Swamp Buggies..

[John Thawley]

These were taken at the world famous Naples Swamp Buggy races in Naples, Florida. This is the only venue for these vehicles and the spectacle takes place only three times per year. Pretty wild.

JT


http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=121131&g2_serialNumber=1
http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=121133&g2_serialNumber=1
http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=121123&g2_serialNumber=1
http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=121105&g2_serialNumber=1
http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=121103&g2_serialNumber=1
http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=121125&g2_serialNumber=1
http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=121109&g2_serialNumber=1
http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=121117&g2_serialNumber=1

[Bosscat]

I'm guessing you shot these with a 500mm?

[Jamie Holladay]

That looks like a lot of fun JT. I hope you stayed dry :lol:

I'm guessing you shot these with a 500mm?
That is what the EXIF shows.

[John Thawley]

I'm guessing you shot these with a 500mm?

70-200mm and 500mm - I actually had two spots staked out midway down the front stretch about 30 ft. apart. I'd shoot the start with the 500mm and then walk over to my 70-200 that was hanging from the fence, and shoot them coming out of the final turn.

Though, I'd had to ask nicely to use the 500mm. LOL

http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=121119&g2_serialNumber=1

[Jamie Holladay]

Though, I'd had to ask nicely to use the 500mm. LOL

http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=121119&g2_serialNumber=1
Got to love that!

[John Thawley]

Got to love that!

He's got the "look," doesn't he? :D

[Jamie Holladay]

He's got the "look," doesn't he? :D
He does. And he knows to hold the 500 at the top ;)

[willy b]

That looks a crazy sport! Nice shots too!

[John Thawley]

That looks a crazy sport! Nice shots too!

It's different. LOL

[swflrebel]

great shots! I was there but I was in the stands and didn't get any shots as good as yours!
Of course I only had my cheapie 75-300. The autofocus on that lens is atrocious. Looking to get the 100-400l.

[John Thawley]

Of course I only had my cheapie 75-300. The autofocus on that lens is atrocious. Looking to get the 100-400l.

I was in the stands... just went down to the fence. I was down toward the turn coming back. I set up two spots... hung the body with the 70-200 on the fence. Then went down about 30 feet with the 500mm. Shot back toward the start with the 500mm, then leaned it against the fence... walked over picked up the 70-200mm and shot them coming out of the turn. Of course it was backlit most of the day. But... fun stuff.

I think I'll go back in January... I know they'll give me a credential... but I want to hustle them into letting me on the island. I think there could be some amazing shots to be had. You just have to be able to move around and change locations. You can't do that from the front straight... too limited. And, fromt the island, you could work the crowd into some of the backgrounds. But, with all the water and the right light, there has to be some amazing stuff... and from what I've seen... it hasn't been done.

Careful with the 100-400 - it's not a great sports lens. It's a nice range to be sure... but it is SLOW and soft. Auto focus is not real quick.. and the image stabilization is useless.

Honestly, you'd be better off with the 400 f/5.6 prime Canon L. It's faster and MUCH sharper. And, it's a great size. You can hand hold it.

JT

[fishingjts]

<snip>

Careful with the 100-400 - it's not a great sports lens. It's a nice range to be sure... but it is SLOW and soft. Auto focus is not real quick.. and the image stabilization is useless.

<snip>

I tend to disagree... i shot a lot of motorsports this summer with the 100-400L... the 100-400 makes it flexible, especially if you have only one body... My copy wasn't soft,(printed 24x36 posters) and i found the focus to be adequate even with a CP on the front... as for IS, I used the Mode 2 Panning IS a lot, so to say IS is useless is a bit misleading...

BTW, Nice pics! ;)

[John Thawley]

I tend to disagree... i shot a lot of motorsports this summer with the 100-400L... the 100-400 makes it flexible, especially if you have only one body... My copy wasn't soft,(printed 24x36 posters) and i found the focus to be adequate even with a CP on the front... as for IS, I used the Mode 2 Panning IS a lot, so to say IS is useless is a bit misleading...

BTW, Nice pics! ;)

Perhaps I wasn't clear; It's a nice range to be sure... but it is SLOW and soft. Auto focus is not real quick.. and the image stabilization is useless.

Why don't you tell me EXACTLY what the IS in Mode 2 did for your panning. ;)

Sorry... if I sound like a smart ass, but your comments are completely off base.

First off, a 100-400mm zoom by it's very design is going to be slow. To have that much range in the zoom it requires several elements... (could be 5 or 7 in that lens)... either way, that's a lot of glass to pass an image through. More glass... less sharpness, less speed. It's math.

The lens will not adequately track a 150mph + race car coming straight at you. And, you're going to be additionally hampered in less than ideal lighting conditions.

Panning:

When you pan a car at a shutter speed suitable for a nice blur effect, say 1/80 sec. to 1/125 sec., IS will NOT stabilize the camera. I don't care if you put it in Mode 5. Again, do the math. All IS will do is reduce shake and let you hand hold for 1 extra stop.. maybe. So... if you're shooting a 400mm hand held at 1/360 sec. and f/5.6, the IS will give you an effective result similar to 1/500 sec. at f/5.6 - The problem with trying to use it for panning is the "stabilizing" function takes a moment to kick in, thereby slowing down (even further) the already slow autofocus. Are you with me?

