Canon Lens hire for Motorsport

C

chrisuk

Messages
166
Edit My Images
Yes
I want to hire a lens for the Tour of Mull next month.

I am after a 70-200L and I'm not too fussed about IS. So I think I have two choices - the f/2.8 or the f/4

The f/4 is naturally considerably cheaper to hire...but I am wondering what would be the better choice overall?

Many thanks
 
A mate rented the 300 2.8 IS for the NW200 this year, and they have been his best shots he's ever taken. If it was me and if I shot Canon I'd be going for that.
 
I had the opportunity to try a 300 f/2.8 prime and its an amazing piece of kit. However being a prime means what you gain in quality and speed, you loose in flexibility. 70-200 f/2.8 may be worth considering.
 
Surely for motor sport you need the flexibilty of a zoom? How about the 100-400L I know its slower but the extra range is very useful.
 
Paul Philpott said:
Surely for motor sport you need the flexibilty of a zoom? How about the 100-400L I know its slower but the extra range is very useful.
Click to expand...

Depends on how close you are to the action. Anyone who shoots motorsport will agree that there's no such thing as too much reach. I shoot with both a 300 prime and a 70-200 and I only use the 70-200 about 30% of the time. The IQ on the prime is so much better than the zoom and I find it returnd a better 'shoot-to-keep' ratio
 
It really depends how close you can get to the action, yes the 70-200mm f2.8 a great lens, got some great shots at Cadwell park with it, doesn't work so well with the TC's, but also love the 300mm f2.8

But the 70-200mm could be a bit short if you can't get close to the action, where as the prime was designed for the TC's if you need them. Hard choice as I use both lenses at a race track. The 100-400mm is versatile, depends on the light conditions being a slower lens.
 
Thankyou all for your responses, although I am now even more confused :lol:

I think £144 to hire the 300mm for one event is a bit too steep, although it would be fantastic and the pics would be considerably better than I get now...but it's just a bit too much. I keep spending all my money funding long holidays and random weekends abroad!!

However, the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM are both feasible.

In the past I have found I've rarely got up to 300mm, but that is largely due to the fact that the shots at that length come out pretty naff on my 75-300 f/4-5.6...don't get me wrong it's been a good learning lens, and for £75 it was a bargain, but I've certainly outgrown it.

I will rule out the 70-200mm f/4, so I now have 3 choices.....and now I'm stuck!

I think the 28-300mm may be my best compromise...but just wondering what I am losing by going for this one. It's a tough call!!

Sorry Paul...what does TC's mean??
 
chrisuk said:
However, the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM are both feasible.

In the past I have found I've rarely got up to 300mm, but that is largely due to the fact that the shots at that length come out pretty naff on my 75-300 f/4-5.6...don't get me wrong it's been a good learning lens, and for £75 it was a bargain, but I've certainly outgrown it.

I will rule out the 70-200mm f/4, so I now have 3 choices.....and now I'm stuck!

I think the 28-300mm may be my best compromise...but just wondering what I am losing by going for this one. It's a tough call!!

Sorry Paul...what does TC's mean??
Click to expand...

If you were looking at a 300mm zoom lens, then a sigma 100-300mm f4 is miles better than the 28-300mm. These hyperzooms as they come to be called (reason, best zooms have a ratio of around 4, example 70-300 has a 4.28 zoom ratio, where as the 28-300mm has a 10.71 zoom ratio, very few and I mean very few of these lenses are any good, promise lots and deliver very little) and it will probably give similar performance to your 75-300mm.

So check the hire price for either the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 or the sigma 100-300mm f4 as either of these will be better options.

As for TC, abreviation of Teleconvertor, basically, extra bit of glass to put between camera and lens to increase focal length, but will also slow down autofocus and you'll lose an f-stop of light and with the 2x TC, you'll also lose image quality, designed really to be used with the large or fast primes like canon 300mm f2.8.

Example 300mm f2.8 + 1.4x TC will become a 420mm f4 lens. Canon have 1.4x and 2x TC.

Peter
 
"Tour of Mull" is a rally. I wouldn't worry too much about length!
 
pete.rush said:
If you were looking at a 300mm zoom lens, then a sigma 100-300mm f4 is miles better than the 28-300mm. These hyperzooms as they come to be called (reason, best zooms have a ratio of around 4, example 70-300 has a 4.28 zoom ratio, where as the 28-300mm has a 10.71 zoom ratio, very few and I mean very few of these lenses are any good, promise lots and deliver very little) and it will probably give similar performance to your 75-300mm.

So check the hire price for either the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 or the sigma 100-300mm f4 as either of these will be better options.

As for TC, abreviation of Teleconvertor, basically, extra bit of glass to put between camera and lens to increase focal length, but will also slow down autofocus and you'll lose an f-stop of light and with the 2x TC, you'll also lose image quality, designed really to be used with the large or fast primes like canon 300mm f2.8.

Example 300mm f2.8 + 1.4x TC will become a 420mm f4 lens. Canon have 1.4x and 2x TC.

Peter
Click to expand...

Many thanks Peter (said Paul before, oops!), will take all that into account. I still have plenty of time and availability is good on lensesforhire.co.uk

desantnik - I don't really get your point?
 
Yeah I'm definitely sitting in the "wide is good" on the rally front. You just need a decent lens and not worry about extreme telephoto lengths for it. All the best rally shots are more landscape than motorsport!
 
chrisuk said:
desantnik - I don't really get your point?
Click to expand...

