Which lens for motorsport?

[V8LM]

I was wondering what is the most popular focal length lens people use for motorsport photography. I have a 70-200 f4 already, but am going to Le Mans and wondered whether a fixed focal 300mm or other lens would be better to haul around?

[4hero]

I use both the 70-200 f2.8 and 100-400 at knockhill a lot. The 100-400 is a really nice lens.

What's your budget?

Some example shots with the 100-400, no cropping on these.

[vetteheadracer]

slightly glib answer.....it sort of depends how far away the car is you are trying to capture!

Generally I use my 100-400mm lens but on occasions I use a 24-105mm if I am really close to the subject.

For Le Mans you will definitely need a 100-400mm as you can't get really near to the cars.

[Pixel-Snapper]

Are glad someone started this thread I was going to start one my self.

Im also going to Lemans this year (virgin) and currently dont have a tele zoom, ive been looking at canon options 70-200 and 100-400 latter being abit out my price range.

However im being tempted by the Siggy 70-200mm 2.8f with maybe a 1.4 or 2x tele converter? has anyone used this lense before.

PS body is a croppy so factor that in and the sig would come in about 400 with the convertor as far as i know.

Thanks

[Marc W]

I use a 75-300mm (Canon) and a 170-500mm (Sigma). (And an 18-200mm (Sigma) although thats mostly grid/pit work.) I'd like to get a 500 with more range eventually but it does most of what I want.

Teleconvertors are okay but need a lot of light to get decent shots.

Edited by Marc W on Tuesday 17th February 15:17

Edited by Marc W on Tuesday 17th February 15:17

[Pixel-Snapper]

Marc W said:

I use a 75-300mm (Canon) and a 170-500mm (Sigma). (And an 18-200mm (Sigma) although thats mostly grid/pit work.) I'd like to get a 500 with more range eventually but it does most of what I want.

Teleconvertors are okay but need a lot of light to get decent shots.

Edited by Marc W on Tuesday 17th February 15:17

Edited by Marc W on Tuesday 17th February 15:17

Hi Marc

would you be able to post some samples of the 170-500 siggy this looks interesting and in my range although it lacks the 2.8 of the 70-200?

by the way some excellent stuff on your flickr sent you a contact request if you dont mind.

[Marc W]

Here are some samples; (all as taken with no editing or cropping at all.)







It does struggle a bit in low light but I find I can work around it most of the time. Ideally I would like something faster but I am on a low budget!

Edited by Marc W on Tuesday 17th February 18:02

[LukeBird]

Is that the Sigma 170-500 Marc?

[Marc W]

It is. Mines not even the current model but a slightly older one that I picked up secondhand, as I said earlier I'm on a low budget! Anyway it's not just about the equipment it's how you use it!

[V8LM]

Thanks for the replies, and some lovely photos. I was thinking of hiring a 28-300 as a one-stop solution, but wonder whether being f/3.5-5.6 it'll be fast enough - if LM is like it was 2 years ago I'll have to stick to an f1.2 50mm.

[GravelBen]

I use a (Nikon) 80-200 f/2.8, tried a 70-300 f/4-5.6 but really didn't get on with it so sold it again. Probably doesn't help you much if you're a Canonite though.

Edited by GravelBen on Wednesday 18th February 08:41

[Rotten Egg]

Marc W said:

It is. Mines not even the current model but a slightly older one that I picked up secondhand, as I said earlier I'm on a low budget! Anyway it's not just about the equipment it's how you use it!

Marc,

Any chance of posting the exif data for the shots above - especially the BMW.

I'm interested to see what settings you used.

I've had the 170-500 for a few years and was extremely happy on 35MM (EOS 50E) but have never been totally happy on DSLR body - 20D and now 40D. Shots always seem a little soft for my liking.

So much so, I was now toying with trading my 70-200 F4 and the 170-500 for a 70-200 F2.8 and maybe a 1.4x converter.

Cheers,

Simon

[AstonZagato]

Are we talking digital or 35mm here?

[RobDickinson]

Pixel-Snapper said:

However im being tempted by the Siggy 70-200mm 2.8f with maybe a 1.4 or 2x tele converter? has anyone used this lense before.

I have a sigy 70-200f2.8 and 2.0tc

For sport/motorsport if i had it I'd stump up the extra for the 100-400L, without doubt.

I have the sigy because it gets me a good 70-200 and it was 1/3rd the price of the 100-400 (used) including the TC.

It can take an excelent pic at 400 but is soft at f5.6, f7-f9 its fine, no IS so tripod/monopods are a good bet.

Autofocus is slower and mot as accurate as the canon and much poorer tracking IMO.

I you want a 400mm lens buy a 400mm lens! I'll be happy to post example shots if you want.

[Pixel-Snapper]

~Thanks for the advice rob,

examples would be most kind?

[RobDickinson]

Pixel-Snapper said:

~Thanks for the advice rob,

examples would be most kind?

Thes shot at 400 with the 2.0tc, 1st at f5.6 I think, rest stopped down, tripod mounted:







And 100% no processing crop from that:



Some sport with the 70-200 + tc, mostly high 300's (and slight crops):

Edited by RobDickinson on Monday 9th March 19:21

[Pixel-Snapper]

Thanks for that Rob IQ looks fine to me with my budget the canon is just too much.

Still on the hunt on flebay....

[Marc W]

Rotten Egg said:

Marc,

Any chance of posting the exif data for the shots above - especially the BMW.

I'm interested to see what settings you used.

Apologies for not replying to this sonner, I somehow missed it. I will try and add some EXIF details to my original post when I get in from work tonight.