mototsport lens

H

h4sse

Messages
10
Name
paul
Edit My Images
No
i have been considering buying a lens for mototsport. for my canon bodies i have a 7d and 5d mark ii, i have a 70-200mm 2.8 is lens and would look to expand on this lens, i have looked at the 100-400mm and have been sugested to look at the sigma 120-300mm os lens, can any body suggest any others or share their thoughts on the two that i have looked at to date please?
 
The 120-300 is a very versatile lens as it can be combined with teleconverters depending on the available light and needed focal length. If you do not mind the cost it is the one to go for.

You could also look at the sigma 100-300mm f4 if you do not need OS and 2.8.
 
The 120-300 OS is a fantastic sports lens and takes an x1.4 fantastically to make a 168-420/4. Personally I'd pick it every time but, and it's a big but, it's twice the weight and cost of the 100-400.
 
What is your 70-200 exactly? If it's the Canon Mk2, then just get a 2x extender. Or 100-400.

What's your budget, and what kind of motorsport? Cars or bikes, and how close can you normally get? 300mm won't make a massive difference to what you've got.
 
Thanks for the reply my concerns with a 2 times converter is that I loose two stops, I have the Mark 1 70 -200mm f2.8 and I like to get close to action as well as catch the corners so then shot from a distance when shooting grass tracking?
 
h4sse said:
Thanks for the reply my concerns with a 2 times converter is that I loose two stops, I have the Mark 1 70 -200mm f2.8 and I like to get close to action as well as catch the corners so then shot from a distance when shooting grass tracking?
Click to expand...

Two stops lost from a 2x extender brings you to 400mm f/5.6 from f/2.8, which is as good as it gets without spending a lot more than £1k. Mk1 70-200 is not so good at the Mk2 lens though, especially with an extender.

Obvious choice is still the 100-400L, as it usually is for so many things. Sharp, IS, and very versatile. Holds value well too.
 
Thanks agin for your replies, I have been printing reasonably sized images for a club to which I am involved in, I thing the 100-400 is an option that I have looked at but was swayed for a while to look at the sigma 120-300mm os lens of which was recommended. And also I have looked at canon 300 mm 2.8 prime of which is was advised to be the best lens to go for, I suppose a little confused by options?
 
I've mainly shot with prime lenses, they take some getting use to fixed focus, you have to think about the shot you want, but by far the best IQs. Currently have the 300mm f4 and 300mm f2.8 (2.5kg) and both work well with canon TCs.

On the other hand, the flexibility of the zoom comes into its own.

The sigma 120-300mm OS by all accounts is much improved over the previous model that had a few issues, build quality, back focusing, auto focus performance dropping off when the light condition were favourable, however, it was still a fantastic lens, sharp and fast auto focusing and for the price couldn't be beat, but it weighs 2.5kg

Cheaper alternatives were the sigma 100-300mm f4 another good lens or the canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 if you can find a good copy.

Depends what budget you have to spend, and don't dismiss the used market, still some great deals to be had for your £££.
 
These were from my Sigma 150-500 the extra length can be useful depending where you can get to, it's up for sale at the moment as I've got the new Sigma 120-300 f2.8
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=379355

IMG_4592.jpg


IMG_5215.jpg
 
some really good advice there for my choice of a or ultimate lens for sports photograghy, i suppose that my limit for a choice would be up to 3k? how ever am i wasting my money? what would the budding or experienced photograghers go for?
 
With that sort of budget I'd go with a 100-300 f2.8 and a TC choice of speed or distance. However a lens like that is heavy, far more so than the Canon 100-400 or Sigma 150-500
 
I suppose with focus coming to bham in march that I could look to upgrade my 70-200mm 2.8 Mark I for a Mark ii then get the 2 x converter or keep the Mark i then consider the 120-300 2.8 mm os sigma?
 
The 70-200II + 2x is very good optically but AF will be slow and still won't match the Sigma + 1.4 for image quality. On the other hand it is lighter!

It all depends on your needs I suppose.
 
Do you think optically the sigma is as good as the canon then, I main objective will be shooting outdoor pursuits ie grass tracking or other extreme sport days
 
First off, I am going to assume that this is going to be in addition to your 70-200, as to me that is a great Motorsport lens (for cars at least). My choice to go above it would be a 300mm or 400mm, which one dictated by budget. My choice for cars would be 300f2.8.
 
Thanks for reply, re the 300mm 2.8 would you say the Mark I would be the one to look at if budget was say 3 k?
 
You could try out the Sigma 50-500 OS, about the same cost as the 100-400 but from my experience equal or better IQ with improved OS.

It is heavy though and not as wide also the reach isn't quite 500, more 470 or so but all in a very good lens if you're looking to extend anyway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top