Car racing super telephoto dilemma

NFI · 19 Mar 2012

I am considering buying a super telephoto Canon lens.

Currently I shoot with a Canon 70-200mm and a tc2x on a 1d mk3, but as the new cameras are coming out it is likely I will move to FF in a few years so bear that in mind...(currently my max focal length is 400mm x 1.3=520mm)

I was originally thinking about the 600 f4 or the 400 f2.8, however the 600 both size and weight are too extreme for me and thought perhaps the 500 f4 would be a better choice...thing is the 500mm on a FF body will offer me less than my actual 70-200 with tc on my current camera...the 400 2.8 was took into consideration as more flexible and the possibility of using it also for other sports...but on FF same issue, it will be probably be quite short, there is the possibility of using it with a 1.4tc but i will like to avoid using tcs if possible.

As the price of this lenses is all but cheap, I have to be sure about what I need and definitely don't want to regret after the purchase...

As for my photography I do mainly GT/touring cars racing with open wheels as a minority...

If somebody have shoots of these lenses I would be grateful if he/she could post it.

gary996 · 19 Mar 2012

Well if you don't mind using a tc I would look at the Sigma 120-300 f2.8. I think having a zoom would be beneficial. You can get the lens approx £1650 and have seen it for sale with the 2x tc for for less than £1900.

Just my opinion

Craikeybaby · 20 Mar 2012

My suggestion would be to hire the lenses and see how you get on with them.

pete.rush · 22 Mar 2012

The new sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS would give you the flexibility and there are quite a few motorsports togs that swear by that lens, I do mean the latest version as the older version had quite a few niggling issues (build quality, autofocus tracking in poor light), but was still a very good lens for the $$$

Are you talking about the new MKII 70-200mm IS and MKIII TCs or the MKI version, because personally on its own the lens great, but with a TC, its a horrible combination, and that's from personal experience using it for motorsport and aviation.

The 500mm f4 is my next lens, but can't justify the outlay, lenses prices are just plain right :bonk::bonk::bonk:ers at the moment, I was luck to get a mint condition 300mm f2.8 a couple of years back and just love it, great lens and easily hand holdable and works well with the MKII TC's, even the 1.4x and 2x TC stacked in the right conditions.

300mm F2.8 (MKI) + 1.4x and 2x TC (MKII) stacked

Canon 300mm f2.8 + 2x TC (MKII)

Of course with everything, you need the right conditions to get the best results

Peter

desantnik · 22 Mar 2012

I tried the new sigma on Monday... Its not very impressive imho. Doesn't take non sigma tc's, slow af compared to other options and worst of all poor contrast and yellow/pink colour caste like all sigma lenses I have owned.

Unless you really want a zoom, get a 300 f4 instead, cheaper, better, crap loads lighter!

NFI · 23 Mar 2012

Pete I am talking about the 70-200 mk1 and tc mk2, well obviously using if you are a professional and use it as a main lens I would not rely just on that, but still I managed to take some good shoots with it, though the AF is quite slow

on a 30d

on a 1d mk3

both at 400mm

I tried the 300 2.8 on the field before but I found the 300mm a little short for my needs, I'm actually considering either the 400mm 2.8 or the 500mm f4 prime. Apparently the 500mm seems to be the choice of many motorsport photographers. I'll probably rent the 500 for the BTCC and see how it goes there

desantnik · 23 Mar 2012

Imho, you don't want or need a 400, 500 or 600 for cars, except f1 where the run off areas are huge.

A 300 plus tc's are the way to go....if you need long at all. I tend to use a 70-200 for cars...

For bikes...different game.

Just my opinion based on using pretty much everything for tons of races...

pete.rush · 23 Mar 2012

And another major thing is, where you standing. All my shots were taken through the safety fences, so it really depends which side of the fence you are as to the lens you buy, unfortunately I'm not accredited and its just for fun, but its a challenge with obstructions in the way.

philgale · 23 Mar 2012

I use a 70-200f2.8 and a 400f2.8 for motorsport on either a 1d3 or 7d and a 1.4 extender.

for cars its very rear you need a 400, you could get away with using the 70-200. if your shooting sport whats the reason wanting to go FF?

NFI · 24 Mar 2012

philgale said:
I use a 70-200f2.8 and a 400f2.8 for motorsport on either a 1d3 or 7d and a 1.4 extender.

for cars its very rear you need a 400, you could get away with using the 70-200. if your shooting sport whats the reason wanting to go FF?

Not my choice, but the trend within Canon seems talking exclusively FF for the future (1Dx and 5D mk3), now I don't know whether they will produce other APS-H pro bodies but it doesn't quite seems the case to me and time will come to replace my 1d3 in the next few years

pete.rush · 24 Mar 2012

desantnik said:
I tried the new sigma on Monday... Its not very impressive imho. Doesn't take non sigma tc's, slow af compared to other options and worst of all poor contrast and yellow/pink colour caste like all sigma lenses I have owned.

Unless you really want a zoom, get a 300 f4 instead, cheaper, better, crap loads lighter!

I'm surprised, but then again knowing people who own the previous models, the sigma 120-300mm did have its issues, especially with autofocus in poor light. I'm not passing judgement on either version as I've not own either, from what members on hear have posted, they say the OS version is a significant improvement, but then again the issues with previous models of this lens were if you got a good one keep it, but issues with build quality, back focusing and I've had several friends who've had problems with that, then then again, several who swear by it. My feel is, the 120-300mm if you get a good copy is a great lens, especially for the money, but its pot luck, abit like canon's 100-400mm which is also plagued by these issues.

DemiLion · 25 Mar 2012

desantnik said:
I tried the new sigma on Monday... Its not very impressive imho. Doesn't take non sigma tc's, slow af compared to other options and worst of all poor contrast and yellow/pink colour caste like all sigma lenses I have owned.

Unless you really want a zoom, get a 300 f4 instead, cheaper, better, crap loads lighter!

I'd agree about the weight differential, but that's about it. The OS version certainly does take Canon TCs, and I haven't noticed a lack of contrast or a colour caste at all.

Yup it doesn't focus as fast as a 300/2.8 with a TC, but then again there's a considerable price difference. However it certainly locks on fast enough for football, rugby and equestrian sport.

desantnik · 25 Mar 2012

Not sure if this is going to be easy to see, but here is a quick comparison - ignore the shots themselves, I don't need C&C this time ;-)

Sigma:

Nikon:

Comparison crop:

Nothing wrong with the sharpness (maybe not in my example there, but generally I was happy), but the contrast and colour thing is what you really get from a 300 2.8 vs my current 300 f4 setup... so to me, spending another 1k is largely pointless - its 300 2.8 VR or nothing.