WWYD - airshow/motorsport with 6d?

Messages
390
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, i'm not new to photography, dabbled in airshows and motorsports as a hobby, as well as weddings for income for the last ten years. But ive always been a bit indecisive when it comes to equipment so would really appreciate any thoughts and advice on my situation.

Basically, I've decided i'd like to get back in to airshows and motorsports after a couple of years away from it. I've stopped shooting weddings generally now which was the main purpose of the 6d, and at the airshows I used it at last year I started to wonder if it was a bit too much of a compromise, what with the 4.5fps and only the centre point really being capable. That said, I know it is still an excellent sensor at the heart of it, and I only used an ancient 70-210 f4 at the airshows I visited last year, as money was tight. So I've recently been thinking, either sell the 6d and go for an 80d or 7d ii, and pair one of those with a 70-300 IS II, or keep the 6d and get a much better tele lens to go with it? The problem is budget really, which is between £3-400 if I keep the 6d, but also deciding if the 6d will be up to the job. Upgrade body, or concentrate on glass, is the nub of the problem. What would you do?

My current thinking is to keep the 6d and pick up the best tele I can afford in budget, which by the looks of things would be the previously mentioned 70-300 IS II or perhaps a second hand Sigma 150-500mm. But would I be better off going for a crop sensor body paired with one of the above, or will the 6d give me better image quality cropping in with the same lenses? I'm no pixel peeper I just don't want to be disappointed with whatever I sink my money in to, which I have been in the past with other lenses. Although for a time I had a 60d with 55-250 STM and that was a great combo.

Attached is a slightly cropped photo from Farnborough '18 taken with my 6d and 70-210 f4. Take off and landings was all the lens could manage really, due to reach, so i'm wondering if 3-400mm will be enough on full frame to get decent display shots.

Really appreciate any thoughts. Few months to go so no pressure.

IMG_8947.JPG
 
So 52 views and no one replied with any sort of thoughts on this, my take on this would be to hold on to the 6d and purchase the longest lens you can afford, I use the 6d with at times 70/200 and Tamron 300 and find them more than adequate for motorsport and the odd wildlife pics I take, bear in mind the 6d can still be bought new so not obsolete yet.
 
Now my thoughts would be the opposite. The 6D isn't really set up to be an action / sports kind of camera, and with the FF sensor you lose a lot of effective reach which is handy in motorsport and airshow situations. I shoot motorsport with an 80D and it's great. Nice and fast AF and a good burst rate for when it's required. If you sold the 6D and bought an 80D or 7D II your 210mm lens gives you the effective reach of a 336mm lens on your 6D. So you get a more modern body, better sensor, better AF etc and more reach. You can always then upgrade your lenses later as funds allow.
 
So 52 views and no one replied with any sort of thoughts on this,

Firstly it is quite long winded and most people probably did not bother to read it all.
Secondly not many people do aircraft photography, it is very difficult and not many live in the right area to do it.
Thirdly he is talking about crop and full frame and not that many have experience with both or long range telephoto.
Sorry pointless reply but I could not help myself.

I think wait for the Canon 90d to be released and then make changes.
Apparently the 90d will be a big leap over the 80d and it surely will be worth waiting for and saving for if you are an aircraft photographer.
 
Thinking outside the box, why buy a 70-300L when there's the new non-L version (the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM) that's meant to be a fast focusing lens? The only reason I'd go for the current 70-300 L would be for the weatherproofing if I really needed that. If not, then I'd either go for the non L version or ideally try to save up for the Canon 100-400 L Mk2, which by all accounts is meant to be a really good lens. So maybe have a look at some test reviews for the standard EF 70-300 IS II and see what you think, bearing in mind you could use it on a D90 when it comes out, if you decide to get one? The trade in/private sale value of a high-mileage 6D (assuming it got used commercially to photograph weddings) might be a bit of a disappointment to you, so perhaps bear that in mind when you're working out the cost to change.
 
The missus has the new EF70-300mm Nano USM for her 80D. Focusing is insanely fast, faster than my EF 100-400mm II and image quality is comparable. Very good lens IMHO and we got a great deal on it too. It pairs well with her EF-S 18-135mm Nano USM. Would like to get her an EF-S 10-18mm to complete her kit.
 
So 52 views and no one replied with any sort of thoughts on this
IME it typically takes around 100 views to get a response so 52 aint bad.

I have the new EF 70-300mm, a 6D and a 7D ii but I don't do air shows or much motorsport. I mainly use the 70-300 for shooting my son at rugby and normally use the 7D for that and it's plenty good enough for that sort of thing. The 7D isn't as good as the 6D in low light but you are going to get many more keepers with the significantly better AF and higher burst rate, CF slot etc. TBH if it's all about AF and reach I think you would be disappointed if you kept the 6D.

I've never used an 80D so I can't really comment on that but I have to say it is a bit tempting to trade the 7Dii in for one, presumably it is better in low light than the 7Dii because of the newer sensor.
 
