Telephoto Lens for Motorsport

Thanks the problem I'm in, is I want to go to the next step. I have the canon versions of 70-200mm f2.8 and 300mm f4, but want the 300mm f2.8, but £2000 step up in price is hard to swallow.

On the good side (or bad side as canon don't make one) you Nikon guy's do have a lens that makes us canon followers envvious the 200-400mm f4 is a very nice piece of kit, but mega $$$ as well.

Peter
 
If budget is a real issue then adding a TC imho isn't a bad trade off. I shoot a fair amount of motor sport with various lenses but I recently shot the F1 German GP with a 150mm prime with a 2x TC (funny combo I know) but I was impressed with the 'lack' of softness.

Couple of examples (from a fair distance away): http://www.fragment46.com/photos/f1test/
 
pete.rush said:
Thanks the problem I'm in, is I want to go to the next step. I have the canon versions of 70-200mm f2.8 and 300mm f4, but want the 300mm f2.8, but £2000 step up in price is hard to swallow.
Click to expand...

Thing is Pete, why do you want the 300 2.8? So you can stick a x2 on it? Or just for better IQ?

On another thread on here we were discussing the 300 2.8 vs 400 5.6, looks like at ~400mm the 400 has better IQ... plus is quite a bit lighter by all accounts... and is pretty cheap!
 
desantnik said:
Thing is Pete, why do you want the 300 2.8? So you can stick a x2 on it? Or just for better IQ?

On another thread on here we were discussing the 300 2.8 vs 400 5.6, looks like at ~400mm the 400 has better IQ... plus is quite a bit lighter by all accounts... and is pretty cheap!
Click to expand...

F5.6 doesn't cut it for me, with low fly shooting, differing light and weather condition (fast moving aircraft moving into shadow and then back into light) the 400mm f5.6 although a good lens won't even get close. Shutter speed for that type of photography very much the key. I bet most people discussing the 400 were birdy (sorry for term....). I find it hard to comprehend that the 400 had better IQ's than the 300 and you can't really compare the 2 as one is predominantly intended to be used for sports (300mm f2.8). The 400mm f5.6 is impressive for the money like the 300mm f4, but it wouldn't cut the mustard for me.

Peter
 
Well, I find it hard to believe a 700 quid lens can compete with a 2500 quid one, even when the latter is dragged down by a TC, but the charts definitely show better IQ.

However as someone who also shoots motorsport, I know that the charts are one thing, its the focus speed that really count and there is not a published figure for this - you just have to have a try and get the feel for it.
 
My speciality is motorsport so here's my tuppence.

The first lens I used for motorsport was the Nikkor G lens 70-300 but that was when I was a real beginner and I used nothing but Auto lol.

Since then, I moved onto the Sigma 70-300 DG EX APO FQ300 or whatever it's called. It was OK but as already said, at 300mm it's max aperture is f5.6 so not great for darker days. Also, it's not very quick to focus and IQ could have been better. At the time I thought it as a good zoom lens for £150, and still would be today. Again, you get what you pay for. That lens has now moved on from me.

I then purchased a Nikkor 18-200mm VR to be my all round lens. Again, at max focal length it's still only f5.6, but it's very fast to focus and overall IQ is much better.

I knew it wasn't great for motorsport, but better than the Sigma I had, so I then bit the bullet and also purchased the Nikkor 70-200mm VR! :D

And d'you know what? It's fappin awesome! I'm sure it's even more faster to focus than the 18-200 (even though both are AF-S) and IQ is excellent!

As for length; I've never struggled. I like to get more of the background in the frame for context otherwise the car/bike just looks too reduntant to me, unless the actual subject has a super cool pose or motion blur.
 
Thanks for all the replies on this everyone, yet again I've realised why I love this site so much.

I think you've all saved me some cash for the moment lol.

I've been looking at all the lenses that have been suggested and unfortunutely I can't afford any of them for the time being :crying:. So here's the funny bit, I might spend the cash I have on a sigma 10-20mm as thats a lens that I can afford (and have wanted for a while) and would probably get used more than a zoom anyway.

I will then save up for either the 100-300 F4, or the nikon 70-200VR, but I will have to see how things go.

I'm also going to hire the 1.4tc from 'lens's for hire' to see if I actually need the extra reach that I want with my current sigma 70-300, thats assuming the tc will work with that lens, but we shall see.

