Telephoto Lens

[Luke.]

I was at BTCC the weekend and over looking someone taking some good snaps with a Canon 100-400mm lens. Is there anything equivalent for the Nikon? Fair budget just want it to be fairly decent for the money..

ive done a search but can't find anything and my photos are starting to become poor.. Due to light etc..

Also is F2.8 a good lens for panning cars etc and trackdays, general car photography?

thanks

Luke

 

[TheEvilGiraffe]

http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/mcp.php?n=NikonSLRLenses=&mc=30

Go crazy !

 

[ukaskew]

f2.8 in itself isn't that useful for panning etc, but generally speaking a fast bright lens will have better autofocus capabilities (and be sharper), and it opens up the option of adding teleconvertors for extra reach. I'm not sure I get what you mean regarding your photos becoming poor due to light, particularly with panning you could shoot to near darkness even with a 'slow' lens without too much trouble.

The nearest Nikon equivalent is the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6, but if you can live with Sigma (they can be a bit hit and miss) the Sigma 100-300mm f4 is a really nice option.

 

[Mark_P]

Sigmas are definitely hit n miss. I've got their 70 - 300 on a 350D and was struggling in near perfect conditions on Sunday (see the Knockhill track day thread). It's too slow to be of much use, I just consider myself lucky for getting anything at the weekend

 

[dunganick]

Sigmas are definitely hit n miss. I've got their 70 - 300 on a 350D and was struggling in near perfect conditions on Sunday (see the Knockhill track day thread). It's too slow to be of much use, I just consider myself lucky for getting anything at the weekend

In all honesty thats more a reflection of what the 70-300 is like. Even with the Canon 70-300 IS i wouldnt expect to have much luck with it. The Sigma 100-300F4 is really a pro-sumer lens and is a seriously good bit of kit for the cash. As ever there are going to be good and bad copies, but fundamentally it is a very capable lens.

 

[Matt_90]

I think it's wrong to write off third party lenses. I have been using a 70-200mm f2.8 tamron and it's super sharp and hasn't skipped a beat I bought it brand new for 700 ish and I hired a 70-200mm Nikon f2.8 vrII and I can honestly say I am glad I didn't pay he extra cash. The Nikon will excel in places but for the cash it's really not worth it unless you are using it day in day out as a pro.

I would recommend the 150-500 sigma or if you want to go f2.8 try the 70-200 mm sigma or tamron.

 

[MikeoftheQuays]

Nikon 200-400 f4?

Might stretch the budget a bit though...

 

[ukaskew]

I think it's wrong to write off third party lenses.

You just need to be careful. I'm far from picky or a pixel peeper, but the Sigma 120-300 2.8 I owned was a dog, even after a full rebuild by Sigma themselves. The only connection issues I've had have been with Sigma lens. I've gone from being a big advocate of them, to being very cautious. During my Nikon years I owned around 15 different lens at various stages, all the Nikon lens were faultless, the only issues I ever had were with Sigma.

If you get a good copy you're laughing, as Nick says with the 100-300, fundamentally a very solid lens and pretty much unbeatable in its price-range, as they are a relative bargain, but I certainly wouldn't consider a second-hand one any more.

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

The sigma 100-300mm f4 is a cracking lens, and not super expensive compared to the 2.8 pro lenses.

 

[Luke.]

Thanks lads, ill be saving for that one then.. In the mean time I was looking into lens hire and I can hire the Sigma 100-300m F2.8. Will this be along the same like as the F4 and will I still be able to achieve good panning shots etc at that stop?

I hear awesome things about 2.8 lenses but have never tried one on anything other then a macro..

Thanks

 

[Luke.]

Sorry 120-300mm F2.8..

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

I think you're getting a little confused about maximum apertures and panning.
A lens with a larger maximum will have no effect on panning, as unless its super super dark, you'll never be panning anywhere near f/2.8.
As you get better at panning, you'll be using a slower shutter speed, and therefore and smaller aperture.

But of course, lenses with larger maximum apertures are generally much better quality, so will focus quicker etc

But I can assure the Sigma f/4 lens is no slouch at all.

 

[dunganick]

What Dan said ^

F2.8 doesnt really mean squat alot of the time. It doesn't even mean you will have a lens with great autofocus (just look at lenses like the 85 F1.8 or 50 F1.4) It does however give you low light capabilities, this extra light into the camera allows the Camera to autofocus better. It also gives you the ability to seperate the subject using your depth of field.

For what it is worth, alot of professional motorsports photographers still use the 70-200 F4 non IS (canon) for their 70-200 lens, it is considered sharper than the 70-200 F2.8 (IS 1 and non IS version) and weighs next to nothing.

To this day, some of my favourite images were taken on my 100-300 F4 EX DG HSM (canon)

 

[Luke.]

I understand now.. I may hire that lens to see how I get on at an upcoming trackday. Then ill buy that lens...

Those photos are epic.. Thanks

 

[sneeks]

I purchased a immaculate condition used Sigma 100-300 f4 this week for my Sony A77, had a loan of one earlier this year for a few months and fell in love with it. For motorsport photography it has been my favourite lens by far.

 

[Luke.]

Photos look awesome.. This will definatly be the lens ill go for..