Telephoto Lens for Motorsport

[Dal]

Hi all,

I've got a Nikon D50 at the moment with a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG telephoto.

I want to get a bit more zoom with my telephoto so have been looking at this lens Sigma 170-500mm. (sigma 150-500 seems alot more money for nothing extra really).

Is this a worthy lens for motorsports?

I've had a lok through a lot of my older images and the majority of them are around f9 or f11, so I'm not interested in a f2.8 telephoto as the lens prices are way too much for my liking.

Any images you've taken with the above lens would be great if you post them in here.

Also any other options of telephoto's would be appreciated, my budget is probably around £400maximum.

Thanks in advance.

Dal

 

[Hammerhead64]

Forget it ... don't go half cocked...... Buy a D300 & Sigma 400-800mm .....:razz:

 

[Dal]

Forget it ... don't go half cocked...... Buy a D300 & Sigma 400-800mm .....:razz:

I'm planning on stealing your D300 soon

oh and Sigma don't make a 400-800, they do a 300-800 though lol. It's a tad past the price range though, by around £4,000 more than I can afford :bang:.

 

[Nod]

I've got a 170-500 Sigma and am hoping for reasonable weather in a fortnight to see how it copes (or how I cope with it!) at Castle Combe racetrack.

I'll let you know what I think (and maybe even post a pic or 2) after the Bank Holiday weekend.

 

[Dal]

I've got a 170-500 Sigma and am hoping for reasonable weather in a fortnight to see how it copes (or how I cope with it!) at Castle Combe racetrack.

I'll let you know what I think (and maybe even post a pic or 2) after the Bank Holiday weekend.

I would really appreciate that. I've had a look on Flickr at some shots taken with it and i'm very impressed with them, however, they are all wildlife so I'm keen to know how well they perform for motorsport.

Have you got any photo's that you've taken with it or have you only just got the lens?

 

[cwp]

take a look at the 80-400 vr nikon

 

[Diabolos137]

I have the 80-400VR and have used it for motorsport on both my D50 and my D200 and have never had any issues with it.
Not done much motosports stuff recently, but some examples of shots with that lens can be seen at http://137-digital.co.uk/gallery.asp?eid=3

 

[Nod]

I got the lens at christmas (not a gift - it was a friend's and he bought himself a 70-200 f/2.8 & a 2x telecon) and not really had much chance to use it - certainly not for motorsport! Only really snapped with it to check sharpness etc so not got anything worth posting. (Brick walls are boring but make good test subjects!)

 

[whitey]

i would say the Sigma 100-300 for motorsports is what you want

take a look on my site (link in sig) all pics on there are taken with it

you dont really need 300-800 unless your at donington or silverstone IMO

 

[Flash In The Pan]

The 170-500 Sigma is a bit on the slow side for motortsport, as is the 80-400 VR Nikon. The trouble with the 170-500 is that at 500mm you're looking at f/6.3 max aperture, which is going to give you a very dim viewfinder on a D50 and difficult a/f for fast sport. There's a very good reason that f/2.8 lenses are used for sports........

 

[Dal]

take a look at the 80-400 vr nikon

I have the 80-400VR and have used it for motorsport on both my D50 and my D200 and have never had any issues with it.
Not done much motosports stuff recently, but some examples of shots with that lens can be seen at http://137-digital.co.uk/gallery.asp?eid=3

Now that does seem like a fantastic lens, although I can't seem to find one within my £400 budget, got any links as the ones I find are near to £1000 Nikon 80-400 VR thanks.

I got the lens at christmas (not a gift - it was a friend's and he bought himself a 70-200 f/2.8 & a 2x telecon) and not really had much chance to use it - certainly not for motorsport! Only really snapped with it to check sharpness etc so not got anything worth posting. (Brick walls are boring but make good test subjects!)

Any chance of seeign one of the test shots anyway. . I really want to see how you get on with it for motorsport.

i would say the Sigma 100-300 for motorsports is what you want

take a look on my site (link in sig) all pics on there are taken with it

you dont really need 300-800 unless your at donington or silverstone IMO

The 300-800 was a little joke between me and hammerhead64 (we work together), its well out of my price range and I think I'd miss alot of shots under the 300mm range.

