Goodwood circuit first timer -what lenses to take?
Discussion
I'm off to the Members Meeting on Saturday - surprisingly, it's my first time at the circuit for a race meet, so I've no idea what the access is like / where to take the best shots from, and in particular (given I'll be lugging it around all day) what kit to take with me?
Can anyone offer some advice / experience, please?
(I've got a cropped and a full-frame body and plan to take both, and I've got 17-40, 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400 lenses, alongside a 50mm prime. Planning to leave the 17-40 at home, debating whether I'll use the nifty-fifty, in particular wondering which of the zooms I should take / how far away from the action I'll be)
Can anyone offer some advice / experience, please?
(I've got a cropped and a full-frame body and plan to take both, and I've got 17-40, 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400 lenses, alongside a 50mm prime. Planning to leave the 17-40 at home, debating whether I'll use the nifty-fifty, in particular wondering which of the zooms I should take / how far away from the action I'll be)
Simpo Two said:
I'd take the crop body, the 17-40 and the 70-200.
Nice lightweight setup thereMyself I'd lean towards the full frame, and have the 24-70 & 100-400. - but pretty much same line of thought for coverage.
Actually, theres a good question - out of the OP's two cams, the APSC and the Full frame, which one has the faster burst shooting modes? That'll be the one for getting those long lens motorsport shots for sure
I'm happy to take both bodies - the R7 has the better burst capability and (when you give it time to lock-on) the better AF / subject detection).
The 5D has a lovely sensor and it makes the 24-70 properly usable.
...so usually I have the 24-70 on the FF 5D and a long lens on the R7. Quality wise the 100-400 wins, but for weight carrying it all-day and for panning up-close I'm nervous the 100-400 might not be the right choice. Or I just put my big-boy pants on and take both.
The 5D has a lovely sensor and it makes the 24-70 properly usable.
...so usually I have the 24-70 on the FF 5D and a long lens on the R7. Quality wise the 100-400 wins, but for weight carrying it all-day and for panning up-close I'm nervous the 100-400 might not be the right choice. Or I just put my big-boy pants on and take both.
havoc said:
Ibut for weight carrying it all-day and for panning up-close I'm nervous the 100-400 might not be the right choice. Or I just put my big-boy pants on and take both.
That's why I chose the crop body, so the 70-200 effectively goes to 300mm. So you have a telephoto zoom for cars whizzing past on the track, and then good wide-angle/general purpose lens for close stuff, pits etc.Taking both is not only a lot of clobber to work quickly, but when I tried shooting a wedding with crop + FF bodies and two sets of lenses that didn't fit together it was an experience I didn't wish to repeat.
As well as the point about fps, which camera has the better focus tracking? Seems the R7. If all your racing photos come out focused a yard behind the car you'll be annoyed!
Indeed.
The R7 I have a love/hate relationship with - when it works it's very good, but given it was marketed as an 'action/sports camera', the software is frustratingly slow at times, particularly to ID and lock-onto the subject you want to shoot. s
t for bird photography, hit-and-miss (literally) for cars and planes.
With the 5D it's straightforward - I just have to be smooth and keep the focus dot on the subject.
With the R7 I have to be patient for it to acquire the subject, THEN it compensates for my hands not being perfectly smooth all the time.
I'm used to lugging two bodies around (still fit enough (can't say young enough anymore!
) to manage that), but in most circumstances one stays in the bag while I'm using the other.
The headache scenario - as you suggest - is realising I need 70mm for panning right in front of me but 400mm+ to reach-out a long way to capture something head on / far away (and needing very different shutter speeds), as then I'm juggling two cameras with two big lenses.
The R7 I have a love/hate relationship with - when it works it's very good, but given it was marketed as an 'action/sports camera', the software is frustratingly slow at times, particularly to ID and lock-onto the subject you want to shoot. s
t for bird photography, hit-and-miss (literally) for cars and planes.With the 5D it's straightforward - I just have to be smooth and keep the focus dot on the subject.
With the R7 I have to be patient for it to acquire the subject, THEN it compensates for my hands not being perfectly smooth all the time.
I'm used to lugging two bodies around (still fit enough (can't say young enough anymore!
) to manage that), but in most circumstances one stays in the bag while I'm using the other. The headache scenario - as you suggest - is realising I need 70mm for panning right in front of me but 400mm+ to reach-out a long way to capture something head on / far away (and needing very different shutter speeds), as then I'm juggling two cameras with two big lenses.
havoc said:
THEN it compensates for my hands not being perfectly smooth all the time.
Would a monopod help? More kit to carry though!havoc said:
The headache scenario - as you suggest - is realising I need 70mm for panning right in front of me but 400mm+ to reach-out a long way to capture something head on / far away (and needing very different shutter speeds), as then I'm juggling two cameras with two big lenses.
Could be worse!Simpo Two said:
havoc said:
THEN it compensates for my hands not being perfectly smooth all the time.
Would a monopod help? More kit to carry though!As for the image - can't be me - too much hair!
I took both long lenses, and I'm glad I did.
It was a bit of a slog at times with the extra weight of the 100-400, but it gave me a lot more options for head-on / other longer shots, and the 70-200 was definitely the right lens (on a cropped sensor) for some corners where you're genuinely close to the cars (at Madgwick and Lavant I was at low/mid-100's for panning, but at Woodcote and by the chicane I was right down at 70).
I think the right lens for Goodwood is probably a 70-300 on a crop / 100-400 on a FF...there are occasions where extra reach beyond that may be useful but on a sunny day you'll suffer from heat haze out that far, unless you really want a detail shot.
Only have a few thou photos to go through now...
It was a bit of a slog at times with the extra weight of the 100-400, but it gave me a lot more options for head-on / other longer shots, and the 70-200 was definitely the right lens (on a cropped sensor) for some corners where you're genuinely close to the cars (at Madgwick and Lavant I was at low/mid-100's for panning, but at Woodcote and by the chicane I was right down at 70).
I think the right lens for Goodwood is probably a 70-300 on a crop / 100-400 on a FF...there are occasions where extra reach beyond that may be useful but on a sunny day you'll suffer from heat haze out that far, unless you really want a detail shot.
Only have a few thou photos to go through now...
havoc said:
I think the right lens for Goodwood is probably a 70-300 on a crop
Which is exactly what I have 
By going from 70-200 to 70-300 you'll lose that nice big f2.8 aperture of course but it doesn't really matter at that range for DOF and these days there's plenty of ISO if you need more shutter speed.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff