New Lens Investment

G-Slev

G-Slev

Messages
450
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking to replace my extremely crappy sigma 70 to 300 APO in the next few months.

I was thinking of getting a second hand mk 1 canon 100 to 400, but I am also wondering if it would be a better investment to get a set of primes.

I quite like the look of the canon 200mm F/2.8 prime, the 300m F/4 and the 400mm f/5.6 - I could only get one second hand now and save up for a second hand of the other. I would round things off with something like a 100 or 85mm prime.

I was wondering if anyone had a view on the prime v zoom thing for motorsport? Darren Heath swears by prime lenses, but I don't know if it's a road I want to go down. I might try going out with a fixed lens length on the crappy sigma and see how I get on. Any thoughts would be welcome of course.

EDIT - sorry, just realised I was in the wrong thread. Could this be moved to the Talk Sports thread please?
 
Last edited:
If I were you I would go for the 100-400, its more flexibile and unless you are doing a lot of night racing the f4.5-5.6 won't impact you unduly. If you are planning on doing a lot of low light work then a f2.8 prime lens is the better option but I don't see that the step up from f4 to f5.6 at 400mm is too big a price to pay over the 300 f4 and the cheaper Canon 400mm prime is f5.6 anyway.

That being said I may well be saying that because I have a Mk.1 100-400 I am getting ready to move on!

I've had a 100-400 and the 300 f2.8 for over a year. The 100-400 was my go-to lens whenever I was at the track. I can count on one hand the number of times the 300mm has came out of its case since September.
 
Was the 300 2.8 particularly heavy compared to the 100 to 400?
 
Oh hell yes! I can't talk specific weights but I wouldn't trust a neck strap with it. I always carried it on a monopod when it wasn't in its case, carried like a brick hod.
 
The 400mm f5.6 is one of THE best lenses I have ever used, IQ wise you will have nothing to worry about - It can be too long for some track locations (especially if you use a crop body), the 100-400 is a good option for its flexibility but for me the prime kicks its ass in terms of IQ (less so the MK II version). I use the 400 prime more than any other lens for on track stuff (and a lot of the time i'm using a 1.4x with it) - the 70-200 f2.8 would be my next most used and mainly just for wider panning and pit work.
 
Last edited:
PhotoBoris said:
I am looking to replace my extremely crappy sigma 70 to 300 APO in the next few months.

I was thinking of getting a second hand mk 1 canon 100 to 400, but I am also wondering if it would be a better investment to get a set of primes.

I quite like the look of the canon 200mm F/2.8 prime, the 300m F/4 and the 400mm f/5.6 - I could only get one second hand now and save up for a second hand of the other. I would round things off with something like a 100 or 85mm prime.

I was wondering if anyone had a view on the prime v zoom thing for motorsport? Darren Heath swears by prime lenses, but I don't know if it's a road I want to go down. I might try going out with a fixed lens length on the crappy sigma and see how I get on. Any thoughts would be welcome of course.

EDIT - sorry, just realised I was in the wrong thread. Could this be moved to the Talk Sports thread please?
Click to expand...

whats your budget?
 
I liked my old 400mm f5.6 lens, so much so I wrote a few words about it here - http://www.ae-photography.co.uk/canon-400mm-f5.6-lens-review.html - by all means have a read maybe it helps.

Since then the 100-400 Mk2 has come out and I would say IQ and AF on both is comparable, plus with the zoom you have 100-399mm extra range to play with. But it comes at a price. If you could get a 400 cheap second hand I don't think you would be disappointed. However like most things budget is what it boils down to, along with your subject and style of shooting. Good thing is you have plenty of choice, especially second hand :)
 
When I was shooting motorsport on a regular basis I did a vast majority of my work with a prime (Nikkor 400mm f2.8 coupled with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters if required). The image quality was superb and the speed of focussing was lightning fast which helped match the high speed action unfolding in front of me.

I only used either of my two zooms for pit/paddock shots or when I wanted to go wider (to add a little 'environment' around the main subject).

You soon get used to using a prime and adapting your position or composition to make up for not having a zoom effect.
 
I'm in a similar situation to yourself. I've had the 100-400 for a number of years, and it's been superb. But I'm looking for something to go with it for the tracks you can get alot closer, such as Oulton and Cadwell Park, and I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f2.8.

For £700 you can pick up the 100-400 second hand, and I'd go for that all day long.
 
I have the 300 f4 and the 100/400 mk 1, had the 400 5.6 and have 100 and 85mm primes. For versatility get the 100/400 every day and possibly a 50mm for that wider look at little cost.
The 100/400 also takes a 1.4 converter well, AF may not work depending on which body you use though.

Matt
 
I have been using the Canon 300mm f4L for the last 5 years and its a nice piece of kit it replaced my Sigma 120-400 which produced some nice shots but I wanted a prime and was not disappointed.

I found it strange at first but you just get used to moving a little instead of turning a zoom ring but I have the advantage of using two bodies 300 on one and a 70-200F4L on the other so I can just swap from one to the other without the hassle of changing lenses so if had the choice of just one I would agree with above and give the 100-400 a try for the versatility maybe rent one for a weekend see how you like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top