Thanks again everyone. (y)
 
Dal said:
I'm also going to hire the 1.4tc from 'lens's for hire' to see if I actually need the extra reach that I want with my current sigma 70-300, thats assuming the tc will work with that lens, but we shall see.
Click to expand...

It won't.:thumbsdown:
 
when I photographed the F1 Silverstone testing back in June, I used my canon 70-300 IS USM lens, worked a treat for me..
have a look at my shots, see what you think.. there were even a few times as the cars were exiting out of abbey that i had to zoom out, to fit the whole car in my shot

http://www.flickr.com/photos/heczonephotography/sets/72157605800523237/

cya Hannah
 
Dal said:
Of course it would be for motorsport.......................pitlane shots, paddock shots.....jaming the camera right in a drivers face lol. :D
Click to expand...


:puke: Nooooo. Pit and paddock shots yes, not for close-up portraits :nono:

10mm can be great for car shots though, such as

2766607258_040cca450e.jpg


Tokina 10-17mm fisheye
 
Flash In The Pan said:
:puke: Nooooo. Pit and paddock shots yes, not for close-up portraits :nono:

10mm can be great for car shots though, such as

2766607258_040cca450e.jpg


Tokina 10-17mm fisheye
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you use it for portrait shots? I was thinking when the drivers are out at the front of the pitlane signing autograph's, then getting a nice wide shot of everything.

Proper portraits I'd want to use a nice 50mm f1.8 prime :D
 
Go on - break the rules. It works every once in a while - but it can soon be done to death.

50 f1.8 for portraits? Nope, try the 70-200, at about 135.
 
Dal said:
I will then save up for either the 100-300 F4, or the nikon 70-200VR, but I will have to see how things go.
Click to expand...

You can ask 100 different people, and get 100 different answers;)

I'll try and sum up my 100-300mm f/4 experiences... People get out of your way - it looks like a pro lens, especially with the lens hood on. It's sharp from f/4 up. Does need a monopod to get the best out of it, as it's a heavy lens. HSM motor means fast and quiet focussing.

Did I mention it looks like a monster lens;)
imgp04031024x768ii6.jpg
 
reddeathdrinker said:
You can ask 100 different people, and get 100 different answers;)

I'll try and sum up my 100-300mm f/4 experiences... People get out of your way - it looks like a pro lens, especially with the lens hood on. It's sharp from f/4 up. Does need a monopod to get the best out of it, as it's a heavy lens. HSM motor means fast and quiet focussing.

Did I mention it looks like a monster lens;)
imgp04031024x768ii6.jpg
Click to expand...

Bloody nora, I didn't realise it was that big, I'm going to have to hire an oompa loompa to help me carry that around lol.

I get what you mean about people moving out of your way, I'f i'm at a car show using a kit lens i will often put the flashgun on aswell just as people tend to get out of the way and also the models seem to pay more attention to me lol.
 
reddeathdrinker said:
You can ask 100 different people, and get 100 different answers;)

I'll try and sum up my 100-300mm f/4 experiences... People get out of your way - it looks like a pro lens, especially with the lens hood on. It's sharp from f/4 up. Does need a monopod to get the best out of it, as it's a heavy lens. HSM motor means fast and quiet focussing.

Did I mention it looks like a monster lens;)
Click to expand...

Oh please the 100-300mm f4 is not a monster :thinking:, even the 70-200mm f2.8 or 300mm f4 aren't heavy, starting to get arm ache with the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 or canon 300mm f2.8, but google canon's 400mm f2.8, now that's a monster :bonk: and you need arms like popeye to handhold it, but I know someone who does, and at 5.6 kg's not including the camera boy do you need to eat your greens :help:.
 
I also recommend the sigma 100-300, got mine a few months ago, fantastic quality lens, but yes you do need a monopod to get the best out of it.
 
pete.rush said:
Oh please the 100-300mm f4 is not a monster :thinking:, even the 70-200mm f2.8 or 300mm f4 aren't heavy, starting to get arm ache with the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 or canon 300mm f2.8, but google canon's 400mm f2.8, now that's a monster :bonk: and you need arms like popeye to handhold it, but I know someone who does, and at 5.6 kg's not including the camera boy do you need to eat your greens :help:.
Click to expand...

It is a monster when compared to what most people are upgrading from!
 
I tried the 70-200 (f2.8L) at Silverstone last night, was happy with it, a bit more reach would have been nice, but that is always the case at Silverstone.

It is a fair bit heavier than my 75-300 though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top