The 80D is nice camera, but I wouldn't swap my 7DII for one.
 
Haha sorry it was a bit of a long winded post, I just had lots of thoughts running around my head and wanted to jot them down quickly. It was worth waiting for all these replies though, a nice mixed bag so thanks everyone.

Now my thoughts would be the opposite. The 6D isn't really set up to be an action / sports kind of camera, and with the FF sensor you lose a lot of effective reach which is handy in motorsport and airshow situations. I shoot motorsport with an 80D and it's great. Nice and fast AF and a good burst rate for when it's required. If you sold the 6D and bought an 80D or 7D II your 210mm lens gives you the effective reach of a 336mm lens on your 6D. So you get a more modern body, better sensor, better AF etc and more reach. You can always then upgrade your lenses later as funds allow.

Effective reach is the main pull for me when considering another body but I've honestly never had a problem with the 6d autofocus. The centre point is pretty great even in low/poor light, it locks fast and accurately. I'm not interested in F1 though, mostly drifting, BTCC, and warbirds at airshows, and for those its been fine. At 4.5fps though it is a bit lacking.

Firstly it is quite long winded and most people probably did not bother to read it all.
Secondly not many people do aircraft photography, it is very difficult and not many live in the right area to do it.
Thirdly he is talking about crop and full frame and not that many have experience with both or long range telephoto.
Sorry pointless reply but I could not help myself.

I think wait for the Canon 90d to be released and then make changes.
Apparently the 90d will be a big leap over the 80d and it surely will be worth waiting for and saving for if you are an aircraft photographer.

I had not even considered that the 90d would be released soon, this is a great point and probably a good reason to buy glass now and wait on the body upgrade - I doubt my 6d will depreciate much more.

Thinking outside the box, why buy a 70-300L when there's the new non-L version (the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM) that's meant to be a fast focusing lens? The only reason I'd go for the current 70-300 L would be for the weatherproofing if I really needed that. If not, then I'd either go for the non L version or ideally try to save up for the Canon 100-400 L Mk2, which by all accounts is meant to be a really good lens. So maybe have a look at some test reviews for the standard EF 70-300 IS II and see what you think, bearing in mind you could use it on a D90 when it comes out, if you decide to get one? The trade in/private sale value of a high-mileage 6D (assuming it got used commercially to photograph weddings) might be a bit of a disappointment to you, so perhaps bear that in mind when you're working out the cost to change.

Sorry I should have said I was talking about the 70-300 IS USM II not the 70-300L which I agree there is no reason or need for me to look at. The 70-300 II seems to be an amazing little lens, with excellent reviews all across the internet and youtube. IQ being compared to the 100-400 II makes me think that the 70-300 would be a worthwhile purchase even if cropping images of warbirds of flight. If the detail is superior it makes sense.

So all of that said, I've decided to go for a new lens and leave the body upgrade for another day. In an ideal world the 100-400L II would be on the end of my camera, I can afford it but I really couldn't justify the spend for using a dozen times a year, and more importantly the girlfriend would crack the whip hard! So, I've narrowed my choices down to the Sigma 50-500 OS HSM (scare stories of focus issues putting me off) which would be a brilliantly versatile lens if I got a good one that played nicely with my 6d, or a well used 100-400L Mk I, which could come with its own problems (dust mainly). The 100-400 is really appealing as it seems to be sharp wide open through the zoom range and I love push-pull zoom, but if the 70-300 IS USM II is sharper at 300mm, I'd rather have that with its better nano USM and just crop in. So it seems more research is needed before pulling the trigger, but to conclude another long winded post I'm basically going to decide between the 70-300 IS USM II, the 100-400L I, or the Sigma 50-500mm OS HSM.

Anybody that has used any of these lenses please chime in! :)
 
What SD card are you currently using in your 6D? I recently put a SanDisk Extreme PRO 95 MB/s one in mine and it seems noticeably more sprightly than the one I had in there before, which might help with the buffer rate when using your 4.5 fps? I'd suggested the 70-300 II because of the reportedly fast focus speed, mainly to compensate for the 6Ds fewer focus points, etc. (thinking along the lines that if the camera selects the wrong focus point there may be time to try again if focus is more or less instant!). I'd certainly want to try one against a Sigma or Tamron zoom before I bought one, particularly if using the AI Servo focus tracking setting.

Focus speed and success rate is one thing that makes me cautious about a 3rd party 400 or 500 max focal length zoom (that and compatibility with future Canon camera bodies), I just keep coming back to the Canon 100-400L Mk2 when considering a telephoto zoom, but like you I can't justify the cost for the amount I'd use it. Never mind, you never know, I might get 6 numbers right on the lottery this weekend, then I could have a nice new 5D4 to go with it too! :giggle:
 
Last edited:
Not sure if this will be helpful, but seeing as I went to Farnborough last year and had fun shooting my first proper airshow, here are a couple of thoughts/my experience, and a different lens possibility.

