- Messages
- 3
- Name
- Sarah
- Edit My Images
- No
Hey there. I'm new to this group but I decided that instead of just perusing the internet for answers, I'd engage in a discussion.
I started photographing roadracing last season at a few east coast racetracks. My original setup was a 5D MKiv with a 70-200 2.8 II lens, but I found I often needed quite a bit more reach, so I added a 2X extender. I've been fighting since the beginning to get images that are CRISP. My success rate is quite low for tack sharp images - shooting anywhere from 1/60th - 1/250th with panning. It was hard to distinguish if it was a matter of me being terrible at panning, the autofocus system not being dialed in well enough, or the converter killing quality. Yesterday I went over to a track to practice without the converter, and I THINK it made a difference, but then again the lighting was different too (lower in the sky towards evening as opposed to my usual high-in-the-sky which is when the races take place).
Does anyone have insight into the effects of the extender? Am I better off with a 100-400?
I also have a million questions about how to pan and motorsports photography in general, but I'll start here.
Here are some examples. The first three are with the extender during my normal shooting hours at the NHMS races, and the second two are from yesterday without the extender but with better lighting.
With extender:
Without the extender (but different lighting):
I started photographing roadracing last season at a few east coast racetracks. My original setup was a 5D MKiv with a 70-200 2.8 II lens, but I found I often needed quite a bit more reach, so I added a 2X extender. I've been fighting since the beginning to get images that are CRISP. My success rate is quite low for tack sharp images - shooting anywhere from 1/60th - 1/250th with panning. It was hard to distinguish if it was a matter of me being terrible at panning, the autofocus system not being dialed in well enough, or the converter killing quality. Yesterday I went over to a track to practice without the converter, and I THINK it made a difference, but then again the lighting was different too (lower in the sky towards evening as opposed to my usual high-in-the-sky which is when the races take place).
Does anyone have insight into the effects of the extender? Am I better off with a 100-400?
I also have a million questions about how to pan and motorsports photography in general, but I'll start here.
Here are some examples. The first three are with the extender during my normal shooting hours at the NHMS races, and the second two are from yesterday without the extender but with better lighting.
With extender:
Without the extender (but different lighting):
Last edited: