Advice on Motorsport Lenses

dinanm3atl wrote in post #14803127
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/
Burtin Goldcrest Porsche 911 GT3 Cup Indianapolis Motor Speedway IMS NASCAR Grand Am Friday 01 by Halston Pitman | MotorSportMedia, on Flickr


17-40:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dinanm3atl/7677​351890/
Multimatic Motorsports Aston Martin Vantage V8 Indianapolis Motor Speedway IMS NASCAR Grand Am Friday 01 by Halston Pitman | MotorSportMedia, on Flickr


300 on track:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dinanm3atl/7677​160590/
Brumos Porsche 911 GT3 Cup Indianapolis Motor Speedway IMS NASCAR Grand Am Friday 01 by Halston Pitman | MotorSportMedia, on Flickr


300 for people:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dinanm3atl/7677​392416/
BimmerWorld BMW 328i Indianapolis Motor Speedway IMS NASCAR Grand Am Friday 01 by Halston Pitman | MotorSportMedia, on Flickr

Just saw these, these are AMAZING !!!!

Appreciate it

The 100-400 is my favourite for motorsports and gives a very versatile range with great image quality. Compared with the non-IS, non-L 75-300mm you mention, all of the suggested lenses will blow you away.

Here are a few examples from my 100-400L:

Lewis Hamilton at the Australian Grand Prix this March, taken through the high fencing.

Madweasel wrote in post #14818166
Here are a few examples from my 100-400L:

Okay, nice photo's!

What is your opinion on the 100-400, in terms of usability, Image Quality, what you are getting for what you paid etc.

The 100-400 is a touch soft I think, at least mine is. But for the money I have been very pleased.

I've not tried it against a good 400 prime, but I'd hope the prime would be that little bit better. I rented a 500 prime and tested it against my 100-400, the results were "neck and neck".

Avoid f/5.6 and it sharpens up quickly, but its a good candidate for a mark II version when Canon get around to it.

On the other hand i hated my 100-400L, and was more than glad when it was damaged on a trip so i could get a 70-200 2.8 II

It was rarely sharp, and hunted on AF regularly.

Its only redeeming grace was the 400mm focal length.

Lowner wrote in post #14820003
The 100-400 is a touch soft I think, at least mine is. But for the money I have been very pleased.

I've not tried it against a good 400 prime, but I'd hope the prime would be that little bit better. I rented a 500 prime and tested it against my 100-400, the results were "neck and neck".

Avoid f/5.6 and it sharpens up quickly, but its a good candidate for a mark II version when Canon get around to it.

Can't have been a Canon 500L prime?
A Sigma or Tamron maybe?

1Tanker wrote in post #14820082
Can't have been a Canon 500L prime?
A Sigma or Tamron maybe?

Oh yes it was! But to be fair, it was rented and I had not spent time with it.

To takia: The 100-400L will never get anywhere near the mark 2 70-200, remember we are talking different generations of lens design here. I've got the mk2 and agree, it is an amazing piece of glass.

If you don't need the aperture of a 70-200 2.8, you could also consider the 70-300L. Very fast AF, Very sharp, and an extra 100mm's. I've been using it on a 7D for over a year now and I'm still very happy with it.

Lowner wrote in post #14820003
I've not tried it against a good 400 prime, but I'd hope the prime would be that little bit better. I rented a 500 prime and tested it against my 100-400, the results were "neck and neck".

Avoid f/5.6 and it sharpens up quickly, but its a good candidate for a mark II version when Canon get around to it.

I found my 100-400 very close to the 400mm prime for sharpness, I use the 100-400 for sports and wildlife, haven't tried it on motorsports

Ok, I probably won't really need the 2.8 aperture. How bigger step up from the 70-300 kit lens to the 70-300L? Also, how does the 70-300L compare with the 100-400.

Would anyone be able to post images comparing the sharpness of the 70-200 and 100-400?

Also What are peoples general advice on what lens would be a good and smart step up from my current 75-300

watt100 wrote in post #14820721
I found my 100-400 very close to the 400mm prime for sharpness, I use the 100-400 for sports and wildlife, haven't tried it on motorsports

Not at 400mm. Maybe in the middle of the zoom range yes but once you max it out the prime gets the nod.

dinanm3atl wrote in post #14824240
Not at 400mm. Maybe in the middle of the zoom range yes but once you max it out the prime gets the nod.

"gets the nod"
yes, the prime is sharper but not by much and the 100-400 is so much more versatile.

the cheap 55-250IS works for some motorsports


XSi (450D)
55-250IS

I've had both the 100-400L (two of them, actually) and the 400L. I originally sold my 100-400L thinking I was giving up IQ and sharpness by choosing the zoom over the prime. I then returned the 400L because I didn't notice any appreciable difference in sharpness or image quality over the 100-400L. The zoom gets my nod, even at 400mm.

That said, I believe there is a bit of copy variance with the 100-400L. My first one was a bit softer than the second. The advantage of the prime is the much quicker AF.