Lens for Sports/Motorsports

[f0xy]

Ive been searching on here for what people are using for motorsport/sports photography, but cant really get a definitive answer...there seems to be mixed opinions......i have a 350d, after say a 70-300mm, should i go canon, or sigma? or something else?

thanks!

 

[Sym0n]

Depends on your budget. If you have the money then I'd say the Canon 70-200mm F4L with a 1.4x as it's an uber lens. But if, like me, your budget is more restrictive then I'd highly recommend the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG. It's nice and sharp but not the fastest focusing lens in the world.

If you want to try mine out before buying your own give me a shout.

 

[Andy.]

The tamron 70-300 also gets decent reviews. Might be worth looking at.

Second hand 70-200 F4 might also be worth looking at. They are a cracking lens.

 

[Rich]

All down to budgets. Focal length of 300mm will be required a lot of the time.

I started off with a budget Sigma 70-300, upgraded to a Canon 70-200mm f4L and added a 1.4 extender and then got a 300mm f4L which I still find too short in some situations so use it with the 1.4.

 

[Sym0n]

Rich have you got any samples of your 300mm F4L with the extender tube on? Is it losing any sharpness?

 

[Lee]

I've been using the Canon 70-200m f4L with 1.4 extender when required. I love it.

Took most of these with it, none are cropped or adjusted in PS: http://www.rapidpants.com/images/gallery/motors/2008/WSR/index6.html

 

[Laura]

sy, want to lend me yours for BTCC onm the 27th july??

love you

 

[Sym0n]

Ginge,
Lend you my what?

 

[Laura]

your long one

 

[dunganick]

My recomendation would be to not skimp.

Buy a fast lense.

I use a sigma 100-300 f4 for all of my work.

If you can strech the canon 100-400 L would be the best option.

Other lenses worth looking at are canons 70-200 F4 IS L


Heres an example of the sort of images my 100-300 will produce without too much effort.

 

[Sym0n]

your long one

If I don't need it that weekend, although the 27th rings a bell for me, then ok. On the you break/scratch/get wet you bought terms.

Remind me closer to the time and I'll let you know if I've got something on.

 

[f0xy]

ok so really im looking at a canon 70-300 or sigma 70-300, im going to get £250 for my 10-20 sigma, so i have around that to spend.

I dont see why say a canon 70-200 is more expensive? or a 100-300 is expensive again? why is this?

 

[Rich]

Rich have you got any samples of your 300mm F4L with the extender tube on? Is it losing any sharpness?

Does not seem to lose and sharpness, maybe losses a touch of AF speed.

Will need to look though some pics to see EXIF data as to what where shot using.

From memory these where using the 1.4 on it though.

http://www.richtreen.co.uk/events/cc_march_test_2008/

 

[f0xy]

just a quick one, what am i missing here?

Canon 70-200mm f4L...
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-CANON-EF-...269148208QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item250269148208

Canon 70-200mm f4L...
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/New-Canon-EF-...271517319QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item320271517319

is the price difference because the latter has image stabiliser?

 

[Rich]

Yeap the IS is what makes it more beer tokens.

 

[f0xy]

would you recommend only getting the 70-200 with the IS? or will it not make any difference to me? As i could pay upto circa 350 if it was going to be worth it for a 70-200 NON IS, then use a 1.4x if i wanted to go slightly longer?

 

[Rich]

If it pretty much for m/sport use in good light the IS is not that helpful as it is such a light lense so easy to hand hold. If you will be using it for other things it is a useful addition. My 300mm has it and I do use it.

I would rather get the non IS one and a 1.4 over a 70-200 with IS.

 

[dunganick]

IS does help, but most dont use it in anything apart form the worst light.

My 100-300 doesnt have OS and its fine 99% of the time.

 

[Keydogg]

would you recommend only getting the 70-200 with the IS? or will it not make any difference to me? As i could pay upto circa 350 if it was going to be worth it for a 70-200 NON IS, then use a 1.4x if i wanted to go slightly longer?

Have you thought about the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8? No IS but at only £440 its an absolute BARGAIN.

 

[GaryS]

would you recommend only getting the 70-200 with the IS? or will it not make any difference to me? As i could pay upto circa 350 if it was going to be worth it for a 70-200 NON IS, then use a 1.4x if i wanted to go slightly longer?

Have you thought about the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8? No IS but at only £440 its an absolute BARGAIN.

Based on my own experience the Nikon fit version of the Sigma 70-200 doesn't compare to Nikon's own 70-200 lens in terms of sharpness and AF speed in tracking mode.

 

[Sym0n]

would you recommend only getting the 70-200 with the IS? or will it not make any difference to me? As i could pay upto circa 350 if it was going to be worth it for a 70-200 NON IS, then use a 1.4x if i wanted to go slightly longer?

I'd personally opt for the non IS with a 1.4x and a decent Monopod. Save some pennies.

Have you been down to Calumet in Manchester? It's not the cheapest place but they have a s**t load of knowledge and seem to stock everything, which they are happy to let you have a play with. Best to try before you buy, even if that's just in a carpark lol.

 

[f0xy]

yeah im going for the 70-200 F4L Non IS.

thanks for the info i might nip up there later

 

[Sym0n]

Good choice. I'd spring for a UV Skylight filter too. But that's just personal preference. Let us know what deal you get on it, I'm after one too .

 

[Andy.]

I am selling mine but it wont be worth you buying it and paying for postage from here..... damn!

 

[f0xy]

selling a 70-200 F4L non-is? how much...?

 

[Andy.]

Going rate over here is 450-500 Euros. Will be going with B&W CPL and UV, Crumpler lens bag too so I am going to stick it on for 550 and see what interest I get.

Sadly I have to trade it in to be able to get the 100-400 or the wife will get the hump. They are an amazing lens though, incredibly sharp and nice an light too!