Which one would you go for?

M

minimadgriff

Messages
201
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Gut instinct say Sony for me. Have you checked the reviews at dyxum?
 
I think the other members are suggesting a lens with F2.8, and having a Sony camera limits you unless you have £4000 to spend on the Sony 70-300mm. Having looked up other lens makers for the lens speed and distance there doesn't appear to be anything really suitable.

An f2.8 lens lets in more light than a f3.5-f5.6, so you can use a faster shutter speed which allows a photo to be frozen more.This is why f2.8 to-f 1.2 etc are called "fast lenses". In truth they are not "fast lenses" but appear to be so due to faster shutter speeds.

Due to the lack of range of lenses with makes like Sony is one of the reasons why Nikon an Canon are more popular.

Hopefully this will help you understand lenses a bit more.

Realspeed
 
realspeed said:
I think the other members are suggesting a lens with F2.8, and having a Sony camera limits you unless you have £4000 to spend on the Sony 70-300mm. Having looked up other lens makers for the lens speed and distance there doesn't appear to be anything really suitable.

An f2.8 lens lets in more light than a f3.5-f5.6, so you can use a faster shutter speed which allows a photo to be frozen more.This is why f2.8 to-f 1.2 etc are called "fast lenses". In truth they are not "fast lenses" but appear to be so due to faster shutter speeds.

Due to the lack of range of lenses with makes like Sony is one of the reasons why Nikon an Canon are more popular.

Hopefully this will help you understand lenses a bit more.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

Sorry but thats wrong.

The reason an f2.8 lens is faster is because it lets in more light when you are focusing so allows the camera to do its magic faster. That means it will focus on a moving object much faster than an f5.6 lens. When you click the shutter it will drop to the aperture size required which is often around f8 or f11.

I’ve got a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 for my D300 and if I put a teleconvertor on then the focus speed slows down slightly.

Try and go for a f2.8 lens but only if you think the money is worth it.
 
minimadgriff said:
Im confused. When you say too slow, surley thats ok for motorsport as you need to use a slower shutter speed to give the effect of the car moving? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?
Click to expand...

You want a lens that will focus as fast as possible for motorsport.

Thats what you get with f2.8 lenses. The downside is the faster the focus speed the more expensive the lens :thumbs:
 
At the end of the day its down to what you can afford. For motorsport the lens is important, but so is the camera body as well. All to do with AI Servo (re focusing), and shutter lag times......

Yes you could recommend the Sony 300mm f2.8 at over £4000, that would be a perfect lens, or the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 at about 1/2 that price, but at the end of the day it's down to what the OP can afford.

Yes you can take motorsport images with a f5.6 lens, just ask the large number of TOGS with the canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 what is the limiting factor that everyone seems to have missed is that its all down to the light conditions. If the conditions are good, a f5.6 lens could take just as good an image as a f2.8 lens, the f2.8 lens might aquire the image quicker, but if your taking 1 image rather than a burst, the differences are minimal for general prints and web images. However, if the light conditions start to fall off, then you will notice this gap in image quality widen as the slower lens struggle to focus in time. Yes you can increase ISO to keep you range of shutter and aperture settings somewhere where you need them, but you're then effected by noise and the limitations of your camera body.


So as long as the OP understands that yes the sigma 120-400mm will get you motorsport shots, there are limitations to how well it will capture images when the light conditions ain't perfect (i.e those usual grey overcast skies we see most days in the UK)

I've successfully taken motorsport images, aviation, lowfly with a 300mm f4 prime lens, may images with a 1.4X TC connected and that certainly does effect autofocus speeds, but have still produced good results.
 
minimadgriff said:
so the "F" is how fast it focuses not how much light it lets it?

Thanks everyone for your replies sofar.
Click to expand...

It's both. The lower the 'f' number then the more light it lets in so you can shoot in lower light levels. Generally lower aperture lenses will also focus much faster aswell.

Pop to your local camera shop whether it be jessops or an independant and ask to try out a Sigma70-300mm f4-5.6 and the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and see how fast they both focus, then ask to try a canon L 70-200mm f2.8 and that will focus even faster. Now just imagine your at the track and you've got a car coming towards you at about 100mph, can you afford to have a slow focusing lens now?
 
pete.rush said:
At the end of the day its down to what you can afford. For motorsport the lens is important, but so is the camera body as well. All to do with AI Servo (re focusing), and shutter lag times......

