best lens for fast sport

A

arnie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
13
Name
arnie
Edit My Images
Yes
i am new to dslr and have a 1000d what lens would help to try and get some fair pics at motorcycle road racing.at the moment i have a 18-55 is lens. i realise i am very limited with this camera :'(:'( i would be grateful for any advice.thanks
 
Last edited:
Hi

I would you say you would want to be looking at a lens with a large aperture. This is the 'f' number i.e. f2.8. You can get lenses at various maximum apertures but this is also refected in the price. Usually these expensive lenses have quicker/better focusing motors too so this is also a benefit.

I guess an idea on budget would be great and also if the focal range of the kit lens is wide/long enough?


Andy
 
I would go for a sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG Macro HSM very good lens and you can get them for about £350-£400 second hand i have one and love it
 
You are hardly limited at all with that camera. Get to know what it can do (pretty much everything) and don't expect it to do servo-AF 100% every time with something coming rapidly straight at you, or shoot at a million frames per second, and you'll get some great results. It's much more down to your own knowledge and skill and you can work around any limitations.

You could spend thousands on a lens for motorpsort, but if the light is decent and you can get reasonably close, you can get away with a couple of hundred quid and nobody will know the difference. That would be a Canon 55-250. Next up is a Canon 70-300 IS, and probably the best all-round sports lens is the Canon 100-400L at around a grand. Generally speaking with bikes, you need all the focal length you can get; 200mm will almost certainly be too short for general use.

Budget?
 
Last edited:
As others have said it's really hard to advise without knowing your budget.

The best would be something along the lines of a 400 f/2.8 which is a good few thousand pounds. The downside is it's big, heavy and zooming has to be done with your feet.

Then you have the 100-400IS L USM, this is very flexible and my personal lens of choice. Second hand you can find them for £750 upwards.

IMG_0090.jpg


However I had some great results with the 70-300mm IS USM, absolute cracking lens for the money. You could pick one of these up second hand for a little under £300.

IMG_0174_edited-2.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums
 
Rolyratman said:
As others have said it's really hard to advise without knowing your budget.

The best would be something along the lines of a 400 f/2.8 which is a good few thousand pounds. The downside is it's big, heavy and zooming has to be done with your feet.

Then you have the 100-400IS L USM, this is very flexible and my personal lens of choice. Second hand you can find them for £750 upwards.

IMG_0090.jpg


However I had some great results with the 70-300mm IS USM, absolute cracking lens for the money. You could pick one of these up second hand for a little under £300. thanks roly great pics. i go to isle of man races every year and looking forward to giving it a go

IMG_0174_edited-2.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums
Click to expand...
 
Hi

As others have said, your budget is really the restriction.

The Canon 55-250IS is a great lens for the price and depending on how fast the subject is moving (my daughter manages very well with hers), you should manage okay, then there is the 70-300IS as above, which is a cracker of a lens and as you can see from Rolyratmans photos it's more than up to the job.

Then you jump to the 70-200 F4 and F2.8 and 100-400 etc etc

And this is just some of the Canon lenses.....


Hope this is of some help :thumbs:
 
Depends quite a lot on which track you're shooting at. Some you can get away with a 70-200, others will stretch a 70-300. A large aperture will help lower shutter speeds if you want to freeze action but is just as much use IMO in losing the fences which are almost everywhere now (a wide aperture will help throw the fence out of focus so it all but disappears).
 
Nod said:
Depends quite a lot on which track you're shooting at. Some you can get away with a 70-200, others will stretch a 70-300. A large aperture will help lower shutter speeds if you want to freeze action but is just as much use IMO in losing the fences which are almost everywhere now (a wide aperture will help throw the fence out of focus so it all but disappears).
Click to expand...

thanks nod more good advice. mainly i.o.m tt and oulton park:thumbs:
 
arnie said:
thanks for advice scot.great bike shots:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Cheers Arnie, the examples I gave are at Silverstone and are cropped a little and show one extreme of motor sport especially bikes where you do need length and even 420mm is still short. But for circuits such as Oulton Park and Cadwell Park you can get a lot closer without any fences and my Sigma 70-200 gets used as well.
 
