ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.

Lens for Sports/Motorsports



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!
 
  Bus w**ker
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.
 
  Cupra
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.
 
  106 GTi
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.
 
  Bus w**ker
Rich have you got any samples of your 300mm F4L with the extender tube on? Is it losing any sharpness?
 
  Oil Burner
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.

304024538_Pz8hB-L.jpg
 
  Bus w**ker
your long one :p
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
  106 GTi
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.
 
  Oil Burner
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.
 
  2014 Focus Titanium
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.
 
  Rally bus
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.
 
  Bus w**ker
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.
 
  Bus w**ker
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 ;).
 
  Cupra
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!
 


Top