Yes you could recommend the Sony 300mm f2.8 at over £4000, that would be a perfect lens, or the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 at about 1/2 that price, but at the end of the day it's down to what the OP can afford.

Yes you can take motorsport images with a f5.6 lens, just ask the large number of TOGS with the canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 what is the limiting factor that everyone seems to have missed is that its all down to the light conditions. If the conditions are good, a f5.6 lens could take just as good an image as a f2.8 lens, the f2.8 lens might aquire the image quicker, but if your taking 1 image rather than a burst, the differences are minimal for general prints and web images. However, if the light conditions start to fall off, then you will notice this gap in image quality widen as the slower lens struggle to focus in time. Yes you can increase ISO to keep you range of shutter and aperture settings somewhere where you need them, but you're then effected by noise and the limitations of your camera body.


So as long as the OP understands that yes the sigma 120-400mm will get you motorsport shots, there are limitations to how well it will capture images when the light conditions ain't perfect (i.e those usual grey overcast skies we see most days in the UK)
Click to expand...

Thanks for that! That really helped me understand it abit more. When I was Brands afew weeks ago with my SAL18-200 I really struggled in the crap light conditions and now I understand why. The body I have is a Sony A350.

To be honest I don't really want to be spending more than £600 on a lens as this is just one of my many and expensive hobbies.
 
Dal said:
Now just imagine your at the track and you've got a car coming towards you at about 100mph, can you afford to have a slow focusing lens now?
Click to expand...

Depends if its sunny or overcast :D

If you don't have the right conditions to take the image it doesn't really matter how fast your lens focus's

Not every one has the $$$$ to kit themselve out with expensive lenses, especially has its just a hobby, not a living....
 
pete.rush said:
Depends if its sunny or overcast :D

If you don't have the right conditions to take the image it doesn't really matter how fast your lens focus's

Not every one has the $$$$ to kit themselve out with expensive lenses, especially has its just a hobby, not a living....
Click to expand...

An f2.8 lens will work better when its overcast than a slower lens.

At Brands hatch one time I was shooting the last race with no problems and my mate with an f5.6 lens had to stop as the light was dropping too much so it does make a difference. I shot for an extra 30mins after my mate gave in.

The OP has linked to lenses costing about £700. I am using a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 which cost me £630 so I'm not suggesting they go and spend a few grand, I'm looking at the same price range.

I'm just trying to help him understand before he parts with his cash. I know I struggled to understand it all when I was looking.
 
Dal said:
An f2.8 lens will work better when its overcast than a slower lens.

At Brands hatch one time I was shooting the last race with no problems and my mate with an f5.6 lens had to stop as the light was dropping too much so it does make a difference. I shot for an extra 30mins after my mate gave in.

The OP has linked to lenses costing about £700. I am using a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 which cost me £630 so I'm not suggesting they go and spend a few grand, I'm looking at the same price range.

I'm just trying to help him understand before he parts with his cash. I know I struggled to understand it all when I was looking.
Click to expand...

I understand now about the "F" and light which is all good :thumbs: I'm finding the 200mm a limiting factor which is why I was looking at longer lenses. But now I see why I was having so many issues with quality and sharpness at Brands.

I don't know what to bloody get now :lol:
 
minimadgriff said:
I don't know what to bloody get now :lol:
Click to expand...

Distance, Sharpness and low light capabilities simply cant be done on the cheap (700 quid is cheap) So you ahve to lose one or two... A suggestion is the 70-200 but that loses the distance but is fast and sharp.. an excellent lens..

The three lens you list would all need decent lighting conditions..

you cant have it all without spending money so you ahve to decide whats more important and what bit your going to miss out on.. distance, sharpness or ability to shoot when lighting isnt brillaint..

In this country with dark winters and poor summers I wouldnt be looking at f5.6 lens.. personally :)
 
A 70-200mm f2.8 lens is all well and good to get you shots in low light conditions, but unless you have media accrediation, most of us are on the wrong side of the fence and a 70-200 just won't cut the mustard distance wise. As the OP said thats why he's wants a 400mm lens.

OK at certain parts of Brands, Cadwell etc thats all you need, but Silverstone and other parts of Brands, the minimum is 400mm because you have obstructions in the way like safety barriers and fences even if you have step ladders.

