What lens for motorsport on a D40 (or upgrade body)

A

andy tims

Messages
215
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry if covered before, but I'm looking for recommendations for a lens that will auto-focus quite fast on my D40 & will allow me to get "close to the action" even when shooting from the stands.

I'd prefer to shoot hand held, so I guess I either need to go for a reasonably fast lens, or one with image stabilisation.

Budget say £750, but happy to buy pre-owned.

I have also considered updrading to a pre-owned D80 (or D90 if I can find one) which would obviously increase my choice of lens, but funds are finite & that would really mean defering getting the new lens, unless I went for something like a 70-300 AF-S, which whilst better than my 55-200 AF-S would not be a huge leap forward.

Advice please?
 
Your budget is on the low side - and image stabilisation - VR as Nikon calls it won't help with fast action. Sorry can't be of more help.
What lenses do you have at the moment?
 
andy tims said:
:tumbleweed:

Can nobody offer any advice to a newbie?
Click to expand...

Need several coffees first for this time of the morning :lol:

You looking to buy new or used?

How far away do you think you are going to be when in the stands and how close do you want to get to the action?

Most of us that take motorsport pictures tend to walk around the circuit and try to get as close to the action as possible. For example at Oulton and Anglesey tracks you can get very close and the lens you have would get you some very close action shots.

If you are looking for an upgrade on a limited budget then try the Sigma or Tamron zooms that go to 300mm (think Matt has just got a new Tamron and it is very good).

If your looking at primes then 300mm f4 used again by Sigma, Tamron or Tokina would fall within budget but if the light was dull you would have to start pushing the ISO up.

Other than that if you thinking of fast lens f2.8 either 80-200mm or 300mm then you are pushing up into the £1000+ area.

Have a look in the Motorsport section as there is a mix of lens in there from 50-200mm, 300mm, 100-400mm etc.

On a side note, if you practise your technique and maybe use something like a monopod, you do not necessarily need VR/IS. At the moment I am getting better results shooting with old manual, non AF camera and lens combo than I can with my digital set up with AF/IS etc :bang:

Have fun
 
If you want just one zoom for motorsport my list of suggestions in order of both price and ability would be:

1) Nikon 70-300VR - light, "cheap", VR

2) Sigma 100-300 f4 - not so light, constant aperture, no VR

3) Sigma 120-300 f2.8 - heavy (monopod time), wide aperture, no VR

Its pretty much this list as none of the others are really fast enough to shoot motorsport, unless you want only a 70-200, in which case one of the Nikon 70-200 series of AFS driven lenses would be my suggestion.
 
awp said:
Your budget is on the low side - and image stabilisation - VR as Nikon calls it won't help with fast action. Sorry can't be of more help.
What lenses do you have at the moment?
Click to expand...

It will help massively for panning shots, a technique the OP will want to perfect if he wants to get into motorsport photography. I find IS very useful in general (very good for equine stuff and landscapes where I dont have my tripod!), any hand held shots benefit from IS / VR, and can always be turned off if its not needed.

Choices then. The Nikon 80-200mm F2.8D IF-ED AF Nikkor is very good. NO VR but at 2.8 its superfast, very good lens. £720 at Camerbox. The sigma equivalent is the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO HSM, about £100 less, no VR again but also a 2.8 lens (fast). Both have a short range though, I find 200mm not long enough for motorsport.

Now I'm a Canon man, and I've been looking for something within the 300mm range (ideal for motorsport), but cant find any Nikon fit lenses (new) 300mm and above for less than a grand that havn't been mentioned above! (there probably are, I just dont know that much about Nikon lenses!).

I knew Canon had more telephoto lenses, but I'm surprised at the lack of Nikon fit alternatives.
 
I'd agree that few are published, but we all like to have a dabble :)
 
with your budger I would go for a Sigma 100-300 F4

really good for the money and gives you plenty of range
 
andrewc said:
Panning is overrated. Its not that difficult to do, and if he wants to get published, very few side on pans are actually used.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt say panning is overrated, its just another style of motorsport photography. Personally, I prefer it to using fast shutter speeds as it looks more dramatic, and I probably do 50/50 panning and fast shots at whatever meet I'm at. I certainly get more satisfaction getting a good panning shot! IS definately gives me more keepers in that respect.

But its all down to personal preferences, and its a style the OP might like. Its achieveable without VR / IS but I do find I get more success with IS switched on.
 
I use a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and I’m pretty happy with it, thats mainly because it can be used pretty well for portrait’s, gigs etc aswell so it’s fairly versatile. I have a x1.4TC to go with it but very rarely use it.