The 170-500 Sigma is a bit on the slow side for motortsport, as is the 80-400 VR Nikon. The trouble with the 170-500 is that at 500mm you're looking at f/6.3 max aperture, which is going to give you a very dim viewfinder on a D50 and difficult a/f for fast sport. There's a very good reason that f/2.8 lenses are used for sports........

Ah, so does the aperture affect the speed at which the lens can focus or is that just a trait of the f2.8 lens's being able to focus faster?

Would would you recommend I take a look at rather than the above lens's for my budget, or is there not really anything around my price range that will do what I want it to do?

Thanks

 

[Hammerhead64]

Dal get one of these ..... http://ukdisposablecameras.co.uk/ you'll get much better results and it will be within you budget

They even do a Car and Accident kit ...... a must buy for £1.99

 

[Dal]

Dal get one of these ..... http://ukdisposablecameras.co.uk/ you'll get much better results and it will be within you budget

They even do a Car and Accident kit ...... a must buy for £1.99

Didn't you just sell the A100 version?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Dal get one of these ..... http://ukdisposablecameras.co.uk/ you'll get much better results and it will be within you budget

They even do a Car and Accident kit ...... a must buy for £1.99

You can buy a car and an accident for £1.99?

Don't fancy the accident bit much.....how much for just the car?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Ah, so does the aperture affect the speed at which the lens can focus or is that just a trait of the f2.8 lens's being able to focus faster?

Would would you recommend I take a look at rather than the above lens's for my budget, or is there not really anything around my price range that will do what I want it to do?

Thanks

There are two things you need from a lens for motorsport, fast (f/2.8) glass and long reach. Unfortunately unless you can add another zero (before the decimal point :lol) to your budget then Nikon glass is out of the question :shake:

This leaves you with the choice of reach or speed. If you opt for reach then you're looking at the Sigma 170-500 and, as I said earlier, you'll be down at f/6.3 maximum, which is going to mean very low shutter speeds and/or very high iso settings - neither of which are desireable.

If you choose the speed route then you can always add a teleconvertor to gain a bit more reach, but again this introduces it's own problems into the equation as it can soften the image.

Look around at any motorsport event and you'll struggle to find anyone using a Sigma 170-500 or a Nikon 80-400 VR, but you'll see loads with 80-200 f/2.8s or 70-200 VRs. Now you know why

 

[cwp]

When I bought my Nikon 80-400 I compared it with the sigma 50-500 both on the D300 at the same time in the shop. I found that the sigma focuses a lot slower than the Nikon and I mean a lot. On average I can get shutter speeds at 1\125 0n iso200-400 I don’t try to go over 400 for my iso. Plus I do use it for motor sport the only time I find it difficult to use is when I am taking photos of rc helicopters doing 3d this is only because they move extremely fast. (I am saving up for the Nikon 300 2.8 vr only because of the better optics and I hope it focuses faster than my 80-400).

 

[Flash In The Pan]

(I am saving up for the Nikon 300 2.8 vr only because of the better optics and I hope it focuses faster than my 80-400).

If the focus speed on the 300 prime is anything like that of the 70-200 (and I'm sure it is) then the difference in af speed will amaze you

 

[andrewc]

I'd recommend the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX as being a capable motorsport lens. Fast focussing, constant f4 and sharp. It will accept a x1.4 teleconverter to give you a 420mm f5.6 lens. If you need more you need to save up more dosh. However, you can crop images down.

 

[whitey]

I'd recommend the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX as being a capable motorsport lens. Fast focussing, constant f4 and sharp. It will accept a x1.4 teleconverter to give you a 420mm f5.6 lens. If you need more you need to save up more dosh. However, you can crop images down.

totally agree, i been to around 12 events this year and my 100-300 F4 is fast enough, my other halfs dad has the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 and says it is only alittle quicker and there is not alot of difference in speed, it was only the 2.8 feature he went for

 

[mrgubby]

Before I bought a 70-200 f2.8 I used a 28-300 f6.3 for motorsport events with great success. The combination of the lens with a 300D meant that AF was really out of the question but luckily it being a track event I knew where the cars / bikes would be and used MF.

