 

[Russ77]

I think the confusion is what you mean by a "non-lens"?

Do you mean non IS lens?

 

[gad-westy]

Hi, thank you for the reply. I guess I was trying to find out the difference between the two lens. I have been told that a 70-200 2.8 would somehow give me a better shot than my current lens.
I was also asking what are the converters used for?
Sorry if this sounds a daft question.

First things first, I would highly recommend not spending any cash at all until you understand why you might want to spend it. There is probably very little wrong with using your current lens, particularly if light is good.

But seeing as you asked...

A 70-200 2.8 lens will allow you to get fast shutter speeds by virtue of having a wide maximum aperture. It also allows you to use tele converters and retain a reasonably wide aperture (a teleconverter saps light and so effectively reduces any given aperture value). A 1.4 converter will give you 280mm f4 lens or a 2x converter will give you a 400mm f5.6.

The biggest benefit of 70-200 though is that the image quality will be superb. It's an expensive pro lens so you would hope so.

I suspect what somebody has recommend to you is the non IS version. This means that it will not have image stabilisation. IS isn't likely to be that useful for motorsport as you'll either be panning where IS doesn't really work or you'll be using such high shutter speeds that IS would be redundant.

 

[Duncan16]

Thank you for the info, I am a lot clearer now and will continue with my current set up. And keep you informed of my progress