Lens for Motorsports/Zoo/Wildlife

[kozmix]

Hi, i'm spending my last weeks thinking about the best options on canon lenses for motorsports, zoos (including portraits) and wildlife. Currently i have the canon 10-22 and sigma 150 f2.8 macro and sigma 1.4x tc. So i'm discarding the 135 L.
I've been seeing lots of gorgeous shots from the 85 1.8 but i was thinking about the canon 70-200 2.8. How do you compare the zoom with the prime at 85 with different apertures? Then i could combine the 85 with the 200 2.8 which i could use with the tc (i guess) or the 300 f4 is or even 100-400 is as the long range would be helpful sometimes.
Basically i need something around 50 to 85, fast with nice bokeh and something between 200 and 400.
I've read that although zooms are more versatile, primes are faster, have better iq, are generally cheaper and smaller and although ppl tend to shoot less they have more keepers.
What would you recommend?
Thank you =)

[phylet]

Budget?

What about Sigma 24-70 F2.8 and a Sigma 70-200

[kozmix]

For now it's around 1000€, a little more on $, i know it's not enough for some lenses but two more months and i'll have probably enough for any of those lenses.
I was considering the sigma yes, but the reviews are 50/50, i guess it's a great lens when it works, but it does have some issues someimes for what i've heard from users, so considering the sigma i would rather spend 300€ more for the canon 70-200.
For the 24-70 i would rather have 50 1.4 or 85 1.8.
And even the thing with the 70-200 is that most of the times i would be using 70 and 200 and not much in between..
Thx for your reply!

[hallbilly]

Tough decisions... When I was shooting at the zoo the 100-400 usually had enough range. Although sometimes I would throw on the 1.4tc. Now, the problem I had at the zoo, It was pretty dark... But for motorsports the 100-400 could quiet possibly be the ticket! A bit over budget though, maby pick up a good copy of a used one.

[GaryK]

I am a docent at a zoo, so spend a fair amount of time there. I alternate between my new 70-200 and my 100-400. From my experience with several zoos in the western US a 200 will generally get you good photos of the animals, the 400 allows portraits (my avatar is one I took with the 400 and it filled my 20d frame). When I was in Alaska I was using a 28-200 for part of the trip (limit of 7lbs baggage) and really wish I had found a way to carry the 100-400. The 100-400 was a little short for some wildlife shots (a grizzley at 300+ meters).

I hope this helps.

[LightRules]

Basically i need something around 50 to 85, fast with nice bokeh and something between 200 and 400

Canon 85f1.8 and Canon 100-400IS

End of discussion :D

[Don Powell]

If you had the 50mm f1.4, the 70-200mm, and the 100-400mm, you would be all set.

[JuZ]

The 100-400 is a lousy motorsport lens unless you have bright sunshine, same goes for using it at the zoo, Sigma 100-300 f/4 would be a better bet and it's within the budget :)

[Woolburr]

The 100-400 is a lousy motorsport lens unless you have bright sunshine, same goes for using it at the zoo, Sigma 100-300 f/4 would be a better bet and it's within the budget :)

There are a lot of people that will dispute this one with you. No requirement for bright sunshine to use the 100-400 as a motorsport lens. With shutter speeds seldom needing to exceed 1/320, an f/5.6 lens works just fine. Not everything needs to be shot at ISO 100. The same thing applies for shooting at the zoo. The 100-400 is a very popular lens both at the track and at the zoo and should fit the OP's requirements quite nicely. The extra 100mm on the long end seals the deal.

[JuZ]

I expect a lot of people will disagree with me, the 100-400 is a hugely popular lens with a very large following, sadly a lot of people just follow blindly without considering other alternatives.

[EOSAddict]

I'd second the 100-300 f4 Sig option (witha 1.4 TC too ;))

[Rumjungle]

Canon 85f1.8 and Canon 100-400IS

End of discussion :D

I second that. The first do-it-all lens that comes to my mind for motorsports/zoo/wildlife would be the 1-4IS. It has it's minor shortcomings (speed), but makes up for it in versatility (lightweight, long reach, very good image quality) in my book.

