400mm f/5.6 L For Motorsport: Any Users Here?

I have been reviewing my lens requirements recently and after reading all the reviews and comments on the various lenses available, and taking into account my existing equipment I decided that I would like a 400mm f/5.6 L. I haven't quite got the £5000+ required for the f/2.8 IS version!

This would be for birds and wildlife, but I would also like to use it for motorsport. That is an important consideration because I want to get something that will be of good use.

So, I'm interested to know if any of you use the 400mm f/5.6 L for motorsport photography. Does it provide a suitable view from the typical trackside distances involved at racing circuits, or does it tend to be a bit too much?

I already have a 70-200mm f/4 L, so I don't really want to double-up with a 100-400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 zoom that covers some of my range already. I read that the 70-200mm has better image quality than the 100-400mm in the 100-200mm range that it shares. I also discounted the 100-400mm lens on reports of image quality when compared with the 400mm prime lens, as I did with the 300mm f/4 L plus 1.4x teleconverter idea, which was reported to be worse than the 100-400mm at its 400mm end. The 400mm prime lens option appears to be the cheapest option as well as having the best image quality - according to what I have read.

Any opinions, comments or observations welcome!

Thanks,

Mike

I dont shoot sport but i agree with all you say here
for a bit of a longer zoom a 1.4 on the 70/200 might be handy too.
Rob.

Thanks Rob. I originally thought about getting a 1.4x TC for my 70-200mm, but although it's an improvement on the range, it is still a bit short for bird and wildlife use. It would be handy to have a TC, but I'm thinking I would be better off putting the TC price towards a 400mm f/5.6 L.

Mike

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #4621008
I already have a 70-200mm f/4 L, so I don't really want to double-up with a 100-400mm f/4.5 - 5.6 zoom that covers some of my range already. I read that the 70-200mm has better image quality than the 100-400mm in the 100-200mm range that it shares. I also discounted the 100-400mm lens on reports of image quality when compared with the 400mm prime lens, as I did with the 300mm f/4 L plus 1.4x teleconverter idea, which was reported to be worse than the 100-400mm at its 400mm end. The 400mm prime lens option appears to be the cheapest option as well as having the best image quality - according to what I have read.

Any opinions, comments or observations welcome!

Thanks,

Mike

My feelings exactly. Here's a review comparing the 100-400 with the 400 with sample comparison pictures. It's definitely the way I'm leaning though I'm waiting until January 24 when Canon releases new product info in case there is an IS version in the works. My guess is IS won't help that much for Motorsports.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …enses/forgotten​-400.shtml

I meant get the 1.4tc as an extra if fund's alow.
the 400f5.6 is one of canons best in IQ and AF speed thats for sure.
Rob.

Thanks Elton. I read that review last night and it convinced me that I should get the 400mm f/5.6 L! I don't think my budget would stretch to an IS version anyway!

Rob, yes, good idea. That is something that I could consider because it would be handy to use with the 400mm as well as the 70-200mm.

Mike

You discount the 100-400, but don't forget it has IS, the prime doesn't. f/5.6 isn't very fast, and you'll need much higher Tv to get a sharp image with the prime, than with the 100-400. Panning shots its somewhat irrelevant(though I prefer IS here too), but not every subject is moving, and IS comes in VERY handy.

Sure the 400 prime is sharper than the 100-400, but take a look at some of the postings in the archive. The 100-400 is no slouch. And for some shots IS more than makes up for the slight sharpness difference.

Can't help you with motorsports but for birding you'll love the 400mm.

Thanks John Yes, I took all that into account when I was looking at the options.

I agree that the 100-400mm produces some great results and I may have gone for that if I didn't already have the 70-200mm f/4 L.

Mike

Grimm75 wrote in post #4621195
Can't help you with motorsports but for birding you'll love the 400mm.

Jon, that was the main reason why I started thinking about something longer than my present zoom lens! I'm really into motorsports, but I can see myself getting a lot of use with the 400mm for birds and wildlife.

Mike

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #4621202
Thanks John Yes, I took all that into account when I was looking at the options.

I agree that the 100-400mm produces some great results and I may have gone for that if I didn't already have the 70-200mm f/4 L.

Mike

Truth be told, my 100-400 spends 90% of its life at 400mm. So, I'd be fine with the prime, except the IS totally made the decision for me. The one place I really like the zoom aspects is Airshows. Sometimes I've clipped wings at 100mm. I want the perfect 50-500 f/4 IS, and don't forget lightweight

I own both the 70-200 f4 and the 100-400 IS and to be honest, in shooting Motorsports I find very little overlap at all. If I am toting about a small track such as a street course at the Toronto Grand Prix, I am less likely to really need to whip out the 100-400 whereas if I am at Mosport for a weekend I find the 100-400 to be an absolute must. In all fairness, for motorsports you're going to want the zoom for flexibility in being able to easily compose your shots on the fly without having to use your foot zoom capabilities and move around a lot.

If you're shooting a shorter track, the 70-200 range would do fine and you may be better off trading up your 70-200 f4 for a f2.8 non-IS and using that with a 1.4 or 2x TC instead of the 400mm 5.6 prime.

JC4 wrote in post #4621249
Truth be told, my 100-400 spends 90% of its life at 400mm. So, I'd be fine with the prime, except the IS totally made the decision for me. The one place I really like the zoom aspects is Airshows. Sometimes I've clipped wings at 100mm. I want the perfect 50-500 f/4 IS, and don't forget lightweight

I like the idea of IS, but I've never had it before, so I wouldn't miss it on the 400mm f/5.6 L! If I find myself in your airshow situation, needing to zoom out, I could always use the 70-200mm, although I'd have to keep changing lenses when I needed the reach of the 400mm!

Mike

smcclelland wrote in post #4621313
I own both the 70-200 f4 and the 100-400 IS and to be honest, in shooting Motorsports I find very little overlap at all. If I am toting about a small track such as a street course at the Toronto Grand Prix, I am less likely to really need to whip out the 100-400 whereas if I am at Mosport for a weekend I find the 100-400 to be an absolute must. In all fairness, for motorsports you're going to want the zoom for flexibility in being able to easily compose your shots on the fly without having to use your foot zoom capabilities and move around a lot.

If you're shooting a shorter track, the 70-200 range would do fine and you may be better off trading up your 70-200 f4 for a f2.8 non-IS and using that with a 1.4 or 2x TC instead of the 400mm 5.6 prime.

I can see that 400mm will be too long for some situations then. I suppose I could use my 70-200mm and put up with the limited range. I haven't tried it at a circuit yet, but I think it is going to be a bit short.

I'm pretty sure it will be okay for drag racing, rallying and off-road events though, because you can get a bit closer.

On a proper circuit (non-street circuit), do you find that the 400mm end of your 100-400mm is a bit too long?

Mike

Surprisingly no, 400mm for a lot of tracks feel just right for me... I shot 300mm at Mosport last year and felt myself always wanting/needing more reach in some of the turns. I also shot 300mm at the Montreal F1 and wished I had of rented a Bigma for the weekend as 500mm would've been much better from the grandstands.

400mm just barely covers some of my needs, which I why I also grabbed the 1.5x TC for days when I've got gobs of light and really need that extra reach.