I was shooting full frame, and admittedly using a Canon 5D mark3, so the body is pretty good for focussing.

The lens though was a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 (non IS/OS early version). I've had it a number of years, and whilst it's big and heavy and the focus isn't the fastest, I found it handled the airshow well. I think the wider max aperture also helps with focussing. The plus side with this lens is that it is really sharp and produces some great images.

Example picture of the same plane as in your first post:

3O2A5392 by conradsphotos, on Flickr

The other photos are on FlickR here.

Whilst it's not a cheap lens, you can pick up a used one for not a lot more than your budget. There's currently one on ebay starting at £495. Advanced search on ebay shows several have gone in the past for under £600 and a couple for under £500.

The other point to bear in mind is that with the larger maximum aperture, the lens is very usable with a 1.4x converter attached making it a 168-420mm f4. The last few shots on my Farnborough FlickR page were shot with the Sigma 1.4x converter.

Although not related to your post, the other thing that really helped with shooting the airshow was using a tripod, and the Wimberley gimbal mount I bought just before from the TP classifieds!
 
You have a very similar background in photography as myself all though i mainly focus on aviation and motorsport with the odd wedding thrown in.

As for body if you have a 6d i would keep that and get a zoom to fit too it.

I personally shoot with 5dmk3 and a sigma 150-600 sport and sometimes a tc on that however i used to use a sigma 50-500 which was rather good lens however it did suffer with a bit heavy vinetting in the corners.

Hope this helps
 
Thanks to Conrad and Richie for your replies. Funnily enough I saw a 120-300 f2.8 on MPB for a very good price, and was genuinely tempted to buy it as it would have been useful in a variety of situations, portraits, landscape etc. I decided against it however as it was slightly out of my budget and I just couldn't justify the cost. I would have loved a 150-600c but it was slightly too expensive, slightly too heavy and I couldn't justify it.

So just to give this thread some sort of conclusion...I've always liked finding alternatives to the popular/obvious choices, not just to save money but just out of a genuine curiousity to see what I can do with what might be considered sup-par or mediocre, or dated equipment.

I was all set to pick up a 50-500 OS, but the weight of it and reports of back focus issues was bothering me. So I kept on scouring MPB every day, very nearly pulled the trigger on a bargain albeit well used 100-400L with a late date code, but slept on it and missed out. Then a search on MPB this morning came across the lens I've bought. Now don't laugh, it's the Sigma 135-400 APO DG f4.5-5.6...but I got it for a steal of a price and the few reviews I've found were honest and fair. It's dated but I've used lenses with poor reviews before with great results.

- No OS. Don't need it for my usage. Will be shooting in daylight, mostly panning at speeds of 1/125+, and my 6d has excellent high ISO performance if I need a high shutter speed.

- 1.2kg, perfect weight for hours of shooting outdoors. And well built by all accounts.

- Sharpest at f8+. Perfect for the situations i'll be using it.

- AF is modern, and decently quick.

- Well priced. I paid a quarter of the price of a 100-400L mk1.

- It won't look too different to my 70-210f4 so the girlfriend won't notice :D

I have a feeling this will be a bit of a hidden gem, an underestimated lens forgotten in the shadows of its younger big brothers. And I genuinely enjoy trying to get good results from underrated/forgotten lenses. For example, the little talked about Canon 100-300 USM I used to own. I was astonished by this photo I took back in 2013 at Duxford.

Spring Airshow 2013 by Dan J, on Flickr

So let's see what the 135-400 can do on a modern 6D! Plenty of time to practice before airshow season begins! :)

I might even keep an eye out for a cheap 7d to play around with, then I can avoid switching lenses. And if i don't get on with the 135-400 i'll never lose a penny of what I paid reselling it, and i'll have to spend a bit more.
 
Last edited:
Just a little update to this for anybody coming from the future...sometimes you do get what you pay for, seems to be true with the Sigma 135-400. I took it over to Brands Hatch for a quick test at a track day, the lens was soft at anything over 200mm even at f8+. I have pretty good panning technique but had only a handful of keepers from 200 photos, whereas I took some photos on my old 70-210 and every photo was sharp. So the lens has gone back in exchange for a 150-500 OS which was within budget and has pretty positive reviews. Looking forward to getting it.
 
I already plumped for the 150-500, received it today. I got this for a good price so chose it over the 50-500 OS, plus I have below 150mm covered. Some people say the 150-500 is sharper, but tbh at the 3-500mm end its as much about technique, and i'll probably be the limiting factor for a long time to come. But my god the OS is good!! And from some quick tests it is genuinely a sharp lens, with perfect and quick focus on my 6d. I think you can just tell straight away when you've got a good lens in your hands.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0422-2.JPG
    IMG_0422-2.JPG
    69.9 KB · Views: 6
Back
Top