I mean that with a rally you can get so close that it doesn't matter about length. There are no gravel traps or barriers to hold you back, you get as close as you think is safe.... thats debatable too!
 
chrisuk said:
desantnik - I don't really get your point?
Click to expand...

He's right. At a rally you're remarkably close to the action. A 70-200 is the lens of choice.
 
Ah ok, I see what you mean. I was thinking that too to be honest. Like I say I've rarely used 300mm on my current lens.

I've been going to rallies for about 20 years so I'm well versed on that front :lol:

The trouble is marshals and sheep pens!! Having said that, I didn't have any issues at Mull last year.

Wider certainly has the benefit of not causing too much issue when, after you pick out your spot 2 hours before the cars some, some you-know-what in a media tabard decides that his ideal location is...right in the middle of your frame!!

I think I have enough info now, many thanks :D

edit: having never used IS at a rally...does it offer much benefit? I've read some contrasting statements.
 
Mate has the 100-400L and its superb, I just wish Nikon had an equivalent.
 
Hertsman said:
Mate has the 100-400L and its superb, I just wish Nikon had an equivalent.
Click to expand...

They do, but its 3 time the price, the Nikon 200-400mm f4 is a stonking lens for motorsport / aviation / wildlife...... wish canon would update their 100-400mm
 
Thats not really the equivalent is it... they do do the 80-400 which is nearer the mark and pants though :D
 
desantnik said:
Thats not really the equivalent is it... they do do the 80-400 which is nearer the mark and pants though :D
Click to expand...

Whats 100mm between friends, the 200-400mm is still a lens of choice for the Nikon Crowd and do agree the 80-400mm isn't upto scratch for a £1000 lens
 
pete.rush said:
Whats 100mm between friends, the 200-400mm is still a lens of choice for the Nikon Crowd and do agree the 80-400mm isn't upto scratch for a £1000 lens
Click to expand...

Rumour has it the 80-400 is going to be AF-S next year.....
 
Yes, the rumour is indeed that Nikon are going to light a fire under that particular lens and it really does need it currently - in fact currently pouring petrol on it and setting it alight probably isn't a bad idea :D

Pete - I've only ever seen one 200-400 at a motorsport gig, I wonder if they are more popular on the Welsh hillsides than at circuits? I've been interested in that lens for a while, but never had a chance to blag a go with it and see how it shapes up vs primes (in particular my 300 f4 prime, not the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8!)
 
pearce_jj said:
The selectable IS on the 70-200 might help for panning shots?
Click to expand...

Dead right it does. When I've gone down to Goodwood (Festival of Speed and two track days, shooting my pal) I've found the 70-200 f4 IS to be the ideal lens. The length is perfect and the IS really helps with those panning shots. I could have borrowed a friend's 2.8 IS version, but didn't think it worth carrying around the extra weight. Besides, to get good panning shots you need to close down the aperture to allow the relatively long shutter speeds (1/60 to 1/125) to show the motion, so never gonna use f/2.8.
 
But you do use f2.8, each and every time you focus that 70-200 f2.8 you get the advantage of f2.8... twice as much light hits the sensor for AF to work with, which improves the focus accuracy massively.

Thats because the aperture is always wide open during focusing, thats how an slr works...
 
hollis_f said:
Dead right it does. When I've gone down to Goodwood (Festival of Speed and two track days, shooting my pal) I've found the 70-200 f4 IS to be the ideal lens. The length is perfect and the IS really helps with those panning shots. I could have borrowed a friend's 2.8 IS version, but didn't think it worth carrying around the extra weight. Besides, to get good panning shots you need to close down the aperture to allow the relatively long shutter speeds (1/60 to 1/125) to show the motion, so never gonna use f/2.8.
Click to expand...

The 70-200mm f2.8 isn't a heavy lens, try the 400mm f2.8, thats 5.6 Kg.

I would really like to see some panned shots at 1/60 sec (sharp).

Because a rough common rule of thumb for estimating how fast the exposure needs to be for a given focal length is the one over focal length rule for a FF sensor, ok this is only a guide, but this will depend on the subject, the light conditions and how smooth your pan is.

Cars are possible on the lower shutter speeds (1/125 1/160), but to obtain a sharp pan, I wouldn't go below 1/125 sec, as for bikes, 1/200 sec is also as low as I would go to get sharp detailed shots with motion blur that I can print upto A2. If you can achieve good shots at the slow shutter speeds, well done, but it's not the advice to give anyone starting out, it takes a great deal of practice to home a smooth pan technique (remove camera shake) to get good shots, as this is more likely to get you a good shot that slower shutter speeds.
 
pete.rush said:
I would really like to see some panned shots at 1/60 sec (sharp).
Click to expand...

Hehehe it depends on the subject in question. If its moving slowly on a smooth surface and the direction of travel for the duration of the shutter release is a constant distance from the camera (so probably a constant radius corner with you slap bang in the middle), then yes it will be sharp.

If however its the real world of fast subjects probably under braking into a corner (where the track is bumpy because braking rucks up the tarmac like a carpet!) and the subject is changing distance to you, then all you can hope for is a portion of the car/bike to be sharp at 1/60th (or similar slow speeds).

Whilst that can be "creative" its never going to be "glossy magazine sharp" :D
 
Ok guys - my decision is made...and the winner is...

70-200mm f/2.8 IS

Give yourselves all a pat on the back :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top