I assure you, take that lens to turn 2 at Mosport and try to stop a Audi R10 coming over the blind crest at 190mph. It ain't gonna happen. What might happen is you get lucky with one in a hundred. But for the most part, you may as well go pound sand.

For the most part in motorsports, IS is useless. Trust me. FWIW, I put 150,000 frames through a 100-400mm before I wore out the delete key. :)

Go shoot with a 400mm prime f/5.6 - you'll be stunned by the difference.

This is 1/15 sec. at f/5.6 and ISO 100 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 NON IS lens.

http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=119982&g2_serialNumber=1

JT

[fishingjts]

maybe not 190MPH... but it is a blind crest... No problem with slow AF here...

http://www.johnnystacks.com/gallery/d/2128-1/IMG_9304.JPG

and it is definitely SHARP...

http://www.johnnystacks.com/gallery/d/2086-1/IMG_9259.JPG

maybe not the slowest shutter speed, but car is sharp from nose to tail...

http://www.johnnystacks.com/gallery/d/540-1/IMG_0821.jpg

so while my panning skills may suck, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the 100-400L cannot generate SHARP pictures...

http://www.johnnystacks.com/gallery/d/1360-1/odd2.jpg

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, i find the 100-400L to actually work fine for the motorsports that I attend...

http://www.johnnystacks.com/gallery/d/1589-1/IMG_8896.JPG

[John Thawley]

LOL - these are nice.

No one said it can't generate SHARP pictures. You've found conditions that suit your needs... that's great. Fly all over the country and you don't have that luxury. I'm trying to tell you, the lens doesn't perform where it NEEDS to perform.

I said, I wouldn't recommend the lens for motorsports. I stand by that statement. And, contrary to what you may think, I know what I'm talking about.

So, you can agree to disagree. And I'll continue to disagree. It's not a lens I'd recommend for motorsports.

JT

[fishingjts]

LOL - these are nice.

No one said it can't generate SHARP pictures. You've found conditions that suit your needs... that's great. Fly all over the country and you don't have that luxury. I'm trying to tell you, the lens doesn't perform where it NEEDS to perform.

I said, I wouldn't recommend the lens for motorsports. I stand by that statement. And, contrary to what you may think, I know what I'm talking about.

So, you can agree to disagree. And I'll continue to disagree. It's not a lens I'd recommend for motorsports.

JT

You said:
"it is SLOW and soft. Auto focus is not real quick.. and the image stabilization is useless."

So does "soft" have some other meaning I'm not aware of? I've always thought that "soft" meant "not sharp"??? And then you contradict it with "No one said it can't generate SHARP pictures." Actually you said it when you made the blanket statement the 100-400L is "soft"...

You then go on to say:
"IS will NOT stabilize the camera. I don't care if you put it in Mode 5. Again, do the math. All IS will do is reduce shake and let you hand hold for 1 extra stop.."

wait a minute.... first you say "IS will NOT stabilize the camera" and then in the next sentence you go on to say "All IS will do is reduce shake and let you hand hold for 1 extra stop." ok, so reducing shake isn't stabilizing the camera?

[Jamie Holladay]

Healthy debate is good, lets just keep it civil and this really needs to be in the talk section. Let me know if you want me to the 100-400 portion of this thread to that section.

[swflrebel]

Thanks for both sides of the argument guys. I appreciate hearing the pros and cons of a lens that I'm going to drop serious money on. I'll have to research the 400mm prime before I get set on the 100-400. Great shots from both of you guys also!

[smcclelland]

Nice shots JT.

As far as the 100-400 debate, it's usable for motorsports but you need to be aware of your conditions and settings. I shot the ALMS weekend with my 100-400 and it held up great for me however it needs light, my copy is super sharp but it took me 3 copies to eventually find one I was pleased with. As far as IS I have to agree with John that it really is a gimmick and I tend to just turn it off and forget about it, it gets used occasionally but I find the wind up time for IS (it's not instant, you can hear the motor spin so you need to factor that into your shot when it's on) makes it unappealing.

On the 40D the AF is fairly quick, on my 1dmk2 it was definitely a lot faster but it's certainly not unusable on my 40D until you start losing light. Once you start dipping into sunset and the light is fading the lens goes into the bag and I resort strictly to my 70-200 2.8 as there's just no way you can get enough light for AF at f5.6. General consensus is that with lots of light the 100-400 will serve you right but when you're shooting stuff like John does such as the 12hr race at Sebring there's no sense in lugging a lens out on the track with you that 2-4hrs before the race ends you know you're not going to be able to use at all anyways.

swflrebel: take into consideration your mobility when deciding on the prime, 400mm is quite long for many tracks so you'll want to make sure you can move around to frame the shot. I went with the zoom for the sole reason that my local track (Mosport) doesn't have much foot zoom space in certain areas so having zoom on the lens fit my needs better.