Lens for motorsport

rodderstrotter

rodderstrotter

Messages
813
Name
Rod
Edit My Images
Yes
Considering a new lens for motorsport, currently use a Canon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 IS USM which is good, considering the Canon EF 200 2.8 L USM which gets cracking reviews, and using 1.4x converter and possibly the 2x.

Does anyone have this set up? Will keep the 70-300 for shots where I can get closer to the track, the inside of Druids at Brands, and use the EF 200 in other locations.

Any suggestions would be helpfull, I dont want the Canon 100-400 as it is a heavy beast and the general concensus is the 200 prime will outperform it at 200 and even 200+1.4x converter.
 
100-400 isn't that heavy really.

Personally I think its better to have the necessary focal length in the lens, and use a teleconverter for those small times you need the extra range, rather than to invest in a shorter lens and rely on TCs
 
I agree with Andrew buy the correct focal length, yes using the TC's gives you flexability. what about the 300 f/4? not much more than the 200 and the 1.4x and your still at f/4
 
Personally the 200mm f2.8 doesn't give you enough reach, but it depends if your accrediated or not. If your shooting inside the fences then perhaps this may work, but if like me your on the outside, then forget it. Yes the 200mm works great with the 1.4x TC, but 2x performance is soft and you kill you autofocus speed and it would be prone to hunting, plus still not enough reach to autofocus beyond the safety fences with out ghosting.

Lenses I would recommend are

Sigma 100-300mm f4, canon 300mm f4, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 but it depends on your budget, I assume aorund £600 as that's what the 200mm f2.8 costs.

I use the 300mm f4 and f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 and 24-105mm f4 plus TCs

Another suggestion is to look for a 2nd hand lens, you get more lens for you money, would probably avoid eBay, as you don't know the history of the lens, check out the sale forums or places like ffordes, mifsuds, camtech, mpb photography or digital depot. I've bought from them and have had no problems with used equipment.
 
I use the 100-400 normally with a 1.4tele added for those times when "elf n safety" say I can't get close to the track, not heavy if you use a decent strap to support the weight.
 
I've used the 100-400 L a couple of times before and i didn't think it was overly heavy and it's a good, sharp lens with fast autofocus. As you'd expect from an L series lens. If you're budget allows for the £1200 or so then i'd recommend it without hesitation.

As always though i'd also recommend anyone to hire or borrow if possible a lens costing that much before you go and buy one.
 
colspics said:
Hi Rod, i am thinking of getting the 70-300 you have but am not sure how good it is, i currently have an old 100-300mm USM that i got cheap & have heard the 70-300 is a great lens for the price, i would like to know what you think, thanks Col
Click to expand...


Look at the 55-250 IS as well (y)
 
im looking for a new one to replace my 55-250is

i want new not used, canon 100-400L and sigma 120-400 are what stand out to me.

but is the canon worth the extra money?
 
I find the push all of the 100 400 easier than the twist and more responsive if you try to follow a car around the track. I've never had a problem with my lens 100 400 and Love it to bits. Not very scientific but start
 
nobody's mentioned the sigma 120-300 F2.8, absolute bargain second hand.
 
dunganick said:
I would avoid the 50-500 or any of those sigma 'super' zooms. The ones i've tried just don't cut it.
Click to expand...

I've got the 120-400 and personally I think it's a great lens for the money. Really well built and amazing stabilisation.

I know somebody with the 150-500 and thy love it!

I looked at the Canon 100-400 but first didn't like the push pull system and secondly the price :)

Without paying thousands none are great in low light but the Sigmas are a bargain for the quality you get. I wouldn't swap for the Canon 100-400 due to the push pull.
 
dunganick said:
I would avoid the 50-500 or any of those sigma 'super' zooms. The ones i've tried just don't cut it.
Click to expand...
(maybe it the user)never had any problems with mine at all, it can keep up with birds in flight and motorsport.
and the level of detail it can produce is as good as my nikon pro lenses.


set162copy.jpg



set133.jpg


CCTVEDIT18.jpg


CCTVEDIT17.jpg


CCTVEDIT1.jpg


CCTVEDIT15.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yeah they are a lot of focal length for the cash, but i have never been impressed by them on moving subjects.