200mm is about right for places like snetterton, or brands hatch.

What I would really like would be the 100-400 L that canon do, now thats a nice lens, shame sigma and Nikon don’t make one for that range.
 
At Silverstone a couple of years ago, 300mm was sometimes too short while at Castle Combe recently, I sometimes went as short as 70mm. The VR was very handy for panning (I was using a 70-300 VR Nikkor) and the lens is light enough to use extensively through the day without ending up like Popeye. I was also (at CC) using a 70-200 f/2.8 (not stabilised) but while the extra speed is sometimes handy, at smaller apertures (to drop the shutter speed) the lightness of the VR makes it easier to use. If shooting through fences, the extra stops of aperture (from faster lenses) can be handy to throw the fences further OOF.

At CC, I also used the 150-500 OS Sigma but not for long - too long for the track and too heavy to comfortably use for an extended period.

At the budget quoted, I would go for the 70-300 VR and save the change for tickets to more meetings.
 
andrewc said:
Panning is overrated. Its not that difficult to do, and if he wants to get published, very few side on pans are actually used.
Click to expand...

Yeh I can get a complete blur of a unsharp blob with the best of them, it's not that difficult to do, hmmm, would have to disagree, depends on the type of subject photographing, distance to the subject, speed of subject (yes easy on a slow corner), light conditions, obstructions etc.

As for very few side pans used, its because its not as easy to get a perfect shot with all the right elements in it, a good technique is required, smooth pan. You try and capture a motorbike at 150mph at 1/250 320 sec and get a crystal pin sharp shot, its not that easy to do, thats why togs avoid it because success rate isn't that good, plus its difficult to do with a 500mm lens :D.

As for a motorsport lens, will depend on the track and how close you can get to the action. Anything from a 70-200mm - 600mm lens, depending on barriers, fences assuming that you don't have media accreditation.

Best lens for a nikon would be the 200-400mm f4, but miles outside budget, the 70-200mm variants are good, a 300mm prime meets most requirements, the sigma 100-300mm f4 is an affordable option, but what effects will his Nikon D40 have with no inbuilt focus motor, that would effect his choices.

Peter
 
I forgot to mention the 200-400VR... yeah, that would work :D

Maybe a *little* too pricey and big and heavy and errm overkill!
 
Oh its a doozy, but pricey!
 
andrewc said:
Panning is overrated. Its not that difficult to do, and if he wants to get published, very few side on pans are actually used.
Click to expand...

its true that you are more likely to be published with a head on or 3/4 fast shutter speed shot.. But panning is 100 times harder to get right than a head on or 3/4 shot.
Sitting on a deck chair, with a fat lens and monopod pointing straight at the cars coming towards you at 1/1000th is a piece of ****. Anyone can do that. Thats why I got bored very quickly of it and try to do something challenging.
 
Gary said:
its true that you are more likely to be published with a head on or 3/4 fast shutter speed shot.. But panning is 100 times harder to get right than a head on or 3/4 shot.
Sitting on a deck chair, with a fat lens and monopod pointing straight at the cars coming towards you at 1/1000th is a piece of ****. Anyone can do that. Thats why I got bored very quickly of it and try to do something challenging.
Click to expand...

LOL you are right, I was thinking that the other week actually, but then the challenge is to get a good composition rather than a sharp subject :D

The other thing to consider is that public side of the fence the chances for a head on shot are minimal and that a good pan or action caught in a 3/4 shot are certainly the most likely shot you'll get a chance to take. Some of us on the other side of the fence might forget this :bonk:

Lastly, once again the hit or miss isn't as important as when you are working a job and it does feel good to pull one off, its all skill and not technology.
 
Right - decision made

Upgrading the D40 to a used D90 & getting a Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 from LCE at a reasonable combined price.

I decided to go for a longer, rather than faster lens initially so I can get better pictures even when I can't get that close to the action. I'll keep my Nikon 55-200 AF-S VR for when I can get close, until I can afford to upgrade that to something faster.

Thanks for all the advice.
 
Sorry to hijack you're post slightly.

What lenses can the d90 have that the d40 can't?

Can it be non DX lenses or lenses without built in motors, or both?

Thanks
 
desantnik said:
The other thing to consider is that public side of the fence the chances for a head on shot are minimal and that a good pan or action caught in a 3/4 shot are certainly the most likely shot you'll get a chance to take. Some of us on the other side of the fence might forget this :bonk:
Click to expand...

