Lens For MotorSport

[PureKiwi]

So i am after a lens for Motor Bike Racing for my D40x

All i Have At the moment is 18-55mm and a 50mm 1.4G

So has anyone got any recommendations for a really good glass
I was going to wait until i get my new camera later in the year to get new lens but i just cant help my self .

[Rick0r]

Define really good versus your expected budget.

This lens is really good. It's also $6k.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/120-300mm-f28-ex-dg-apo-hsm-sigma

it might also be a little out of your price range.

More realistically, look at the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/70-200mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-nikon). I love mine :)

[PureKiwi]

Budget would be around 3k at this point , as i plan to upgrade to a full frame camera around September / october

[Rick0r]

Then go for the Nikkor version (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/)

[Redal]

For that budget id look at a 70-200 f2.8 and a 1.4x TC .

Motor racing photography covers all focal lengths from fisheye to 600mm , i like to shoot tight so id see if could find a 300f2.8 .

[PureKiwi]

Define really good versus your expected budget.

This lens is really good. It's also $6k.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/120-300mm-f28-ex-dg-apo-hsm-sigma

it might also be a little out of your price range.

More realistically, look at the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/70-200mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-nikon). I love mine :)

Is it THIS (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Electronics-photography/Camera-accessories/Lenses/Sigma/auction-285842940.htm) one ?
and THIS (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Electronics-photography/Camera-accessories/Lenses/Sigma/auction-285975223.htm) one

I am talking about the Sigma that you have

[smurff]

that sigma 70-200 f2.8 is the one im looking to get, had a play with one, seemed like it would do a good job.

-smurff

[Analog6]

If your budget is that much, why not go for a Canon 70-200 L non-IS lens, either the f4 or the f2.8? Terrifically fast auto focus and awesome quality. You can manage without IS if you use a monopod for the really fast stuff.

I had the f4 non-IS for a while but sold it on when I got the 100-400, but it was a great lens.

[tomberkley]

I read on this site that the sigma front focuses prity badly.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-70-200mm-f-2.8-DG-HSM-II-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx
apart from that its a good lens

[smurff]

Analog6, http://www.progear.co.nz/product.aspx?p=10862 this canon one?
with these ones you still have to buy the lens hood, which could be up to $100 on top of the lens. and then buy a mono pod if you dont have one lol

-smurff

[talan]

Shot the trackday with my 24-70mm.

Damn a long lense will really help. Im thinking the 70-200 would be a nice versatile lense for trackday and other general uses.

[Rick0r]

Is it THIS (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Electronics-photography/Camera-accessories/Lenses/Sigma/auction-285842940.htm) one ?
and THIS (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Electronics-photography/Camera-accessories/Lenses/Sigma/auction-285975223.htm) one

I am talking about the Sigma that you have

top one..
Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM

It's the lens I used for all of these sports shots (http://www.photographersonline.co.nz/showthread.php?t=719)

[smurff]

top one..
Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM

It's the lens I used for all of these sports shots (http://www.photographersonline.co.nz/showthread.php?t=719)

oohhhh more and more i want to buy that lens, stop it :'(

lol

-smurff

[jackinavox]

not knowing much about sigma lenses.. is that lens stabilised? i.e good for handheld shooting in low light?

[Rick0r]

It unfortunately doesn't have any auto stabilising, ie Canon's IS or Nikon's VR.

[jackinavox]

thanks for the reply, how do you find it in comparison to the canon equivalent (f2.8 non IS) - is the price premium for the canon worth it?

[Rick0r]

The Canon L equivalant is amazingly fast focus seeking and work fantastically in low light, and all the sports photographers and gig photographers I've worked with swear by them, but then again they're getting paid to be there, I'm not :)

For me, who isn't doing it as a full time career just yet, I think the Sigma is more than enough for what I'm after. Sure I have to push the shutter and the ISO sometimes.. I didn't like having to use 1/200 f2.8 ISO400 for sports, or 1/100 f2.8 ISO 1600 for gig photography, but it works.

When I'm making good money (ie, once I get into weddings a bit more), THEN i'll look at getting the more "professional" Nikon/Canon glass. But while it's just a very serious hobby, the Sigma is perfect.

When I was looking, the Nikon/Canon glass was around $3k-4k NZD.. the Sigma was $900.

[jackinavox]

cheers for the feedback.

i am seriously looking at getting it.

an acquaintance of mine who's a a pro recommends the canon f4L version - but not the latest models, he reckons the older ones are superior in build and quality.

hmmm might have to go to a store and try one out.

