Motorsport lens

agent orange

agent orange

Messages
103
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

Looking to get myself a decent telephoto for motorsport photography and unsurprisingly I’ve “narrowed” it down to:

Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM £1100
Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM £950
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM £1100
Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM £500
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM £1000

My budget was £600-700 but like rules budgets are there to be broken… within reason. The 70-200 f2.8 L IS II doesn’t appear though as that is insanely expensive.

I figure my main priorities are a big aperture, reach and with fast AF. However I’m undecided on whether IS/OS is required. Given when my subject is moving the camera will be on a tripod/monopod and when hand holding I’m almost certainly panning will the IS be of any benefit at all?

Is my money better spent on reach, aperture or IS?

My current thinking is that whilst I’d like f2.8 that I probably won’t need it and f4 will be sufficient for 1/500 or 1/1000 etc. at ISO 200-400 in daylight. ISO 800 if overcast/raining. Are these fair assumptions?

Likewise if IS not required I can save a bundle with the 70-200mm f4 L USM.

Cheers
 
Buy one used, then sell on if its not good enough, 200mm might be a tad short for Motorsport? A TC would help though but reduce quality a bit. the 100-400L is good, not as fast but with a 1D you don't need to worry about using a higher ISO really, plus if panning at 1/60th then it fast lens is not really needed, especially in sunny conditions.

I believe they have 2 stage IS, one for panning which works just one way, the other both ways as normal IS does. Check which lenses have that maybe.
 
What about the 100-400 second hand.

As long as you have good light then you get the reach.

Or a second hand 70-200/2.8 NON IS and save up for a converter.

You wouldn't as you stated need the IS for motorsport.
 
what sort of motorsport? 200mm will be too short to get good cover at circuit racing at a lot of circuits.

IS wont really help you for motorsport other than the 2 stage IS can help with low shutter panning.
 
In general terms, forget 200mm lenses on their own.

Look at the Canon 100-400 L, either of the 500mm Sigmas (50-500mm, 150-500mm) or a 200mm lens with a good TC taking it out to 400mm. But as already pointed out, you will lose a degree of IQ with a TC, but I find sometimes this affects the images and other times I cant see the difference!
 
(cough!) secondhand Sigma 120-300m f/2.8? Quite a few threads on here if you have a quick search.

Cheers
 
neil_g said:
it does take a 1.4x very well i must say, and even with the tc its still faster than the canon 100-400 (420mm and constant f4)
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you're onto something there!
 
I have the 100-400 and it works well at motorsport, and everything else where I need the reach
as said 200mm will be a little short for most tracks.

Might need to add nearly £100 for a decent second hand one but £100 well worth spent.

spike
 
200mm too short?

My most used lens is a 70-200 (by a long old way) and I pretty much only shoot motorsport... and lots and lots of it!

Don't be quick to assume its not a useful lens...
 
desantnik said:
My most used lens is a 70-200 (by a long old way) and I pretty much only shoot motorsport... and lots and lots of it!
Click to expand...

Desantnik - can I ask how close you are to the action when using your 70-200?
 
Well over 90% oft motorsport shots were taken with the 70-200 non IS (on a 1.3x crop) and it was only really at Silverstone I felt that held me back.

This was shooting cars, not bikes, and usually framed with some background in the shot. If you want tightly cropped head on shots you'll need something longer.
 
Craikeybaby said:
Well over 90% oft motorsport shots were taken with the 70-200 non IS (on a 1.3x crop) and it was only really at Silverstone I felt that held me back.

This was shooting cars, not bikes, and usually framed with some background in the shot. If you want tightly cropped head on shots you'll need something longer.
Click to expand...

^^^This is the truth

In my book the 70-200 is the place to start with a motorsport lens, after that add a 300 prime and a 1.4x TC and after that add a wide angle.

Many people have been down this path and this is the conclusion that pretty much everyone comes to - some by looking at others, some by making mistakes and reverting to this position.

When I swapped to Nikon a few years ago I knew that my first port of call was a 70-200 2.8, everything else could wait.
 
How about the new Canon 70-300L? Good reach and great quality although a bit above budget.
 
I've not played with the new 70-300 L, but in theory it offers quite reasonable performance but like the old 70-300 IS (which I did have) its only f5.6 at the long end which means you run out of options quite quickly on dull days or MX/rally under trees and considering the OP has a 1D MkII he won't be wanting to knock the ISO up to cope.
 
