Lens/Telecon. advice please!

Witch

Witch

Messages
2,728
Name
Robyn
Edit My Images
No
Am starting to plan towards my next lens purchase - won't be for a while yet but I'm starting to keep my eyes out on second hand listings just in case anything comes up that's too good to turn down.....

I've had my eye on the 100-400mm canon IS L (I think it's f4 - 5.6 if I remember rightly?) which I know a lot of you guys use and like. It'll give me an extra 100mm over and above what I get currently with my Sigma. The IS would be nice also. Ideally I'd like to be able to go for something of the same length at around f2.8 but I don't think my budget is likely to stretch that far.

The Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 EX DG has grabbed my interest I must admit - would be perfect for speedway stuff, but would I be right to be concerned that it must be one hell of a big heavy lens and that I'd struggle to use it without stabilisation? Shame really as they go for an exceptionally good price 2nd hand.....

One other option I have been considering is buying a decent shorter zoom - something like the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG, and teaming that with a 2x TC to get to the length I'm looking for....but can someone refresh my memory as to how much light that would stop out? Again ideally I'd like the Canon 70-200 f2.8IS but the budget won't stretch I'm afraid. :shrug:

A prime lens is no good to me at all - at speedway I'm constantly switching from 200 - 300mm and I need that flexibility - and the additional flexibility that I would gain from the shorter lens and the option of using the TC - or not - is tempting.......

Any help, advice, input gratefully received!
 
I've not tried one but I think the Sigma 50-500 would be a bit slow for speedway, both slow to focus and available shutter speed. I'd still love to own one mind!
 
I suspect the 100-400L would be ideal for speedway for you.

The Sigma 50-500 is extrremely heavy and unless you're built like a Russian shot putter you'll find it very tiring to use. Also I'd be wary of very extreme zoom ranges in one lens. The 100-400L is pushing the envelope a bit, but there's a reason why it costs all that money. ;)

A 1.4X teleconverter will reduce your max aperture by one stop. A 2X teleconverter will reduce your max aperture by two whole stops.

The 100-400L is compatible with both converters. I'm thinking of getting the 1.4 converter myself. Tempting though the 2X one is, the loss of speed would be too much for most stuff I think without really pushing the ISO up and paying the penalty in noise.
 
although i'd agree you need to be wary of the extreme zoom's the 50-500 has many followers in the surf community as a cheap way of hitting 500mm. all the results i've seen are very sharp indeed.

another 'cheap' option is a sigma 100-300 f4 +/- a 1.4x converter. this will give you a sharper pic than the 70-200 and 2x combo and is still light enough to handhold. it's a very highly rated lens too :)
 
The fact that most speedway is in the evenings does give me a bit of a headache at the best of times......to give you a clue what I'm up against Monday night was the first evening we've had enough light for me to be able to shoot comfortably for three-quarters of the meeting, out of interest I set the camera up manually for the last few races and carried on shooting to see exactly what the camera could do - the one below was of the final race at about 9.30pm and if I remember correctly it was shot at 1/250 f4.5 ISO1600. The Camera display was suggesting that the shot was going to be far more underexposed than it actually is, which is interesting.

8214lowlight.jpg


I guess that shows why light is a problem?! It's just resized and a touch of USM - nothing done with levels etc at all.

If I got the 100 - 400mm then I'd not need a TC at all, although it would be something which I'd probably include on the wish list for the future. I already know of a chap using one of these for speedway purposes and getting good results. He swears that the IS makes all the difference!

The Sigma 100-300F4 is certainly an option worth thinking about too though, but I shall rule out the 50-500mm for the time being, at least!
 
CT said:
A 1.4X teleconverter will reduce your max aperture by one stop. A 2X teleconverter will reduce your max aperture by two whole stops.
I'm thinking of getting the 1.4 converter myself. Tempting though the 2X one is, the loss of speed would be too much for most stuff I think without really pushing the ISO up and paying the penalty in noise.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't consider/recommend a 1.7x then CT ... thinking of getting a TC myself so input would be invaluable (hopefully to Witch as well - not meaning to steal the thread at all !).

Is it fair to say this would likely lose 1.5 Stops ?
 
Venomator said:
You wouldn't consider/recommend a 1.7x then CT ... thinking of getting a TC myself so input would be invaluable (hopefully to Witch as well - not meaning to steal the thread at all !).

Is it fair to say this would likely lose 1.5 Stops ?
Click to expand...

1.5 stops sounds about right Rog with a 1.7X converter.

I'd have nothing against using a 2X converter if I had a large enough max aperture to start with ... 2.8 or larger. For their cost in comparison to long lenses, converters are great value, but the loss in speed is a big factor. Using the 100-400L at 400mm with a 2X converter would mean 2 full stops lost...a max aperture of f11. :(
 
I'm going to put forward the Sigma 80-400mm. This has the range you're looking for plus it has Sigma's OS the same as Canon's IS. I have the Sigma lens and used it for the first time in anger at this years Biggin Hill Airshow.
Ok it's a heavy lens for hand holding chassing aircraft all over the sky, but if you use a monopod with the tilt set nice and loose it should help matters.