If you are using a 300mm/f2.8 at say 30m then you only have a 1m DOF which would leave 3m of the car OOF . So even with my f2.8 glass I find myself using f8 to get the shots that I want, and I still tend to do my panning shots in MF

 

[CaptainPenguin]

Unless you are at the big circyuits you dont need more than a 300,the following all taken with a Sigma 70-300

http://nigel.cliff.fotopic.net/c1258962.html

http://picasaweb.google.com/wordsleyboy/DonningtonW

 

[taz]

Unless you are at the big circyuits you dont need more than a 300,the following all taken with a Sigma 70-300

If you stuck to 300 why not replace the Sigma with the Nikon 70-300VR?

 

[apkent]

Personally I would agree that other than Silverstone, I don't think you need more than 300mm, particularly on a cropped body.

I've been using a 300mm prime (I'm Canon though) on a 400D and if you don't choose your position carefully, it can still be too much focal length.

 

[Dal]

There are two things you need from a lens for motorsport, fast (f/2.8) glass and long reach. Unfortunately unless you can add another zero (before the decimal point :lol) to your budget then Nikon glass is out of the question :shake:

This leaves you with the choice of reach or speed. If you opt for reach then you're looking at the Sigma 170-500 and, as I said earlier, you'll be down at f/6.3 maximum, which is going to mean very low shutter speeds and/or very high iso settings - neither of which are desireable.

If you choose the speed route then you can always add a teleconvertor to gain a bit more reach, but again this introduces it's own problems into the equation as it can soften the image.

Look around at any motorsport event and you'll struggle to find anyone using a Sigma 170-500 or a Nikon 80-400 VR, but you'll see loads with 80-200 f/2.8s or 70-200 VRs. Now you know why

Thanks for explaining that to me, I wasnt sure if the f2.8 related to just the aperture of the lens or the speed it focuses so thats helped me undertand it a bit more now. Been looking at other sigma's since this thread which has been suggested now so will reply to those below.

When I bought my Nikon 80-400 I compared it with the sigma 50-500 both on the D300 at the same time in the shop. I found that the sigma focuses a lot slower than the Nikon and I mean a lot. On average I can get shutter speeds at 1\125 0n iso200-400 I don’t try to go over 400 for my iso. Plus I do use it for motor sport the only time I find it difficult to use is when I am taking photos of rc helicopters doing 3d this is only because they move extremely fast. (I am saving up for the Nikon 300 2.8 vr only because of the better optics and I hope it focuses faster than my 80-400).

Thanks for letting me know that, I don't want a lens that will be slow as it defies the point. will leave the 170-500 out of it now.

I'd recommend the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX as being a capable motorsport lens. Fast focussing, constant f4 and sharp. It will accept a x1.4 teleconverter to give you a 420mm f5.6 lens. If you need more you need to save up more dosh. However, you can crop images down.

I had a look at this lens and I wuite like the idea of it and the fact that a 1.4tc can go with it. I'm guessing a 1.7tc wouldn't be ideal (seen that you can hire those so would try one).

totally agree, i been to around 12 events this year and my 100-300 F4 is fast enough, my other halfs dad has the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 and says it is only alittle quicker and there is not alot of difference in speed, it was only the 2.8 feature he went for

Thats very good to know, have you used a tc with it and did that affect the focusing speed?

Unless you are at the big circyuits you dont need more than a 300,the following all taken with a Sigma 70-300

http://nigel.cliff.fotopic.net/c1258962.html

http://picasaweb.google.com/wordsleyboy/DonningtonW

I feel like I need the extra bit of reach when I look through my shots.

Unless you are at the big circyuits you dont need more than a 300,the following all taken with a Sigma 70-300

If you stuck to 300 why not replace the Sigma with the Nikon 70-300VR?

The 70-300VR is an f5.6 isnt it? seems the only thing I would benefit would be the VR function, or am I missing something? far better glass maybe?

 

[andrewc]

With a Sigma 100-300 EX f4 & 1.4 TC you loose a bit of focus speed and image quality, but its still very usable.

If you're feeling flush you could have the Sigma 120-300 EX f2.8 with TCs

Sigma have recently launched the 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM but its not an EX range (EXcellence)

 

[reddeathdrinker]

I'd recommend the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX as being a capable motorsport lens. Fast focussing, constant f4 and sharp. It will accept a x1.4 teleconverter to give you a 420mm f5.6 lens. If you need more you need to save up more dosh. However, you can crop images down.