Some really good info here and I appreciate the feedback. At work so can't comment on all but do want to pick up on the below comment.

desantnik said:
I've not played with the new 70-300 L, but in theory it offers quite reasonable performance but like the old 70-300 IS (which I did have) its only f5.6 at the long end which means you run out of options quite quickly on dull days or MX/rally under trees and considering the OP has a 1D MkII he won't be wanting to knock the ISO up to cope.
Click to expand...

Interesting you say that about the 1D. My understanding was it had good high ISO performance.

I have been mulling over the last couple of days whether a better camera might have been a used 50D.
 
The MkII is a good motorsport camera and no mistake, but when the light starts to go and with a f5.6 lens you will have problems.

Sunny days at Brands and it will be no problem at all though!
 
It depends on if high ISO or fast AF is your priority?

I thought the 1D2 and 70-200 f2.8 was a good combination. The IQ was better than a smaller sensor camera of the same era, due to the bigger pixels, but it isn't as good as newer cameras.
 
If your track side get a 70-200mm, if i had a budget like yours id go for a used 70-200mm F2.8 IS mark I. But if you need more reach go for the sigma 120-300mm f2.8, no questions about it is a perfect lens for sports imo, large aperture, good reach, and zoom. For the prices they go for used you should jump at one.
 
Sorry just picking up again the Siggy 120-300 'flag'; with a 1.4x TC on my D3S it's like it's not there...superb IQ throughout the range.

Non-DG models should be selling around the £900 mark (you did say your budget was a bit moveable!); there's not really much difference between them and the DG, though for practical purposes it's worth upgrading the non-DG's standard tripod collar to a TS-41 model, which gives a deeper foot to double as a carrying handle - something you'll need as it's a beast of a lens. Having said that, it's well balanced.

Maybe more non-DG/DGs will become available as folk like me get tempted by the new OS version which is slowly hitting the streets.
 
desantnik said:
The MkII is a good motorsport camera and no mistake, but when the light starts to go and with a f5.6 lens you will have problems.

Sunny days at Brands and it will be no problem at all though!
Click to expand...

Craikeybaby said:
It depends on if high ISO or fast AF is your priority?

I thought the 1D2 and 70-200 f2.8 was a good combination. The IQ was better than a smaller sensor camera of the same era, due to the bigger pixels, but it isn't as good as newer cameras.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay. Thanks and again useful info as giving me an insight to the the problems I might experience. I've yet to use the 1D in anger as going through the manual at home taking multiple throw away shots of the desk sat in the study just to get a feel and understand it. Got to say I LOVE the feel of this camera!

daralough said:
If your track side get a 70-200mm, if i had a budget like yours id go for a used 70-200mm F2.8 IS mark I. But if you need more reach go for the sigma 120-300mm f2.8, no questions about it is a perfect lens for sports imo, large aperture, good reach, and zoom. For the prices they go for used you should jump at one.
Click to expand...

I had set my sights on a L-Series Canon and was not aware of that Sigma so appreciate that info.

Given the cost I'm leaning towards renting a lens once or twice to see how I get on with it before leaping in feet first. :lol:

Thanks
 
Well just as well I did rent first.

I hired the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II and was sorely disappointed with the results. I was at Spa for the F1 last weekend and I really, really struggled to get a focus lock on the cars.

Not sure though whether it was due to camera or the lens ehem... Ok so I know its me and not the kit!!! :sulk:

But what I did discover was that it would be completely pointless for me to purchase such a lens at this point. I need to learn and improve my technique immeasurably before I'll benefit from such a lens.

Far better for me is, I think, Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM or a used Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM.

On a number of occasions I was sorely short on length though. I reckon I needed at the very least a 400mm and ideally longer for Spa. Don't get me wrong the 200mm was fine for a number of shots.

Whoever said (desantnik) the suggested lens route is 70-200, 300 plus 1.4 then a wide is bang on the money! :)
 
agent orange said:
Whoever said (desantnik) the suggested lens route is 70-200, 300 plus 1.4 then a wide is bang on the money! :)
Click to expand...

Tried, tested and accepted by nearly all who shoot motorsport for a living :thumbs:

Probably what you need though is practice and that means week after week after week of shooting whatever motorsport you can get your hands on... oh and a strong desire to suceed... without this, you won't get far...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top