Motorsport lens (Canon)

[Famous Graham]

There's a possibility I'm going to be doing a LOT of motorsport photography next year and I have a bit of a gap in my arsenal, so to speak.

I've nothing between 105 (24-105 f/4 IS L) and 400 (f/5.6 L)

Anyone got any recommendations in the 200/300 area? This would include press access by the way, so wouldn't be restricted to crowd line distance. It'll also be across multiple tracks so no specific environments to plan for.

Those two lenses above were "only" 600-800 quid each as I recall - I've yet to take the plunge on a 2.8.

The 100-400 IS L is an option too I guess and ditch the 400 L ?

Anyway, after some experienced input if I can, cheers

Oh, partnered with a 1D Mk IIN btw, so 1.3x sensor & EF, obviously.

Edited by Famous Graham on Tuesday 11th December 11:41

[Gemm]

70-200 f2.8 IS + 1.4x?

Edited by Gemm on Tuesday 11th December 11:53

[LotusJas]

Famous Graham said:

The 100-400 IS L is an option too I guess and ditch the 400 L ?

I think you've answered your own question That's what I would do. Oh, and use a 40D for that lens, for the 1.6x crop factor.

Edited by LotusJas on Tuesday 11th December 12:16

[matthew_h]

What about the Sigma 120-300 f2.8?

Cracking lens by all accounts.

[pauljc]

LotusJas said:

Famous Graham said:

The 100-400 IS L is an option too I guess and ditch the 400 L ?

I think you've answered your own question That's what I would do. Oh, and use a 40D for that lens, for the 1.6x crop factor.

Strange to say use a 40D when he already has what is one of the best motorsport DSLRs around. Plus it's £700 that would be better spent on glass. If the light is good the 100-400 IS L would fit the bill. (Never used one myself).

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

matthew_h said:

What about the Sigma 120-300 f2.8?

Cracking lens by all accounts.

if you can find one. It's big and heavy but :-





Not selling mine

[F308 MAN]

Gemm said:

70-200 f2.8 IS + 1.4x?

Edited by Gemm on Tuesday 11th December 11:53

what he said !

(don't sell the 400 prime)

d

[jagdpanther]

70-200 F4/F2.8L is a damn good lens so is the Sigma 100-300mm EX

The latter is very heavy and pretty much only usable on a monopod, but the 70-200 is a light and responsive, sharp & very fast!

[JohnS]

I've got a 70-200 F4 (non IS) which is superb if you can get reasonably close to the track. Sharp, fast focussing, relatively lightweight (worth considering if you have to carry it all day!) and very fast to zoom between 70 and 200. Might be a bit short on 1.3x camera though, so the 1.4x convertor should be considered essential. I understand the 2.8 versions of these lenses are even better, but many times the price.

Here's one I took with the 70-200 at Knockhill:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnsidc/1309826060 - click on the all sizes button for the original/full size.

This photo was taken at 70mm, and I was about 2m behind the barrier at the hairpin at Knockhill, so probably about 8 - 10m from the car itself, and I just managed to get the whole car in frame.

I've also got the 100-400 as well which also gives great results. It's quite a bit heavier and bulkier though, but fantastic for longer range photos and has an IS mode for panning. Really needs to be used with a monopod though for best results, as after a while your arms get sore if you are out of shape like me I've not used it enough to be able to quickly zoom to the right length quickly and accurately every time, due to the push/pull zoom design.

Here's a photo taken with the 100-400@360mm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnsidc/1321322185

Heard great things about the Sigma 120-300, but never used one.

I've seen some superb shots taken with the 300mm 2.8 prime, but that's almost £3k's worth of glass!

If you were visiting Aberdeen, you could easily have a trial with the lenses I have to see if they suited.

John

Edited by JohnS on Tuesday 11th December 16:30

[Luca Brazzi]

70-200 2.8L IS and 1.4x Canon converter. Great for handholding.

OR the 300 2.8L, outstanding lens, and you'd be surprised that you can cover a whole race trackside without a shorter length. Worth the dosh.

LB

[MonkeyHanger]

matthew_h said:

What about the Sigma 120-300 f2.8?

Cracking lens by all accounts.

Spot on, but a touch out of the quoted price range maybe?

Even with a 1.4xTC it's better than the 100-400L....and before anyone asks, yes, i have both

[Famous Graham]

It's not really a quoted price range to be honest, just what I'm used to so far. This is the beginnings of a business so...

Thanks for the input so far folks, I'll review it properly tomorrow. (Today has been "last day before Christmas at work" )

Edited by Famous Graham on Tuesday 11th December 19:13

[Byker28i]

Hum for the budget you'll be pushing a 100-400, although I picked mine up for £600
You'll also be pushing a 70-200 f2.8 as they are about £1k also, however the 70-200 f4 IS falls nicely into your £600-700 range and you can use that with a 1.4x. I have the f4 non IS and really rate it.

Ideally though I agree the 70-200 f2.8 IS, 1.4x & the 100-400 IS as well

[Famous Graham]

Repeat - that wasn't a budget constraint, just what I'm familiar with.

2.5k is probably out though.

[MonkeyHanger]

I'm quite happy to supply a few Hi-Res JPEGs from the MK2N and 120-300 Combo via e-mail if it helps. Web-sized shots don't do any decent set-up justice

[Famous Graham]

It certainly would help, aye - particularly with exif - f/ and shutter obviously. (actually ISO too)

graham AT butlerphotography dot co dot uk

Edited by Famous Graham on Tuesday 11th December 20:25

[Luca Brazzi]

if its the beginnings of a business, THEN DO NOT COMPROMISE. Don't get something that's ok for now, thinking you'll upgrade in the future....you will regret it. You have a top camera, so get the right equipment for it. If that means you don't buy it yet, then wait and save for it.

That means get the 2.8L IS lenses in what ever you buy....as I suggested above.

This is my opinion of course. I got the 16-35 Mk II 2.8L, the 70-200L IS, and the 300 2.8L IS, and the 1D3. The quality and hit rate goes through the roof with decent kit. You must know this. Hope I'm not p1ssing you off....sincerely trying to help you not waste your cash.

LB

[MonkeyHanger]

Famous Graham said:

It certainly would help, aye - particularly with exif - f/ and shutter obviously. (actually ISO too)

graham AT butlerphotography dot co dot uk

Edited by Famous Graham on Tuesday 11th December 20:25

You have a rather large e-mail.

The choice is now yours.

[RobDickinson]

I believe the sigma 120-300f2.8 is the only f2.8 zoom over 200mm. And it has a cracking repuitation.

Else its the 70-200f2.8's or the 100-400 I guess.

[Famous Graham]

Cheers MonkeyH - you're right, they are impressive.

Luca, you're not pissing me off, no I totally agree.

It does come down to the two 2.8s I think - the Canon 300 and the Sigma 120-300.

I had a play with a 70-200 nonIS L at Samhuinn for a minute or two and was impressed but I'm not sure the reach is there.

Think I might have to go a-renting and have a play...