I wholeheartedly agree - the 100-300mm f/4 is a very capable lens, faster and sharper than the budget zooms. The only Sigma **-500mm I would consider is the 50-500mm, the image quality of the other models is lacking in comparison.

Have a look at my Flickr - all the 2008 motosport shots were taken with the 100-300mm f/4

The other option is a 300mm f/4 prime...personally, I prefer the flexibility of a zoom

 

[Apolon]

I have Minolta "Beercan" 70-210mm F4. Would you guys recommend Kenko 1.4 or 2x tele
converter for me?
I love taking photos of planes. Mainly fighter planes. Beercan was excelent and respocive but lacks little reach sometimes.

 

[spannerdude]

The Sigma 170-500 isn't ideal for motorsport. As has already been mentioned it's max aperture isn't great and the focussing on the screw drive isn't particularly fast either.

I've no idea how good the focus on a D50 is but with the Sony A100 it struggled to manage predictive focussing for more than a couple of shots in a row. With the more powerfull motor in the A700 it seems much more snappy but I've not used it for motorsport yet :shrug:

Here are a few sample shots using the Sigma 170-500 on the old A100...

@360mm f7.1

@250mm f16

@180 f16

@180 f9

@180mm f22

@420mm f9

@500mm f11

Not motorsport but 500mm wide open at f6.3

An all singing all dancing 28-1200mm f2.8 would obviously be better but if, like me, you currently find yourself needing both kidneys it is possible to improvise for much less. BUT the Sigma 170-500 is improvising.

 

[spannerdude]

I have Minolta "Beercan" 70-210mm F4. Would you guys recommend Kenko 1.4 or 2x tele
converter for me?
I love taking photos of planes. Mainly fighter planes. Beercan was excelent and respocive but lacks little reach sometimes.

That would be like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa

For a little more than the cost of the teleconverter you could buy the Big Beercan

 

[CaptainPenguin]

Unless you are at the big circyuits you dont need more than a 300,the following all taken with a Sigma 70-300

If you stuck to 300 why not replace the Sigma with the Nikon 70-300VR?

Because I have a Canon

 

[Dal]

With a Sigma 100-300 EX f4 & 1.4 TC you loose a bit of focus speed and image quality, but its still very usable.

If you're feeling flush you could have the Sigma 120-300 EX f2.8 with TCs

Sigma have recently launched the 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM but its not an EX range (EXcellence)

I had a look at the price of the sigma 120-300 f2.8.......ouch is my first thought, far too much money for me.

That sigma 120-400mm seems like a good option. but then I'm thinking would it be better to go for the 100-300mm f4 and the 1.4tc if needed? ah, this is so difficult to choose lol.

I wholeheartedly agree - the 100-300mm f/4 is a very capable lens, faster and sharper than the budget zooms. The only Sigma **-500mm I would consider is the 50-500mm, the image quality of the other models is lacking in comparison.

Have a look at my Flickr - all the 2008 motosport shots were taken with the 100-300mm f/4

The other option is a 300mm f/4 prime...personally, I prefer the flexibility of a zoom

Very nice shots on your site. I agree with you on the prime, not really into those that much.

I thought the sigma 50-500mm was meant to be soft at both ends. I like the sound of that lens as its got a massive range, but its an f6.3 so is it going to focus at the same speed as the sigma 170-500mm?

The Sigma 170-500 isn't ideal for motorsport. As has already been mentioned it's max aperture isn't great and the focussing on the screw drive isn't particularly fast either.

I've no idea how good the focus on a D50 is but with the Sony A100 it struggled to manage predictive focussing for more than a couple of shots in a row. With the more powerfull motor in the A700 it seems much more snappy but I've not used it for motorsport yet :shrug:

Here are a few sample shots using the Sigma 170-500 on the old A100...

An all singing all dancing 28-1200mm f2.8 would obviously be better but if, like me, you currently find yourself needing both kidneys it is possible to improvise for much less. BUT the Sigma 170-500 is improvising.

I'll be honest, seeing those images isnt putting me off of that 170-500mm, they look really good to me. I don't do multiple shots, usually 1 or maybe 2 shots per car.

The other lens that popped up in another thread was the Tamron 200-500mm, can't remember the aperture now though, are they any good for motorsport?

And also, am I looking into this too much as its just a hobby, should I just go and buy what I feel comfortable with? gonna head into jessops tomorrow I think to have a play with the lens's to see how quickly they focus.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

[/IMG]

An all singing all dancing 28-1200mm f2.8 would obviously be better but if, like me, you currently find yourself needing both kidneys it is possible to improvise for much less. BUT the Sigma 170-500 is improvising.

I kidney be bothered with the hassle

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I'm thinking would it be better to go for the 100-300mm f4 and the 1.4tc if needed? ah, this is so difficult to choose lol.

A 1.4tc on that lens is going to put you into the same ball park as the 170-500 and Tamron 200-500, but with softer images due to the degredation introduced by the extra glass

The other lens that popped up in another thread was the Tamron 200-500mm, can't remember the aperture now though, are they any good for motorsport?

Some comments apply as the Sigmas - slow glass +slow af = a motorsport no-no.

And also, am I looking into this too much as its just a hobby, should I just go and buy what I feel comfortable with? gonna head into jessops tomorrow I think to have a play with the lens's to see how quickly they focus.

If the lighting and situation in your local Jessops match those you will be shooting in (ie if they have a motor-racing track in the basement) then this is a great idea, otherwise all it will tell you is how good the lens is for taking pictures of computing students doing their Saturday jobs

To reiterate,

1) for motorsport you ideally need f/2.8 glass.
2)If this is not within your budget then you need f/4 glass.
3)There is no such thing as cheap, fast glass (unless you want to use a 50mm f/1.8, before someone brings that up )
4) There is no such thing as a cheap quality superzoom


Here then, are your options....

1) stick with the lens you have
2) buy a faster lens of the same length
3) buy a body with a higher pixel count and crop
4) buy one of the slow lenses you mention above and live with the problems

Sorry,but there is no magical solution,otherwise we'd all be doing it :bang:

 

[Nod]

"To reiterate,

1) for motorsport you ideally need f/2.8 glass. Not if it's bright enough!
2)If this is not within your budget then you need f/4 glass. See 1)
3)There is no such thing as cheap, fast glass (unless you want to use a 50mm f/1.8, before someone brings that up ) This is VERY true, unless you're lucky and find a bargain.
4) There is no such thing as a cheap quality superzoom Again, true.


Here then, are your options....

1) stick with the lens you have Cheapest option and a good one.
2) buy a faster lens of the same length Not a budget alternative
3) buy a body with a higher pixel count and crop Depending on the print size you're after (and the final use, eg selling images) you might not need to upgrade - even 3MP images can print well up to A4 as long as the prints are viewed from a normal distance.
4) buy one of the slow lenses you mention above and live with the problems Probably best to find a bargain second hand - I was lucky and got mine for £250.

Sorry,but there is no magical solution,otherwise we'd all be doing it " Indeed we would!


BTW, I'm pretty sure I deleted my test shots since they were purely for me to check the lens out before I handed over the cash. If/when the weather improves, I'll take a couple more but failing that, I'll be taking the lens to Castle Combe on BHMonday so will post a couple of the results.

 

[pete.rush]

For Nikon, the Sigma 100-300mm f4 is probably the best option on a budget. Ok you will need to up your $$$$ abit, but for an extra few $$$$ it's a significant step up in quality optics. (price £600-750 depending on where you go). Unfortunately the waether in this country is not great at the best of times (i.e. light conditions), and thats why comments have been made on f2.8 lenses. The sigma is good enough for most occasions, but if you start going for f5.6 and f6.3 lenses, hit rate on good images significantly reduces unless your in good light.

Sigma's 80-400 and nikon's 80-400 lenses are much of a muchness, both f5.6 which will struggle in poor light.

The perfect lens you need for motorsport is the Nikon 200-400mm f4 but (don't tell us which bank your robbing too fund the purchase). For motorsport the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 has some good reviews and is a good lens, but build quality is lacking (especially for a £1500 lens) and autofocus still struggles abit in poor light (not good for a 2.8 lens), although it does take good images.

Best option is the 100-300mm f4 for the money.