[smurff]

i have a question, how does as, a lens of F4 with IS compare to a F2.8 without IS?
how does both of these effect the shooting in low light for the lens?

if you get what im trying to ask :)

-smurff

---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

maybe im asking which of the two combinations is better?

-smurff

[Rick0r]

cheers for the feedback.

i am seriously looking at getting it.

an acquaintance of mine who's a a pro recommends the canon f4L version - but not the latest models, he reckons the older ones are superior in build and quality.

hmmm might have to go to a store and try one out.

For sports? If I had the money, I'd get the Canon F4 L 300mm or 400mm. A little out of this price range though.

The theory is that you'll have a pro body too, and it won't matter if you have to push to ISO 800/1600+ to get a decent shutter speed to compensate for the decrease in aperture.

Smurff - Personally i'd prefer f2.8 without IS, for depth of field reasons, rather than light level availability.

---------- Post added at 05:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

Just get one of these puppies (http://www.cameraquest.com/nf3002.htm) ;D

[jackinavox]

good point about the capabilities of the body.

when i started out all i could dial up was ISO1600, but now being able to dial up ISO6400 opens a lot of options with the current slow lenses i have.

ideally, i'd hold out and wait to get the 70-200 f2.8 IS just so i'll never need to upgrade.

[smurff]

what body are you using jackinavox?

-smurff

[jackinavox]

what body are you using jackinavox?

-smurff

have got a 50D, 20D and 450D

[smurff]

ohh, how do you find the 20D and the 450D, i was looking at both of these either one for a backup for my 50D hahah

just steal some experience with them off you before i pick one :P

-smurff

[talan]

I hear the Sigma unit is quite a bit heavier than the Canon 70-200mm equivalent.

Might put some strain on your arms when panning for a whole day's shooting.

[Redal]

cheers for the feedback.

i am seriously looking at getting it.

an acquaintance of mine who's a a pro recommends the canon f4L version - but not the latest models, he reckons the older ones are superior in build and quality.

hmmm might have to go to a store and try one out.

Im not sure if your pro acquaintance has used the other versions.

Yes the f4L is a great lens, but it is not an old version, you can still buy them new,
The F4LIS lens is better because the new IS lets you hand hold at a much slow shutter speed. but a little heavier.
The f2.8L is a great lens which can give you faster shutter speeds than the f4L , and also heavier than the f4L.
The f2.8LIS lens has the best of both worlds you get fast shutter speed and the benefit of IS.

The image quality of all lenses is great and build quality is the same in each lenses. All lenses are sharp wide open.

The f2.8 gives you better DOF control , so separation from the background is better , and i found the f2.8's focus was a little faster .

The thing that the Canon lenses have that the sigma doesnt is a focus limiter, this is a huge plus when shooting in low light.
I have found that the sigma focusing is slow than all the canon lenses, above. And also the sigma paint falls off the edges of the lens even if you just look at it.

My choice in order
Canon F2.8L IS
Canon F2.8
Canon F4 IS
Canon F4 and sigma F2.8

I have owned all the lenses above bar the F4 IS but have used it a couple of times.
Also you could look out for a Canon 80-200L f2.8 ( another great lens )but these are very old lenses. And canon doesnt repair them anymore.

[PureKiwi]

Can someone do a list like Redal has but for nikon

[Redal]

the list would be pretty much the same , but cut out the f4 lenses.

[jackinavox]

Im not sure if your pro acquaintance has used the other versions.

Yes the f4L is a great lens, but it is not an old version, you can still buy them new

i think what he meant was the older lenses (made a few years ago) are superior to the same lens made recently. this is talking about the f4L IS USM.


ohh, how do you find the 20D and the 450D, i was looking at both of these either one for a backup for my 50D hahah

just steal some experience with them off you before i pick one :P

-smurff

while the 450d is newer, it's got less features than the 20d. although my pet hate with the 20d is the LCD is too small once you've been staring at 3" LCD's.

it's very easy to get used to the controls of both, but the layout of the 20d is easier to use i think.

[tomberkley]

i have the f4 70-200 its prity mean,
Dof is really goos at f4, the main downside is hand holding at 200mm gets tricky to get sharp, is possable but takes practice.
depending on how far away you subject is you cant really get too shart images any lower that 1/20 shutter at f4.0 in moderate light.
going up to the f4 IS, the price goes from $1300 for the f4.0, to $2100 for the f4 IS, nearly double. so if you can afford it, its worth the jump. For me i just couldnt warrent the extra $$ just for IS.
I can amagine the 2.8 is another level completely but i havent use eather.

