Advice on Motorsport Lenses

Hi Guys,

As you can see by my signature, I don't have much in the way of lenses. I am mainly interested n lenses for motorsport.

I was thinking about either the sigma 120-400 or canon 100-400, just whats best in terms of 'bang for your buck'. I have heard the 70-200 is good, but the range just doesn't seem that great. Also whats the step up like from the 70-300mm (non IS, non L series)?

I was also wondering what the 50mm f/1.8 would be like, I know its only 50mm, buit good possibly for the pits, and its real cheap ($130NZD, equivalent to 70 pounds).

Thanks in advance for your help (btw, is this in the right section?)

My 70-200 has never failed me for my type of work; typically pans high up in the stands, I find the range perfect for my needs. The 100-400 is also another great range but I have not really had too much of a need for the longer range.

The 50 may be a bit narrow on a crop body in the pits, something a bit wider will be more versatile.

EF 100-400L or Sigma 150-500 OS will give you the most flexibility. For in the pits, something more in the range of your kit lens. If you want a bit faster, the Tamron 17-50 non-VC would work well.

Yes, this is the right section.

70-200 2.8L, 24-105L, 300mm F4L and a 2x is what i use.

My motorsport bag.

8mm Fisheye
17-40 f/4L
70-200 f/2.8L IS
300 f/2.8L
400 f/5.6L

I use all. A lot. The real thing with motorsports is getting shots the other people are not getting and having the gear to get those shots. The 70-200 is the single most important motorsport lens in my opinion. I rarely take it off one of my 7Ds. It is an awesome people lens at f/2.8 to blow out the background.

You will however need longer glass and I prefer the primes. They simply produce better results that are consistently sharper. They also offer a creamery bokeh and the telephoto compression looks nice when shooting trackside. The nice side product is a photo taken with a 300mm f/2.8 in the paddock/pits returns an awesome photo! Great for candid shots. It also gives you the ability to add a 1/4X and be shooting a 420 f/4 while maintaing sharpness. If you really want to push it can get a 600 f/5.6 out of it but the IQ does suffer there.

Carry the 400/5.6 - The best bang for the buck motorsports lens. It's light. It is SUPER sharp. For the price paid on the used market of 1,000 dollars you get a lot of reach and can hand hold it. The results are spectacular!

The wide angle... well you experiment and shoot locations that no one else is shooting. The Fisheye can be used for the fun/interesting look at a racetrack.

Some samples to show you what you would be looking at using some of these lenses.


70-200:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dinanm3atl/7677​153902/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dinanm3atl/7677​351890/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dinanm3atl/7677​160590/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dinanm3atl/7677​392416/

CaterhamF1 wrote in post #14803022
Hi Guys,
As you can see by my signature, I don't have much in the way of lenses. I am mainly interested n lenses for motorsport.
I was thinking about either the sigma 120-400 or canon 100-400, just whats best in terms of 'bang for your buck'. I have heard the 70-200 is good, but the range just doesn't seem that great. Also whats the step up like from the 70-300mm (non IS, non L series)?
I was also wondering what the 50mm f/1.8 would be like, I know its only 50mm, buit good possibly for the pits, and its real cheap ($130NZD, equivalent to 70 pounds).
Thanks in advance for your help (btw, is this in the right section?)

To be able to make a choice, you need to be familiar enough with the subject to know the field of view that you will need to use. You've mentioned a major range of focal lengths, from 50mm to 400mm, and the message hints you have minimum experience.

A potentially useful learning lens would be a Tamron 70-300mm vibration control unit, which was used to generate these images.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Much depends on the track and how close the officious officials let you get to the action (I am never going to the street circuit at Valencia again, talk about officious!). But with a combination of my 70-200 and 100-400, with a 1.4x converter on the latter as required, I can get what I want.

Lowner is correct.
Distance will dictate.
I've found that the 100-400 to be too much at times, and went straight 70-200 for NASCAR.
The 2.8 aperture of the 70-200 can be an advantage if races are held in the evening.

What's your budget? if you have $2000-2500 I would go for the 100-400L, if you have $3000-3500 id go for a 70-200 f2.8 personally I thing 200mm would be a bit short for most motorsport but I would love a 70-200 for other reasons

in the pits just use your 18-55.

Oh and if you buy a new lens buy if from http://www.smifu.com/ best prices and service in NZ (IMHO)

I really should not have attacked track officials across the board like I did. I have generally been treated with real care and attention, to the point that they seem to want me to produce good images. Generally speaking, treat people right and they will return it in spades.

Ah, ha.. New Zealand prices! Thought those prices looked kind of high.

If you want to get your workout at the same time you get your pictures- Sigma 50-500 OS .

Doubles as a billy club !

Thanks to everyone for the speedy replies - never knew people were so helpful on this forums.

To Kick things off:

Very True, lol, More like almost no experience.

I am planning to hold onto what I've got for a while longer, but just starting to think about upgrading now, so when the time is right, I can do it straight away.

I know exactly what you mean! Whenever I do a bit of racing myself, they always annoy the hell outta me!

But seriously, back to the point of this thread...

I am more in the $2000-$2500 range, probably try to get one for under $2k if possible. The 18-55 is the kit lens, so image quality and usability are pretty average to say the least, would there be any cheapish lens tat would do the trick, maybe with a little more range? BTW that website was awesome, nice and cheap too


This is coming from my novice self, but I just don't like the idea of prime lenses as much, doesn't seem to give flexability. Just been looking through some recent shots, and they range anywhere from 130 up to 300, quite a few in either the 180-200 and 280-300 bracket. This is probably just pointless info though...

Anyway, thats all for now

CaterhamF1 wrote in post #14803022
Hi Guys,

I was thinking about either the sigma 120-400 or canon 100-400, just whats best in terms of 'bang for your buck'. I have heard the 70-200 is good, but the range just doesn't seem that great. Also whats the step up like from the 70-300mm (non IS, non L series)?

What about a canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS Lens and a 2.0X teleconverter, only thing i would be concerned with is the lost light, meaning having to put up with slower shutter speeds.
Reason is the 100-400 at is widest is only f/4.5, which im sure your aware, is no action stopper. Additionally, the 70-200 2.8 can be used for so many more things (trust me i have both)
I have never had experience with the 120-400 so i cant tell you much about that, but i can tell you that you will be very happy with any of the first canon lenses you mention in the above quote

Heres a shot of Casey Stoner at Donnington in '08. Its shot with the 100-400 f/4-5.6L and as you can easily see the weather (and light) was dreadful. So don't be put off using the "dust pump", I like it a lot.