Peter

 

[spannerdude]

I thought the sigma 50-500mm was meant to be soft at both ends. I like the sound of that lens as its got a massive range, but its an f6.3 so is it going to focus at the same speed as the sigma 170-500mm?

As I understand it the Bigma is even slower to focus than the 170-500mm
Usefull range but somewhere along the lines you are going to pay for that :shrug:

I'll be honest, seeing those images isnt putting me off of that 170-500mm, they look really good to me. I don't do multiple shots, usually 1 or maybe 2 shots per car.

The other lens that popped up in another thread was the Tamron 200-500mm, can't remember the aperture now though, are they any good for motorsport?

And also, am I looking into this too much as its just a hobby, should I just go and buy what I feel comfortable with? gonna head into jessops tomorrow I think to have a play with the lens's to see how quickly they focus.

It's a real dilema isn't it. The advice you've been given here is spot on. You would really have to work this lens to get good results, but I think what our learned friends are missing here is that the Sigma x-500mm and the Tamron 200-500mm, which as they've so rightly pointed out, are not good for motorsport, are going to get much better shots than the f2.8 500mm lens that you haven't got!

For me the decision was easy. The Sigma was a punt on eBay which cost me about the same as a pair of lens caps and a hood for a pro Nikon or Canon lens. And in Sony fit there is currently sod all else in that range anyway. I really wouldn't have paid new price for this lens, but I know I can make back what I paid for it tomorrow on eBay when something better comes along.

So for you the decision comes down to, do you want to take photos with a -500mm lens, accept that some of them might not work and that if the weather is bad then many of them might not work. Or do you want to wait until you can afford a lens which will give you a considerably better success rate at some time in the future?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

It all comes down to numbers -if you think people will be impressed when you tell them you have a 500mm lens then buy one.

 

[desantnik]

Three Nikon lenses perfectly capable of motorsport:

1) 70-300 VR - budget end, still pretty fast focusing - the equivalent of the Canon 70-300 IS I use a fair bit. Not bad at all and around the 400 quid mark.

2) 70-200 VR F2.8 - both the Canon and Nikon 70-200 lenses are amongst the most versatile and nicest pieces of glass you can own. 70-200 might be a bit short sometimes, but stick a 1.5x teleconverter on it and you have a useful piece of kit which will turn out some cracking shots.

3) 300 F4 - the 300mm prime is a timeless classic for motorsport shooting. Again, room for a TC here to take you out to just over 400mm at F5.6 still.

So there you go, 1000 quid or less for the last two.

Quite simply put, you can buy things for less than the last two but simply it won't be as good. Struggle on with something less, but the consistent sharp shots will always be coming from those last two.

Shooting slow moving or static subjects is one thing, motorsport is something else - have a look on here and see what kit the folk who turn in the good stuff are using - I am sure you can spot the difference between "ok" and "wow!" in a shot.

My ideal motorsport kit bag would be a 70-200 f2.8, a 300 F2.8 (but a F4 will have to do!), a couple of TC's and a nice wide something for static grid/pits/paddock shots (speed not important here, just something you like the IQ from). You can put other stuff in, but it comes back to those simply being the best combo unless you have some mega serious dosh to blow on 400, 500 or 600mm glass.

*ducks and takes cover*

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Three Nikon lenses perfectly capable of motorsport:

1) 70-300 VR - budget end, still pretty fast focusing - the equivalent of the Canon 70-300 IS I use a fair bit. Not bad at all and around the 400 quid mark.

2) 70-200 VR F2.8 - both the Canon and Nikon 70-200 lenses are amongst the most versatile and nicest pieces of glass you can own. 70-200 might be a bit short sometimes, but stick a 1.5x teleconverter on it and you have a useful piece of kit which will turn out some cracking shots.

3) 300 F4 - the 300mm prime is a timeless classic for motorsport shooting. Again, room for a TC here to take you out to just over 400mm at F5.6 still.

So there you go, 1000 quid or less for the last two.

Err....could you point me to where I can get a Nikon 70-200 VR (usually £1100-1200 new) and a 300 f/4 (£600-800) for £1000 the pair? New or used, I don't mind



Or did you mean to say £1000 each?

 

[desantnik]

No, I did mean EACH!