What lens?

Steve_Farrimond

Steve_Farrimond

Messages
38
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have only one lens a Sigma 18-250 mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM.

I am looking at getting a second lens for Motorsport photography. due to price I have narrowed down to two lens options.

  1. Sigma APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG HSM
  2. Canon EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
obviously the Canon is the superior lens, but at twice the price what would you choose and why?

thanks, Steve
 
I have just sold my 150-500 an bought the 50-500 OS Sigma, last lens and means I don't have to change lens when I am out and about shooting at distance and still want to get a few close ups.

The canon lens is faster than the sigma one listed, but this is why I sold my sigma and went for the other 50-500 OS.

If you have the money buy the Canon one but if not the Sigma is a great lens. plus you might have some money left over for other things :)
 
thanks for the reply, I am happy to go with the Sigma, I like there lenses, I have used a 150-500 and liked it, my only concern is that I might end up hitting the 'F stop' when in low light with its 6.3 at full range opposed to the 5.6 of the canon. do you think this would be an issue?
 
If you can afford to get the 50-500 OS then I would suggest this lens. Lower F stop than the 150-500 and you can get them for sub £1000 now.

I did find it a bit of an issue, but I got around it raising the ISO.
 
thanks for the advise
 
I am sure someone will be able to give you more details on the Canon. I don't have one but have used my dads Canon L series before, It is a nice lens.
 
Canon L glass every time. You'll pick up a secondhand one for around £800. You said yourself it's a better lens and thereby answered your own question. Rule of thumb with glass is buy the best you can afford.
 
What body are you intending to pair it with as this can have a bearing on focus speed etc?

The sigma 100-300 f4 was one of the best lenses I've ever used and a lot of folks would agree... To be brutally honest I've never been that impressed with the images I've seen from the sigmas you mention but that's probably more about the photographers (no offence intended to anyone that uses one, just something I remember when I was looking a couple of years back) rather than the quality of the equipment.

The canon is a solid performer but on the whole primes are much much better in terms of IQ just a bit less flexible but it depends on your style, what you shoot and where you shoot it

If you're not planning to do most of your shooting at donnington or silverstone then the canon 300mm f4 or the sigma 100-300 f4 will serve you better than both your original choices in terms of IQ, both benefit from a constant aperture and cost less (maybe not the canon after googling I remember seeing a non is version which was around 600 looks pretty rare now).
 
Last edited:
I've got a canon 60d
 
Oulton park is my local track.

I plan on photographing cars and bikes. probably more bikes
 
The bike togs will be able to give u better advice but I'd imagine they would recommend 300mm and the fastest glass you can afford... In your bracket that's probably the f4. Oulton is very generous for photographers in terms of fencing and distance .... 300mm on a crop body is probably overkill for the majority of positions.

Personally I'd look for a second hand sigma 100-300 which I've seen go on eBay for less than 500 very recently. In terms of optically quality it's as good if not better than the canon 100-400 and will take a 1.4x reasonably well (just be prepared for manual focus in crap light). Although it doesn't seem like a big gain in focal length over what you already have the quality and speed is night and day

I think these 500mm sigmas are a little bit of a false economy with quite slow glass and somewhat suspect IQ. I spent a weekend at oulton with a 400mm on a full frame body and I found I was too close, your effective reach with a 300 would be a max of 480mm .... Loads lol bikes need a fast shutter generally so your gonna want to keep s speeds high and your ISO low, a f6.* isn't going to help that when that northern weather shows up.

Just my opinion anyway :)
 
Last edited:
i'll have a look at the 100-300 thanks.
 
Before switching to a Sigma 120-300, I used a Sigma 150-300, the difference between it and the Canon 100-400 which my brother in law has, in terms of performance is minimal. The biggest difference is weight, the Canon is lighter, but if you want heavy then my 120-300 f2.8 beats them both :D and it's IQ is superb, at a price of course.

As regards focal length, that depends on the circuit, sometimes long is useful, so if you are keeping your 18-250 I don't see much point in getting a 300mm to be honest. The Sigma 150-500 offers the best bang for buck in my opinion, though the 50-500 is said to be marginally superior (the newer OS version that is).

The Sigma 150-500 at Silverstone
IMG_5215.jpg


IMG_G8568.jpg
 
Last edited:
The main problem with a lot of this sort of glass is the maximum aperture.