I've tried both the 50-500 and 150-500. The latter was better, but i was still stopping up to F8 on the 1dmk3 and only getting about a 2/5 keeper rate. If i stopped up to F8 on pretty much any lens i've owned i would have a near 100% keeper rate. Maybe i was using bad ones...

The 100-400 for its sins (becoming full of dust and me personally not liking the push pull) does stay pretty sharp through the entire range at its minimum aperture. And the AF is superb.

I would sooner save and buy a used 100-400 L than buy a new Sigma.

The 120-400 may be a different story, i've never tried one or known anyone with one.
 
dunganick said:
Yeah they are a lot of focal length for the cash, but i have never been impressed by them on moving subjects.

I've tried both the 50-500 and 150-500. The latter was better, but i was still stopping up to F8 on the 1dmk3 and only getting about a 2/5 keeper rate. If i stopped up to F8 on pretty much any lens i've owned i would have a near 100% keeper rate. Maybe i was using bad ones...

The 100-400 for its sins (becoming full of dust and me personally not liking the push pull) does stay pretty sharp through the entire range at its minimum aperture. And the AF is superb.

I would sooner save and buy a used 100-400 L than buy a new Sigma.

The 120-400 may be a different story, i've never tried one or known anyone with one.
Click to expand...
what you have tried the new 50-500mm os.
i use one for birding and its sharp wide open and knocks the spots of my mates canon 100-400mm.
SB1_1637.jpg
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
(maybe it the user)never had any problems with mine at all, it can keep up with birds in flight and motorsport.
and the level of detail it can produce is as good as my nikon pro lenses.
Click to expand...

Those are beautifully panned and nice and sharp for sure. However these are all pans and as such there is little work done by the AF. Lets see some close in head on stuff.
 
Like a car or bike. Head on. Something where the subject is close so the AF is actually working hard.

That bird shot is indeed razor sharp, can't fault that. But i wanted to take pictures of F2 cars with the lens when i used it. Not local wildlife. (although the latter would of been more interesting on that occasion!)
 
I use my 70-200mm F4L everywhere, I'm lucky enough to be 'track side' of the fence. You do see other 'professional' togs on the inside with ridiculously big lenses, i just do not see the point in lumping them everywhere. Unless you want to print massive prints you can always crop in anyway...
 
I use a 150-500 sigma on a gimbal on a tripod... I can shoot if req with one hand and the gimbal will let me pan as i like........ no-one semms to have mentioned camera support.... I get a few strange looks but when a guy came next to me at the hairpin at Donnington.. he was shocked how close and tight a shot I could get on SUPERBIKES !

Its what you can use really I also fancy sigma 100-300 f4 its light and fast seen results from one nice!
 
hersham boy said:
I use my 70-200mm F4L everywhere, I'm lucky enough to be 'track side' of the fence. You do see other 'professional' togs on the inside with ridiculously big lenses, i just do not see the point in lumping them everywhere. Unless you want to print massive prints you can always crop in anyway...
Click to expand...

Errrm ok, thats an interesting perspective....
 
Silverstone was one place I wasn't too happy with 70-200, so hired something longer.
 
What would be the recommended lens if I was to buy just one, I am thinking Canon 70-200mm either f4 or f2.8 is, but maybe they are a bit short for Motorsport, so the 100-400L, there are probably loads who have been in my position, spending up to £1000 on a used lens, but I want to get it right, help please ! Col
 
Your better of creating a new thread but to throw in my two cents worth i have a 70-200 f4 non is and absolutely love it, have only used it for motorsport, also dont forgot to put up what circuits you mainly visit so perhaps people could put what lens they use plus a sample photo. Will post a couple of pictures late from it.
 
hersham boy said:
I use my 70-200mm F4L everywhere, I'm lucky enough to be 'track side' of the fence.
Click to expand...

True that access to the infield area etc makes such a difference...as does budget! I've a 70-200 2.8L for the my Canon and love it but you do have to be close to the action which in certain situations is not safe or just un nerving.

These were shot at the Irish Festival of Speed on an overcast day with the 70-200

6002622787_104be57416_z.jpg


6002640433_cfd51f5783_z.jpg


6002610147_7ff40e276a_z.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top