The Sigma 70-200mm plus the 2x TC does make a nice combination but you will be down to an f5.6 to start with which might give you problems when the light levels drop.

Whether you go for the Canon or the Sigma have a look at this monopod as well, it's lightwieght with a semi quick release top.

http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/pp/Camera_Accessories/Tripods/Giottos_P-Pod_5570_Multi_Monopod.html
I hope the above is of some help to you.
 
Something to watch for is that, although the 100-400L is 'compatible' with 1.4x and 2x TCs, you will probably lose autofocus at the long end. It gets a bit complicated because some of the third-party TCs like the Kenko PRO 300 are actually more tolerant than the Canon extenders which can only be fitted to a limited range of lenses because the front element protrudes and would hit the rear element of the lens.

As a starting point, assume that AF will work with a 1.4x TC and a 10-contact lens with maximum aperture f/4 or larger, or with a 7-contact lens f/5.6 or larger. A 2x TC should maintain AF with an f/2.8 10-contact lens or am f/4 7-contact lens. Most L-series lenses have 10 contacts, whereas others have 7.

Does that make sense? :)

The Kenko PRO 300 1.4x TC maintains AF with the 300mm f/4L IS, but AFAIK not with the 100-400L IS. because that is f/5.6 at 400mm. However, that TC does maintain AF with the 70-300 IS, although it slows it down a lot because of the light reduction.

Is anyone stiill there? :D

Anyway, for speedway etc I reckon the 100-400 should be ideal on its own, so you can ignore all this waffle. :D
 
Personally I'd not go for the 100-400 for this. Looking at your shot above it's 300mm, F5.6 . The 100-400 isn't really going to give you any significant advantage at 300mm.

I'd be looking at either the 70-200 F2.8 or the 100-300 F4, most likely the 70-200 and match it with a convertor if necessary.
 
I know where you're coming from Dod - but bear in mind that the shot I've used as an example is a crop from the centre of a pic, then resized....what I'm really wanting is something which would get me right in close on a single rider as and when I want to. the 300 falls JUST short of this, although I do shoot at 200mm to get in "1st bend action" when I want four riders in the frame. The 100-400mm would certainly cover that requirement, BUT so would the 70-200mm 2.8 with 2x TC.......if my reading of the comments above is correct then either of these options would give me f5.6 at 400mm but of course the 70-200 also give me a really nice lens to use on its own without the TC.

How much difference do people really feel the IS makes? I may be able to get a few shots practise on the 100-400 when I come to think about it so could perhaps take the chance to find out for myself.....

Thanks to Daveyuk for suggesting that Sigma 80-400 - not a lens I'd really given much thought at all too but looking at it's price then it is definately one to add into the mix. :D
 
IS makes a huge difference for hand-held shots IMO. I love it. :)
 
I know the canon 100-400 produces great results but if you look at the math that gives you 100-400 with f4 to f5.6.

If you go the other route with a 70-200 + 2x then you can have 70-200 at f2.8 AND 140-400 f5.6. You can even do this with canon IS for not a huge percentage more than the 100-400.
 
dazzajl said:
I know the canon 100-400 produces great results but if you look at the math that gives you 100-400 with f4 to f5.6.

If you go the other route with a 70-200 + 2x then you can have 70-200 at f2.8 AND 140-400 f5.6. You can even do this with canon IS for not a huge percentage more than the 100-400.
Click to expand...
Exactly :)

Where are you actually shooting from? I'd have thought 300 was enough for speedway if you're at the side/inside of the track, looking at the shots here anyway

IS is a strange beast. I don't find it an advantage at all for motox. By the time it's kicked in and locked on you've missed the shot. Might be better here where you can actually track the riders coming at a more or less fixed point :shrug:
 
If you can get nice and close in (You can at some tracks) 300mm is fine. My home track at Ipswich though is all a bit more distant - I can't get anything like at close as that chap has - my guess is that he was shooting from the wall between the terracing and the stock car track at Arena Essex, where those cracking shots were taken - not somewhere I can get access to unfortunately, or at least not often!

I've never had IS, so it's not something I'd be missing......I can get Canon gear at appreciably below shop prices which is handy so I'd rather go down the Canon route if poss.....I guess I'll have to price up both routes and see.

There's some real food for thought on this thread - keep 'em coming!
 
My old man says with his Nikon 80-400 and IS, the IS is not very good if you are panning quickly, he seems to think there is some lag and is talking with Nikon to see if this is correct, he feels IS is really best for more static or slower moving stuff
 
Joe T said:
It's a heavy lens, but have you considered the Sigma 120-300 2.8?
Click to expand...

Yes - a friend of mine shoots speedway professionally and he suggested I look at that as well - it's just too much dosh though. In an ideal world I'm pretty certain that is the route I would have gone down, but unless I win the lottery (better start buying tickets!) then there's not a chance I can stretch to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top