[Cadwell]

There are a lot of people that will dispute this one with you. No requirement for bright sunshine to use the 100-400 as a motorsport lens. With shutter speeds seldom needing to exceed 1/320, an f/5.6 lens works just fine. Not everything needs to be shot at ISO 100. The same thing applies for shooting at the zoo. The 100-400 is a very popular lens both at the track and at the zoo and should fit the OP's requirements quite nicely. The extra 100mm on the long end seals the deal.

Comments about the 100-400L’s “unsuitability” are not really due to the speed of the lens’s focus motor and are only indirectly due to the maximum aperture. Its optics are good enough, even wide open at 400mm so it’s not that either.

I’ve never taken a motorsport shot at a higher shutter speed than 1/320th and 1/250th is more usual for head-on stuff – pans are taken at slower shutter speed still. It’s also rare for me to use a larger aperture than f/5.6 and high-ish ISO isn’t a problem. So I rarely run out of light for taking the basic shot.

Even so, I say that the 100-400L is less suited to motorsport work than a larger aperture lens. Why?

Let’s look at some basic facts about Canon’s AF mechanism.


Canon dSLRs focus with the lens wide open, only stopping the lens down to the selected aperture immediately before opening the shutter.
The AF is based on contrast. The more light there is hitting the AF sensors the more contrast there is for them to work with.
AI Servo AF performance degrades as light levels fall. The camera reduces the frequency at which it re-evaluates focus in low light. When the light falls sufficiently this can cause it to miss focus on high speed targets as you may well hit the shutter release between refocus attempts.
On many of the camera bodies, the centre AF point becomes high precision cross-type when an f/2.8 or faster lens is used. On a 1 series body with the 45 point AF system the centre AF point is cross-type for f/4 or faster lenses and there are seven high precision AF points available when an f/2.8 or faster lens is used. Having a high precision cross type AF sensor helps enormously when shooting in low light / low contrast.
The smallest supported lens aperture for AF is f/5.6 (f/8 on the centre AF point on a 1 series).


So… why is any f/5.6 lens not as suitable for photographing fast moving subjects as an f/2.8 or f/4 lens? At f/5.6 on most camera bodies (except the 1 series) you are already working at the extreme end of the camera’s AF specification. With an f/4 you are better off because there is twice as much light hitting the AF sensors. At f/2.8 there’s twice as much again and you’re into the land of happy AF sensors with some of them going high precision cross-type on you.

The issue in low light is less significant when shooting pans because the distance between you and your subject changes less rapidly. Under those circumstances the reduced AF sampling rate doesn’t affect you so much and of course, in good light the 100-400L will perform well for head on / three quarters shots as there will be plenty of light hitting the AF sensors regardless of the small-ish aperture.

I have a 100-400L and I enjoy using it on bright days to photograph race cars. However, I live somewhere where on some days in the spring and autumn I am lucky to get above ISO 800, f/4 and 1/250th all day long. On those sorts of days, the 100-400L isn’t a great deal of use to me as the number of OoF shots I get increases to an unacceptable level. When I’m photographing rallying, I may only get one shot at an individual car all day long and I can’t afford for the kit to let me down. Using an f/2.8 or an f.4.0 lens makes things significantly better.

Pro motorsport photographers (at least where I come from) favour 300mm f/2.8 IS USMs, 400mm f/2.8s and very occasionally 500mm f/4s and they’ll carry a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM around on a second body for the close-in stuff. That’s not because they like shooting at f/2.8… in fact they’d prefer not to because they often won’t have enough DoF to get the whole car in… and it's not because they enjoy trudging around the circuit all day long with all that heavy kit when a nice lightweight 100-400L might be an alternative, it’s because they want the AF speed and accuracy that an f/2.8 lens gives them. If you can’t afford an f/2.8 then an f/4 is a nice compromise between it and an f/5.6 – it gives you some advantage.

If you have to deal with low light, the Sigma 100-300mm f/4EX (with the 1.4x TC bolted onto it in good light to get you to 420mm f/5.6) makes a better motorsport lens than the 100-400L.

[Tall_Paul_2000]

Glenn - an excellent and very useful summary of the relationship between AF and Aperture.

Can I throw the Sigma 120-300 into the mix - might need to save for a little longer for it, but I used to use one and think its a tremendously versatile lens.