70-200 2.8 from canon ! (the focus is way better than the off brand ones )

You would get a pretty decent focal length for sports on 1.6 and a focusing system and focal range that will still be good after a few years/investments
 
Out of intrest what would you use for the drag racing at Santa Pod, wasn't much of a fence there last time I went about 2 years ago and you could get quite close to the strip, but with cars going that fast would the 70-200 f2.8 cope?
 
Keenbfb said:
Out of intrest what would you use for the drag racing at Santa Pod, wasn't much of a fence there last time I went about 2 years ago and you could get quite close to the strip, but with cars going that fast would the 70-200 f2.8 cope?
Click to expand...


I use 16-35 70-200 300 600 and when needed 1200mm (600 with the 2x) on a 1.3 crop bodies. Examples of all can be found in my portfolio ( link in sig)

From a spectator POV 70 mm is ideal for a full side on pan , 200 is a smidge short for a more head on view but it is doable with a crop.

The 70-200 even on a mid range body is more than capable to keep up, but the is can have a bit of a fit when fuel cars launch ( that's force 4 on the richter scale) yet strangely the 300 doesn't have a issue with it.
 
Iv used a canon 70-200f2.8 at oulton before and on a crop body it was pretty much perfect at lodge corner, druids was ok as you can get relatively close. round the other side you may struggle with 200 round cascades.

maybe look at the 70-200 with a 1.6 tele converter on it?

spoke to a few people regarding the 100-400 and was told its a bit slow and not very good in low light.
 
philgale said:
Iv used a canon 70-200f2.8 at oulton before and on a crop body it was pretty much perfect at lodge corner, druids was ok as you can get relatively close. round the other side you may struggle with 200 round cascades.

maybe look at the 70-200 with a 1.6 tele converter on it?

spoke to a few people regarding the 100-400 and was told its a bit slow and not very good in low light.
Click to expand...

Really, not true. For a zoom of that range, there is nothing better.
 
vinersan said:
70-200 2.8 from canon ! (the focus is way better than the off brand ones )

You would get a pretty decent focal length for sports on 1.6 and a focusing system and focal range that will still be good after a few years/investments
Click to expand...

Lol @ "off brand"!
 
zilly said:
I use 16-35 70-200 300 600 and when needed 1200mm (600 with the 2x) on a 1.3 crop bodies. Examples of all can be found in my portfolio ( link in sig)

From a spectator POV 70 mm is ideal for a full side on pan , 200 is a smidge short for a more head on view but it is doable with a crop.

The 70-200 even on a mid range body is more than capable to keep up, but the is can have a bit of a fit when fuel cars launch ( that's force 4 on the richter scale) yet strangely the 300 doesn't have a issue with it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice Dom theres talk of a trip to Santa Pod some time this year and wanted to make sure I hired the right lens, some cracking examples on your portfolio :thumbs:
 
I've used the 100-400 L for any number of occasions. From bright sunlight to hand held in the back garden taking pics of the moon at night. I've never had too much trouble in getting decent results in what I'm after, so low light really isn't a problem.
 
HoppyUK said:
You are hardly limited at all with that camera. Get to know what it can do (pretty much everything) and don't expect it to do servo-AF 100% every time with something coming rapidly straight at you, or shoot at a million frames per second, and you'll get some great results. It's much more down to your own knowledge and skill and you can work around any limitations.

You could spend thousands on a lens for motorpsort, but if the light is decent and you can get reasonably close, you can get away with a couple of hundred quid and nobody will know the difference. That would be a Canon 55-250. Next up is a Canon 70-300 IS, and probably the best all-round sports lens is the Canon 100-400L at around a grand. Generally speaking with bikes, you need all the focal length you can get; 200mm will almost certainly be too short for general use.

Budget?
Click to expand...

:clap::clap: Perfect post :clap::clap:
 
Bear in mind a 70-200 on a crop will be 320mm at the long end :)
 
I know it's a bit off topic and maybe picky but how many people can't spell "lens" without sticking an "e" on the end.
 
Another vote for the 100-400. At tracks like the IoM where you can get really close to the action, you are not going to need a long lens, but at others where you are crammed in with the great unwashed, 400mm can make all the difference.

186.jpg
 
70-200 2.8 hsm macro seems to get alot of thimbs up, im looking for one aswell, should work well with a 1.4 extender aswell.......?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top