Two things to remember about aperture:

1) During autofocus the camera opens the lens all the way up to get the maximum amount of light to "see" its subject.

2) F numbers are not a linear scale, each stop up/down is twice/half the amount of light being admitted to the camera. eg f2.8 is twice the amount of light compared to f4 and the same between f4 and f5.6 and so on.

When you take both of these things into consideration, you can see that focus accuracy, speed and ultimately hit rate has a LOT to do with your glass choice.

You can get a decent shot with any combination, its simply that the chances of you getting a decent shot increase with the better gear. Very few photography disciplines are as dependent on hardware as motorsport.
 
Exactly my thought with an F6.3 at full range
 
I was going to get the Canon 100-400, until I came across a realy bargin immaculate 150-500, so I thought I'd give it a go, and sell it on if i'm not happy.
 
Looks a great buy that lens. I've got the 150-500 today. I'll see how it performs.

If I'm not happy, L series 100-400 or sigma 120-300

Let's see what happens.
 
If photographing cars/bikes, what's the biggest apature you could have and still get enough depth of field to be fully focused on the whole car/bike?

If you went f1.8 for example would part of the car/bike be out of focus due to shallow depth of field?
 
Steve_Farrimond said:
If photographing cars/bikes, what's the biggest apature you could have and still get enough depth of field to be fully focused on the whole car/bike?

If you went f1.8 for example would part of the car/bike be out of focus due to shallow depth of field?
Click to expand...

This is entirely dependant on how far away the subject is..... DOF increases with distance hence the need to stack images when working with macro...

You are unlikely to find anything greater than 2.8 for focal lengths over 200mm, longer lenses at this aperture cost huge amounts as it stands. This is due to the size of the glass required, the weight...not to mention the science involved in creating glass for it. For track photography you will be dealing with lenses with focal lengths in the upper range (200mm+ which command a max aperture of f2.8) rather than the portrait style super fast glass - unless you plan to do the static car park shots or pit work, in which case the same rules as portraiture apply, large aperture, short distance to subject, blur will occur much like it does in any other kind of photography. you simply wont be close enough to the track in the majority of cases to use a lens that has an aperture faster than 2.8 where it will effect DOF in terms of getting a car in focus.



At normal spectator distances to the cars DOF will cover the whole car, some tracks where you can get closer that may drop a little but not enough to worry you.

I.e this is at 560mm at f8 (400mm with a 1.4x so max is f8) - as the driver is closer to me, he span and started walking towards me, you can see there is a dramatic difference in DOF even at f8 between him & the background) - if he was standing on the track and I had taken it with my 200mm 2.8 lens at 2.8 the whole thing would be sharp

Daniil Kvyat by Fireproof Creative, on Flickr

Your main concern will be getting in focus shots due to motion blur and camera shake
 
Last edited:
What he says ^^^^

To be honest, the biggest thing you have to watch with aperture is how your lens (or lens+TC) performs at the extremes of the range.

Some lenses are not good wide open (or if zooms, then not good wide open at particular focal lengths), most systems suffer from diffraction at small apertures and when you add a TC to a lens you need to really stop it down at least one whole stop to start to get consistent results.

But remember, this is me talking about *consistent*, predictable results - you can luck out by chancing your arm and pull a cracker, but I operate for consistency and results :)

Here's some mad as hell shots I took when mucking around with some uber primes back in 2010, this is me experimenting with max aperture:

400mm @f2.8:

2261-1390045513-dcacccb9c28b672d5ccce0378b9ef78f.jpg


950mm @f4.8

2262-1390045558-3fbaa1105a75eba48aebb4af8e9be525.jpg
 
No racing on yesterday so I went off to the local airport (manchester), after using the sigma 150-500 I got a few god shots and felt it was ok/pretty good, I didn't find the zoom to be the smoothest, due to its weight.

I then took a trip to a well known camera shop in manchester and tested an 'L' 100-400, this just instantly felt like it was in a different league. lighter, smaller, quicker and all round better.

Today I got hold of a "as new" 100-400 'L' at a complete steal. had a quick trip around the park before dark and can say i'm looking forward to a trip to Oulton park next Sat.

thanks all for the help

maybe a 70-200 f2.8 next
 
Good luck with your new toy, just remember what I said about not pushing it with variable aperture zooms and you will be fine with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top