lens for motorcycle pictures

graycbr

graycbr

Messages
832
Name
graham
Edit My Images
No
HI Guys/gals
Got a canon 550D camera with a 135-300 f4 -5.6 lens
Been to cadwell park trying to take some close up pictures of motorbikes.
They seem ok but not pin sharp like some I've seen on this forum :'(
My question is which lens should I upgrade to ,but cant spend a fortune as money is tight same with everyone !!
But willing to wait & save if it needs to be .
Any views or links would be a great help
 
You already have a good enough lens, you just need learn how to use it. If photographing fast moving bikes was easy everybody would be doing it.
 
my pictures seem a little bit soft ,not pin sharp
 
I've got a 550D and a new 7D and I've used the 550D with a 100-400 L for airshows and races etc. I was never really happy till I did something that most of my instincts told me not to. I took my UV filter off the 100-400 and was blown away. I've since took all the UV filters off my lenses for shooting (with a lens hood on for safety) and all my pictures have improved sharpness. Guess I was spending out on the lenses and skimping on the filters.
 
modchild said:
I've got a 550D and a new 7D and I've used the 550D with a 100-400 L for airshows and races etc. I was never really happy till I did something that most of my instincts told me not to. I took my UV filter off the 100-400 and was blown away. I've since took all the UV filters off my lenses for shooting (with a lens hood on for safety) and all my pictures have improved sharpness. Guess I was spending out on the lenses and skimping on the filters.
Click to expand...

I'll try that nxt weekend at cadwell :)
 
Thats definitely one trick!

The other one is to understand where the balance is between speed wheel/blur and the bike moving around all over the place.

Assuming you are talking sports bikes and passing in front of you (and not head on), try shooting in shutter priority and 1/320...
 
modchild said:
I've got a 550D and a new 7D and I've used the 550D with a 100-400 L for airshows and races etc. I was never really happy till I did something that most of my instincts told me not to. I took my UV filter off the 100-400 and was blown away. I've since took all the UV filters off my lenses for shooting (with a lens hood on for safety) and all my pictures have improved sharpness. Guess I was spending out on the lenses and skimping on the filters.
Click to expand...

your uv filer must have been cheap crap then if the difference "blows you away"
 
POAH said:
your uv filer must have been cheap crap then if the difference "blows you away"
Click to expand...

They all are arn't they?

The expensive ones are just expensive cheap pieces of crap.
 
your uv filer must have been cheap crap then if the difference "blows you away"
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say they were cheap crap, but they weren't the most expensive either. I can't remember what make they were but I got them from Jessops and L.C.E. in lincoln at their recommendation that they were good. All 5 cost nearly £200.
 
modchild said:
I wouldn't say they were cheap crap, but they weren't the most expensive either. I can't remember what make they were but I got them from Jessops and L.C.E. in lincoln at their recommendation that they were good. All 5 cost nearly £200.
Click to expand...

You spent nearly £200 on UV filters?!
 
Yeah, never again am I going to buy another. Always got 1 when I got a new lens for protection, but after reading a thread on here that recommended shooting without I thought I'd give it a try. As I always shoot with a hood on I figured that would be enough protection against most things. I've sold 4 or 5 lenses this year with the filters on so it must of been about double that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top