What Lenses do you think they were using?

C

cam1986

Suspended / Banned
Messages
815
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
No
Watched the F1 GP yesterday and lots of togs were snapping away as usual and they all seemed to have quite chunky lenses even though they were taking close up shots in and around the Grid walk / pits.

What size lens do you 'think' they use? Its a guess i know but being a novive i was surprised at how chunky they were thinking that for that distance (close up) they would be using a 50mm or similar.
 
Seen alot of canon 17-40 L lenses kicking about, and alot of 1D's
 
See, you guys would know straight away!! lol I don't have a clue.
 
I only spotted them because I have the 24-105L and am looking at getting the 17-40L

And in doing so have inevitably got to know what some of the others are just by looking at the lens sizes etc.
 
Tried to look myself but couldn't work them out. Is the 24-105 f4 L a good alternative to the 24-70 f2.8 L ?
 
Bigger body, faster frames per second etc, the size was a big part of it to be honest as the 500d is a bit small in my hands, stuck a grip on it which helped but prefer the feel of the 40d without the grip.
 
I don't know to be honest I haven't got my hands on it yet lol, it sounds like it is, but it doesn't have hd video.
 
I know for a long time and maybe still today McLaren were teamed up with Olympus, so a lot of the pros working for the team used E-3s with the top pro lenses. Meant they could sit outside in the ****ing rain all day and never worry about rain covers etc.
 
I think a lot of pros will be using the 16-35 rather than the 17-40 tbh.
 
KIPAX said:
Speaking as a very happy 17-40 owner.....Why?
Click to expand...

Err, because it's a better lens? Good as the 17-40 is, the 16-35 mk2 is twice the price of the 17-40 for a reason.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Err, because it's a better lens? Good as the 17-40 is, the 16-35 mk2 is twice the price of the 17-40 for a reason.
Click to expand...

Surely the extra price is because its a 2.8 lens thus making it more useful.. more useful does not mean better if both are being used at f8 for example. Do you think f2.8 is particularly needed in the pits?

Or can you show me how its a better lens other than its more expensive so must be better?
 
The reviews I've seen say the 16-35 mk2 is a better lens, which is to be expected at twice the price. No, it's not twice as good but is, overall, a better optic - it's not just an f/2.8 version of the 17-40. One specific thing I've seen mentioned is that it's a fair bit sharper at the corners at wide apertures.

I also tend to "lens spot" when watching TV and, when the pros are very close up to their subject, I tend to see far more 16-35s than I do 17-40s.
 
Last edited:
I often check out the bodies used on tv progs, ie csi and the like. Sad.
 
Thing is, if i wanted video i would use a camcorder. Not fussy about them being on a DSLR
 
F1 is one of those things that requires a great body and lens combination. Some lenses play nicely on some bodies and not on others etc. You need a foolproof AF system and a versatile range of glass.
 
dd1989 said:
F1 is one of those things that requires a great body and lens combination. Some lenses play nicely on some bodies and not on others etc. You need a foolproof AF system and a versatile range of glass.
Click to expand...

In other words, an expensive kit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top