merging to motorsports

[photosbyjuan]

I've been a portrait and wedding photographer now for about 2 years and I just started back in school and have decided to cancel on the weddings for a bit. In the meantime I've gauged interest in motorsports and just wanted your opinion on certain lenses. I have considered the 70-200 2.8L IS but I see many of you like the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L as well. I feel the 70-200 2.8L IS might not give me the reach I might be looking for. I would appreciate your personal opinions Thanks

[CarlEOgden]

I'd go for the 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4TC. I presume you'll be trackside rather than public side so should be able to get closer. I'd stay away from the 100-400, I had one and although sharp, it's slow focusing and a horrible pull/push mechanism.

If you need more reach, save for the 300 2.8 it's an awesome lens!

Carl.

[Simon Harrison]

The gear requirements between weddings and motorsport are very different. Firstly, if you're going to be using your 5D, then you are going to need to some long glass, regardless of what side of the fence you're shooting from. 300mm is what I would regard as a minimum. You also want the fastest glass possible, and ideally f2.8. This will give the AF sensors on whatever camera your using the most light to work with (remember all lenses focus wide open and only stop down as the shutter is pressed). The 100-400 is a good lens, provided you have lots of light to work with. Once the light starts to fade, then you will struggle if you're using it. The 5D produces very clean images at high ISO so that's not the problem here. The issue is that you will struggle to get consistent AF performance due to the lack of light reaching the sensors. Finally, if you're going to be serious about doing this, then you should consider getting a 1 series camera for its' weather sealing and superior AF performance.

Hope this helps.

Simon.

[daleftw]

I was just wondering, what is the point of having F/2.8 in motorsports if the idea is generally not to freeze the subjects? When I shot motorsports on my 'bridge' camera, I used aperture values around 8 or 9 (that's as narrow as it would go - had to use polarizer as well) to achieve shutter speeds of around 1/80-1/100.

Ahh crap, I just had a read of the above post and found the answer. :D

[PhotosGuy]

300 with 2x TC (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=440806)

Post #38:
My take on my new 300 f/4 L with IS (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=433551)

Comparing Canon's 400mm lenses (http://www.michaelfurtman.com./comparing_canon_400s.htm)

[photosbyjuan]

so 300mm f/4L IS is recommended over 100-400 and the 70-200? for motorsports? F4 shouldn't be a problem for daylight anyhow. which is the recommend tc?

[tonylong]

so 300mm f/4L IS is recommended over 100-400 and the 70-200? for motorsports? F4 shouldn't be a problem for daylight anyhow. which is the recommend tc?

As was mentioned above, there is an advantage to autofocusing using a 2.8 (or wider). If you can get faster, more accurate autofocusing using a 70-200 f/2.8 or a 300 f/2.8, that would be a plus.

The downside to those two lenses is of course their relative price and size. What's it worth to you to get the best advantage.

As far as aperture requirements for speed, that would depend on the lighting and the depth-of-field requirements. Would you ever need f/2.8 in motor shooting? Only and experienced motor-shooter can tell you. I know in indoor sports many people value the 85 f/1.8 because it focuses fast and gives great shots wider than f/2.8, so I wouldn't play down an f/2.8 lens.

[photosbyjuan]

tony I completely understand what you mean, my question is for someone in my case that would like to occasionally shoot these events etc... would you consider a 300mm to be sufficient? I just came back from Daytona 24 and I found 24-70 to be very far away(obvious) but i don't want to purchase another lens which I would still be somewhat disappointed with

[tonylong]

Juan,

I haven't done motorsports, so someone who does this kind of work is much more qualified than I am. I would agree, though, that he 24-70 would likely not have enough reach for this type of thing.

If it's possible, you might consider renting some top-of-te-line lens for a shoot. I'd suggest, though, that you rent it at least a couple of days in advance and work with it to get a feel of it. Believe me, super-telephoto lenses take a bit to get used to.

If you don't have a local place to rent from, one or two places crop up on the forum here that are good, reliable rental places online.

This isn't something to just dump thousands of dollars into without knowing what you are doing! In my wildlife work, which has a bit in common with what you're trying to do, I've had to give real thought to each purchase. In the end, it does cost a lot of money, but at least I believe I've gotten the best for my money!

[Lowbyte]

Did someone say motorsports :D

The answer to this question, like most photo equipment questions is "it depends". Where will you be shooting and when?

When I'm shooting WKA karts or NASCAR Legends 80% of the work is at dusk or dark under the lights and f/2.0 to f/4.0 @ 1600 iso is what you have to work with to generate a 1/80th to 1/200th shutter.

Taken in daylight with 70-200 mid roll with a 1d2n this is all AI-Servo working its magic:
http://www.lowbyte.com/pix/web-apn-Legends-75.jpg


If you are shooting pro series IRL or ALMS you shoot in daylight (mostly). Shady sections of some road courses can give you trouble- so having f/2.8 available to the AF is important.

If you are shooting with credentials track side access helps to eliminate the need for long glass in some assignments.

All of the following were taken on the same road course-

20d with a 300/2.8L
http://www.lowbyte.com/pix/web-StPGp-57_0880.jpg

1d2n with 24-105/4L
http://www.lowbyte.com/pix/web-StPGp-57_1043.jpg

1d2n with 70-200/2.8L
http://www.lowbyte.com/pix/web-StPGp-57_22936.jpg

1d2n with 70-200/2.8L
http://www.lowbyte.com/pix/web-StPGp-57_23266.jpg

Drag racing gets you right up close even at night: 20d with 135/2.0L
http://www.lowbyte.com/pix/web-apn-drag-75.jpg

So better glass will give you greater latitude in your shots, and enable you to catch things that surprise you (like the legends shot above).

Great technique and location selection can get you most of what you see above on lesser glass with pre-focusing and shooting in manual. But your keeper rate will decrease accordingly.

I haven't shot with anything longer then a 300/2.8 + 1.4x extender in motorsport. That said, if someone handed me a 500/4L tomorrow I'd take it and run- but you can do the job with less.

[PhotosGuy]

but you can do the job with less. I'll see how that works out this year. Not being blessed with motorsports clients any more, I can't write off the cost of a fast prime anymore, so I'm going to try the 70-200 2.8 2X TC combination.
I shot a test yesterday under typical Michigan conditions & it's looking somewhere between OK to marginal. Draw your own conclusions.
If/when we ever get some sunlight, I'll add some more to this thread: 70-200 f/2.8 & 2X TC combination "Test" (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=444369)

[PhotosGuy]

Update: TheHoff asked, "You should do a similar comparison without the TC or with a 1.4 where you crop the center of the image to be the same size as the 2x."

I don't have the 1.4, but I did a test with the images the same size in this post (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4816088&postcount=8)to the above linked thread. Draw your own conclusions. ;)

[cosworth]

I've shot motorsports with a 17-40. I use a 70-200. I also use a 300 A LOT. f/4 or 2.8.

I'm starting to go back to preferring the 300 f/4. I've sold my 2.8 and got an f/4 already. We'll see if I'm happy with the AF performance.