What tele to use for MTB pictures in wooded areas...

[Ranger123]

I've been looking into mid range zooms (70-200) to add range to my mountain bike photos. My problem is that in the area I live in, we're mostly cycling in fairly wooded areas. I got rid of my Sigma 70-300 APO because I couldn't get decent pictures with it in these settings (but it was decent enough in most other normal situations, although a bit on the slow side, some times).

Anybody out there with experience from shooting sports (motorbike or cycling) in these kind of settings? What do you use when it comes to tele zoom, or do you just go for primes? I've been looking into the 70-200 range - both Canon and Sigma, but the 2.8 IS version is out of my price range. Can I settle with the Canon 70-200 f4, or do I need to look at the f2.8 alternatives (Sigma or Canon)?

The only other use for my tele is kids soccer and family pictures - but that's usually daytime and I guess the 70-200 f4 would be more than enough for my purposes.

[CycleLife]

Ranger,

I'm a MTB guide/coach in the UK, I've got exactly the same problem. My son is a DH racer and all his races are dark in those woods! been using my 17-85IS but not fast enough form me - would love the 70-200L 2.8 IS but too expensive, so probably buy the Sigma?

Someone on here suggested the 135/2.0L or was it 100mm??

Anyway keep in touch - let me know what you get and if you fancy coming to the UK let me know and I'll sort you out with some riding etc.

Rob

[garypasz]

I would also sugest the 135L f2, you will be able to get very close to track/path, so zoom not realy required. The 135L is really quick in focusing as well.

[Heatseeker99]

I think the 70-200 f/4 version would be too slow for what you're doing...there's just not enough light. If you want a zoom, I think the Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS is the best solution. Whether that is fast enough is yet to be determined. The most logical thing to do is rent one and use it one weekend and see if you like the results. If not, a combo of two fast primes like the 85 1.8 & 135 2.0 may be what works.

[Roger Cicala]

It sounds like even f2.8 may not be quite fast enough. The 100mm f2 is a nice, fast lens at a great price. Not too long though. 135 f2 would probably be a better choice but twice the price.

[Ranger123]

The 135 looks nice - as does the 100. With a 30D body the 135 is OK in length, I guess. But price wise... It's a delicate problem to hide all these costs from the wife (both for the photo gear as well as the cycling gear). One of these days she'll do a price check on the internet, and then I'm in trouble...

Unless there is somebody out there that has already tried out these different lenses, and knows what will work, I'll think I will take Heatseeker's advice on renting a couple of different lenses to see what works out best...

I'll have to wait for another couple of months, though. Just go back from cycling in a nearby forrest - no leaves on the trees, but some areas with some spruce. But we were cycling in snow today (- 4° Celcius), so it's hard to compare to summer...

And I just might take you up on that offer, CycleLife, next time I visit my sister in the UK...

[condyk]

Renting is a good option so you can test in the exact conditions. Personally, my experience of the f4.0 is that it doesn't hold up under lower light. I had the 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma and does a better job. It really depends on conditions as to whether you need to give up the zoom flexibility for something like a 135mm.

[CycleLife]

Ranger,

Anytime, I'll let you know what lens I get.

[Ranger123]

Renting is a good option so you can test in the exact conditions. Personally, my experience of the f4.0 is that it doesn't hold up under lower light. I had the 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma and does a better job. It really depends on conditions as to whether you need to give up the zoom flexibility for something like a 135mm.

Well - I don't live for cycling, so zoom flexibility comes into it as well for other occassions. And I've been thinking of the Sigma 70-200 2.8 or a used Canon. Then again I have heard great things about the 135 as well, and seen that some football/soccer photographers use the 135 as well, instead of the heavier 70-200. But I do worry about buying something like the 135 and find that I won't make enough use of it, outside of cycling.

[ed rader]

Well - I don't live for cycling, so zoom flexibility comes into it as well for other occassions. And I've been thinking of the Sigma 70-200 2.8 or a used Canon. Then again I have great things about the 135 as well, and seen that some football/soccer photographers use the 135 as well, instead of the heavier 70-200. But I do worry about buying something like the 135 and find that I won't make enough use of it, outside of cycling.

the 135 is an expensive lens. i ended up getting the 100 f2 for my 5d which is excellent wide open.

you can get a used 70-200L f2.8 for around $900.

ed rader

[Simon123]

I have a 70-200 L f4 with my 30D, surely the cost is more acceptable than an f2.8 and you can always change your ISO up or even under expose and lighten later on with your digital imaging software.