Head on isn't that hard to do from the public side of the fence, you just have to work at it and be careful where you shoot from. I can think of a couple of places at Oulton, Silverstone, Donington and Spa that you can do a head on shot from.

To get back on topic, I would go for a lens with some for of VR if you can. It makes the whole thing easier, and you can have a play at some extremely slow shutter speeds in the expectation of getting at least a couple. Yes, a monopod does largely the same job, but some people (i.e me) can't get on with them at all, and prefer to hand-hold.
 
Oops! Should have mentioned a couple of things in my earlier post!

At Silverstone, I was using a D70 (1.5x crop) and at Castle Combe I was using a D700 (FF).


jigga1980 said:
Sorry to hijack you're post slightly.

What lenses can the d90 have that the d40 can't?

Can it be non DX lenses or lenses without built in motors, or both?

Thanks
Click to expand...

The D40 can use (and AF with) non Dx lenses - including the 70-300 VR. The D90 can also AF with the (usually older) screw driven lenses using the motor in the body, the D40(x) and D60 need AF-S (Nikon), HSM (Sigma) and other lenses with a built in motor. This motor tends to bump the price up a bit but also tends to speed up the focussing a bit.
 
Not sure where abouts you are but 'CEX' in Northampton have a used D80 for £515. They have had it a while and i am unsure what lens it comes with.

Sorry but i can't help any more that that.
 
^^^ Thanks, but I'd already decided on the D90 - Ken Rockwell kind of ruled out the D80 for me.
 
andy tims said:
^^^ Thanks, but I'd already decided on the D90 - Ken Rockwell kind of ruled out the D80 for me.
Click to expand...

The reason why? it's not a bad camera, and don't take everything KR says literally, you need to read between the lines, a lot of people think he's abit of a joke, if I was making a choice, I would definitely look at a few reviewers opinions before making a decision.
 
Nod said:
The D40 can use (and AF with) non Dx lenses - including the 70-300 VR. The D90 can also AF with the (usually older) screw driven lenses using the motor in the body, the D40(x) and D60 need AF-S (Nikon), HSM (Sigma) and other lenses with a built in motor. This motor tends to bump the price up a bit but also tends to speed up the focussing a bit.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I wanted to know, thanks. Interestingly I didn't know you could a/f on a d40 with some non DX lenses!

I think I might upgrade my kit (when I get a new job) I'm getting to the stage now of getting let down by my kit, although they maybe 'good' photos to most people I know they could be much better with the right equipment. As mentioned in a previous thread about expensive kit, I does take good photo's but in motorsport/low light situations the camera and lenses aren't really best suited to it.

When the time comes I will sell the D40 and lenses, don't see myself using the kit lenses with a newer camera or needing them as spares. Would be a good package for a newbie too.
 
Dx is Nikon's shorthand for their APS-C sensor. Sigma's designation is DC and Tamron's is Di-II. Tokina use Dx as well IIRC. The limitation of the D40 (and 60, 3000 and 5000) is that they need the AF motor to be in the lens, Nikon call these lenses AF-S, Sigma HSM for other makes, check with the vendor.

FWIW, I used to use a D70 for motorsport combined with a 70-300 VR lens and got some great (for me) results. I tend to use panning rather than short exposure motion freezing so fast lenses aren't as important and the 6MP of the D70 (same as a D40, I think) is enough for A3 prints or A4 with a fair amount of cropping if necessary.

My advice to anyone is to buy as good as you can afford and to avoid Dx (or any APS-C) lenses if possible, just in case you move up to full frame (or to film). Another bonus is that an APS-C body will be using the (generally) sharper central image area that a FF lens has.
 
Whilst the D90 is certainly a better camera technically, don't expect much more than subtle improvements in the overall quality of your photos over the D40.

Advantages of D90: more AF points with 3D tracking (although the peripheral points are none too sensitive, the central point is much better for everything, same as D40)
1 stop higher ISO
Slightly better dynamic range
Slightly bigger photos if making large prints
Can AF with non-AF-S lenses
Bigger screen

For viewing on screen, you don't need the extra pixels. For accurate AF, use the central point exclusively anyway. Mega high ISO during daytime is largely irrelevant.

I prefer the D90 in use, over the D40, for those times where you actually prefer a bit more heft and more controls to fiddle with, or in extreme low light. But the photos are none too different.

D40 = smaller & lighter and has twice the battery life, +70-300mm AF-S, I would have thought is a great motorsport setup... just remember to take the kit lens @ 18mm for the parc fermé shots...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top