I have the 70-200mm f2.8, I also use the 300mm f4 and now have the 300mm f2.8 plus 1.4x TC and shot with a 1D MKIIn and 20D.

I think the 70-200mm is too limited at most of the current tracks in the UK unless you can get media accrediation and get closer to the action.

Personally, if the conditions are poor, the images lack detail, I'm not getting paid to take images, so the camera goes away and I watch the action.
 
minimadgriff said:
Thanks everyone for your input sofar.

Do you think it might be wiser to get a 70-200mm 2.8 and then add a teleconvertor? Or do they effect image quality?
Click to expand...

Not the 1.4x TC, but they significantly hit the autofocus speed and you lose a f-stop of light making the combo a 98-280mm f4 lens.

For majority of race circuits 200mm ain't long enough. You might get away with the focal length on small parts of the track, but overall you will be limited on focal length. Most of my shots have been taken with a 300mm and TC giving me 420mm focal length on a 1.3x crop sensor body.

Have a look at the Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX IF DG Lens. If sharp, constant f4 through out the zoom range, only abit extra on the money £814, will take a sigma TC to increase the focal range and sits between your longer (slower) zooms and the 70-200mm f2.8 personally a better choice

http://www.parkcameras.com/12283/Sigma-100-300mm-f4-EX-IF-DG-APO--Sony-Fit-.html
 
£600 would get you a tamron 70-200mm f2.8 or for £700 a sigma 70-200mm f2.8 at jessops. i wouldnt buy that 70-300mm from WEX though because £729 is awfully expensive compared to £599 at jessops.
 
mastertrinity said:
£600 would get you a tamron 70-200mm f2.8 or for £700 a sigma 70-200mm f2.8 at jessops. i wouldnt buy that 70-300mm from WEX though because £729 is awfully expensive compared to £599 at jessops.
Click to expand...

200mm is too short tbh. I am finding it abit of an issue as i am having to crop heavily.

I saw Jessops was cheaper just used WEX as I was on there when I started the thread :thumbs:

Jessops is dear on the Sigma 100-300mm F/4
 
How about hiring out 2 or 3 of the lenses suggested, try before you buy. Personally, I still think 70-200 is way too short for motor sport as a general lens, at least it'll give you some idea of which one fits your needs without too much outlay....

I can't vouch for any of these sites if they are any good, but that was just a quick search on google

http://www.hireanalphalens.co.uk/
http://www.photostore-uk.com/Sony/sony-lens.htm
 
pete.rush said:
How about hiring out 2 or 3 of the lenses suggested, try before you buy. Personally, I still think 70-200 is way too short for motor sport as a general lens, at least it'll give you some idea of which one fits your needs without too much outlay....

I can't vouch for any of these sites if they are any good, but that was just a quick search on google

http://www.hireanalphalens.co.uk/
http://www.photostore-uk.com/Sony/sony-lens.htm
Click to expand...

I definatley won't be getting a 200mm as thats what I am using now. needs to be at least 300mm.

Ben
 
As for the sigma 100-300mm, you're right the sony and pentax versions don't have the HSM, this will probably effect autofocus speed (not sure can't find a review of the non HSM version), but optically the lens is still one of the best sigma produces.
 
I'm a newbie to this whole DSLR business and I'm not sure what the Sony camera is like..

However in the morning (quite dark and overcast) the other day I got pretty ok results with a 135-400mm sigma, not the newest the older, that only goes up..down..? to 5.6 on full zoom. However they did need some PP to make the best of them - if you can't PP it's a bad option.

The noise was a bit heavy but this was at 5AM it was pretty dark!

By about half 6 it was still quite dark and I was photographing birds at 1/800s f/5.6 and ISO of about 2400, and it was much darker than an overcast day, and while the results may not have been professional enough for prints they were perfectly good for normal things (excluding my shakey hand!). Again needed a little PP but only basic and noise was much lower too.

Obviously you'd get better results with a £2000 lens but as that's not an option, I actually think a f/5.6 would be fine. Just IMHO.

This is their newest all singing all dancing 150-500mm http://www.parkcameras.com/11457/Si...ogle&utm_medium=froogle&utm_campaign=pid11457 - that would give some reach and says it's f/5 (though not sure if it'd do that at full zoom?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top