[Ranger123]

You bet I've looked at the 70-200 f4, but will it work in the shadows in the middle of a forrest trail?

This would probably be the lens I'd buy for normal use if it was not for my mtb interest. I don't use that much tele today when shooting mtb, instead I get in as close as possible (I often need to use a fill flash in order for faces to come out). For ordinary cycling (racing) the 70-200 f4 is more than well equipped for the job. It's the mountain biking that makes it difficult.

*Sigh* It's truly a curse to have two hobbies that are equally challenging on the wallet.

[SBWorking]

Good topic. I'm having the same debate for flyfishing. Lots of tight streams. I have plenty of time to decide. The snow will be around for at least another 3 months. *sigh* Please post how it all works out.

[Big WIll]

70-200mm F2.8 works very well, however i'm normally using slave flashes as well!

An F2 lens would help and work wonders, but the diversity of the 70-200 sigma or canon is amazing! :)

[CycleLife]

Trying to find somewhere in UK to rent these lenses from?

[CycleLife]

Big Wil,

Your website not working? I need a site building - mail me please.

[Rick_R]

I've been looking into mid range zooms (70-200) to add range to my mountain bike photos. My problem is that in the area I live in, we're mostly cycling in fairly wooded areas. I got rid of my Sigma 70-300 APO because I couldn't get decent pictures with it in these settings (but it was decent enough in most other normal situations, although a bit on the slow side, some times).

Anybody out there with experience from shooting sports (motorbike or cycling) in these kind of settings? What do you use when it comes to tele zoom, or do you just go for primes? I've been looking into the 70-200 range - both Canon and Sigma, but the 2.8 IS version is out of my price range. Can I settle with the Canon 70-200 f4, or do I need to look at the f2.8 alternatives (Sigma or Canon)?

The only other use for my tele is kids soccer and family pictures - but that's usually daytime and I guess the 70-200 f4 would be more than enough for my purposes.


Hi: I ride in the Santa Cruz hills (think redwood forests) and shoot most all of the local DH and CX races around, so I think I understand your difficulity.

May I suggest a 24 or 28 to 70mm 2.8 and a 550 or 580 Flash. The flash is essental for capturing any detail of the riders in shade and both will high-speed sync if you want to freeze the action. IMHO, the 70-200 is too long (really with 1.6 or 1.3 crop factors). I have both 24-70 and 70-200 and the the 24-70 is on the camera for 90% of the shots.

The nice part of shooting cycling (either races or just riding around) is the ability to get close to the riders and to move around the course easily.

One of the reasons for a flash is that there are very bright highlights when in the sunlight and very dark shadows in the rest of the frame. You'll either get real good at Photoshop editing or end-up using the flash.

Either way go ride and shoot a lot,

Regards Rick

[Ranger123]

Rick - that's why I got my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 - because of mtb - and I use this as my standard lens for that purpose. Nice lens with 2.8 all across the range. The only real negative thing about it is that it starts at 28 mm. Not very wide on a 1.6 crop. If it hadn't been for mtb I would probably have gone for a Canon 17-85 as my standard lens.

The tele I'm after is actually for those shots I don't use my Tamron (which is most of the times as you say). Maybe it's an impossible combination on my budget to find a suitable tele for those times I can't get close enough.

Maybe I should invest more in flashes instead, getting a slave or two instead. I use my 420 most of the time, but haven't tried using slaves to stage the shots...

But I totally agree with you on all accounts: 1) Keep post processing to a minimum and 2) the nice thing about mtb is the ability to get close and personal. And the fact you get dirty while you're riding is an added bonus compared to road racing - makes you feel like your work out was much harder :D.

[Matthew_h]

Ranger,

I've got a 20D and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and together with my 550EX flash I have had some pretty decent results from shooting mountain bikers in dark woods.

I personally prefer a closer, wider field of view but the Sigma works very well for a longer lens. I can definitely recommend it.

[Ranger123]

I like being close as well. Is there much difference between the flashes - 420 vs 550? What ranges are we talking about when you do your shooting?