[smurff]

hey all, got a question, in the next monthish i was planing to get a
Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG II HSM
http://www.einfo.co.nz/shop/product_info.php?products_id=10691

but looking at some others i saw the
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens
http://www.einfo.co.nz/shop/product_info.php?products_id=6969

now the canon is slower and has no stabilization, but from what i have heard they have much better auto focus.
the sigma is a faster lens, but im not so sure on how well it auto focuses. it also comes with a lens hood and a tripod mount thing.
i have read some good reviews in regards to the quality of the picture the sigma gives.

any one have any insights or ideas, cheers

-smurff

[jackinavox]

dunno aye, not sure if this is true.. but from experience, possibly true.

if you buy the sigma, there is a chance that it may not work with future canon bodies. something to think about in the future.

are you looking at buying new or used?

i reckon f4L with no IS at about 200mm would be a bit difficult to use, and for motorsport, maybe 200mm is not quite long enough.

[smurff]

i have never thought about if the sigma will work with future bodies, that would really suck.
maybe worth saving for a bit more for a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM.
http://www.einfo.co.nz/shop/product_info.php?products_id=6908

i have been thinking of getting new, as it can be hard to find a good condition second hand lens, they dont often come up on trademe. progear do second hand stuff, but when ever they have what i want, i have no money :( hahaha

i use 200mm atm, it can be a bit short, but i just have to be less lazy and move some were better if need be.

-smurff

[jackinavox]

i should actually rephrase what i said.. the sigma will probably work, but not with full functionality in future bodies. i.e. no AF, won't work in full manual or all apertures etc.

agree with moving around and not relying on zoom. but for motorsport, you can only get so close..

[smurff]

hhmm. . . something to think about i guess, may be better to reduce the risk and get a canon.

i really am looking for a fast lens as i use the longer lens for other things with the 2.8 would be great. possibly getting a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for motor sport could work then i would still have the 2.8 usability for other things?

-smurff

[talan]

Also you should think about resale value. Canon branded lenses should always have higher resale value than 3rd party brands.

I suggest you should rent a 70-200mm f/2.8L for the weekend and have a play to see if you like and it fits the type of photography you will be doing.

Try Topic Camera Rentals (http://www.topicrentals.co.nz/index.php) in Auckland City.

[smurff]

ahh resale is a good point, that never crossed my mind either, i like you guys, full of great ideas !

and i do like the thought of hireing, like you say, will be a good way of trying and seeing if it fits my needs.

-smurff

[tomberkley]

i have heard that, some sigma 70-200 2.8 lenses on canon bodys have focus issues and some dont. because i have considering getting this lens too mainly because its at a good price vs the canon 2.8 70-200.
but i ended up going for the 70-200 f4non is (couldnt afford anymore) and am happy with it.
the L lenses are an art form, and feel so good to use, they just get out of your way and do what there desinged to do.
I will say the 70-200 i have can be a challange to use in certian light conditions because its not exactly fast. But it does make me try harder to get the shot i want, making me a better photographer.
But in good light this lens is amazing and totally worth the 1000 odd dollars i paid for it.

Id go with talan and rent, because its only in using the lenses do you see if its what you want/need.

[jackinavox]

yeah i was really tempted to get the 70-200 f4 but i suck at handholding, a non-IS lens at 70mm, i can only imagine how much harder it would be at 200mm indoors.

so scraping the money and eating nothing but baked beans and going all out on the f2.8 IS, hopefully by october

[tomberkley]

The f4 IS is a really good lens. i kind of cant beleve its nearly twice as much as the non IS, but im sure if i had it now IS would be so worth it.
I hope to trade my non is in for the f4 IS and pay the diffrence. but i dont think i really need to at this stage.
As I have one of the most hand holdable lenses canon make in the 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM.
Mate the 2.8 is serious piece of glass, i just reckon its too heavy. I can underastand pros using it, and if selling pics is your sole income but for a fella like me its would be too hardcore. and i dont beleve itl make anyone a better photographer just by having it.
if your seriously thinking about buying the 2.8 IS they why not just save a little more and go for the 2.8 IS II ..... the skys the limit right.....

[smurff]

had my canon 70-200 2.8 out a puke the other weekend, went very well, had a sigma 2x tele on it aswell, no issues to complain of.
one thing i did find, which im not sure what i can do about. . .
it was a really hot day, and by mid day the track had those heat wave things coming off it which made alot of my long distance photos wavy.
i take it this is something i have to work around and just try to get closer to the action?

-Smurff