Motorsport lens

Walto

Walto

Suspended / Banned
Messages
73
Name
Daniel Walton
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning all,

was wondering if anyone could give me some advice on a good motorsport lens to suit a nikon d40x?

I've had it, with the 18-55 3.5-5.6 and the 55-200 4-5.6, for about 18 months now and am looking for an upgrade. Moneywise I could probably stretch to £400, although i could go a little higher if i can get a good deal. Ideally i'd like it to autofocus but it wouldn't be the end of the world if not.

I was originally thinking the nikon 80-400 but widespread reports of slow autofocusing has put me off that idea. I've looked at a couple of sigma d40x compatables but they seem either suspiciously cheap or too expensive.

If anyone could share ideas or experiences i'd be very grateful.

Walto
 
the 70-300 VR is a good choice. i have one and its well worth the price.

or save up a little more and go for the 300mm f4 (just under £600)
 
Unfortunately £400 isn't going to buy you much in the way of a lens suitable for motorsport shooting. A secondhand Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM or an older 80-200 f/2.8 Nikon (mf only) are probably your best options, although tbh I don't think either lens would balance terribly well on such a small body as the D40x.
 
I recently picked up a Nikkor 70-300VR for motorsport shots and it just about passes but on my limited budget it will have to do. I also use a D40 and this is well within you budget :)
 
thanks for the ideas guys. i was thiniking about the 300 f4, but i think it would have to be second hand if i get one of those, so i will keep looking on tp and ebay for that. i would love an f2.8 lens but i feel my current 200 comes up a bit short so would also need to look at a tc with those. Also, with my rather limited knowledge i'm not sure what the advantage is in a motorsport scenario to having a 2.8 lens when most shots are at 10 and 11, is it a picture quality thing?

If i get a lens from new i guess the 70-300 would be a realistic option, would give the extra length i'm looking for. since most of the motorsport shots i've taken are at f10 and f11 maybe there would be scope for a 1.4tc on that too. hmm.

Kingy - when you say it just about passes - whats good and bad about it?
 
Walto said:
thanks for the ideas guys. i was thiniking about the 300 f4, but i think it would have to be second hand if i get one of those, so i will keep looking on tp and ebay for that. i would love an f2.8 lens but i feel my current 200 comes up a bit short so would also need to look at a tc with those. Also, with my rather limited knowledge i'm not sure what the advantage is in a motorsport scenario to having a 2.8 lens when most shots are at 10 and 11, is it a picture quality thing?

If i get a lens from new i guess the 70-300 would be a realistic option, would give the extra length i'm looking for. since most of the motorsport shots i've taken are at f10 and f11 maybe there would be scope for a 1.4tc on that too. hmm.

Kingy - when you say it just about passes - whats good and bad about it?
Click to expand...

You need a "fast" ie 2.8 glass for motorsport because when you focus you do so with the lens at it's widest aperture, it only closes down to your chosen setting when you press the shutter release.

Nikon cameras won't autofocus below f/5.6, so you would be stuck with manual focus only.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Nikon cameras won't autofocus below f/5.6, so you would be stuck with manual focus only.
Click to expand...

AF is not guaranteed above f/5.6 when you add the TC - however, certain lens/TC combos can work - I had AF working fine on my D80, with the Tamron 70-300mm and a Sigma 2x TC a few years back.

Back to the OP - save up more. At the minimum, try for 300mm & f/4 (Nikon 300mm f/4 or Sigma 100-300mm f/4) The difference is appreciable!
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You need a "fast" ie 2.8 glass for motorsport because when you focus you do so with the lens at it's widest aperture, it only closes down to your chosen setting when you press the shutter release.

Nikon cameras won't autofocus below f/5.6, so you would be stuck with manual focus only.
Click to expand...

Before I had my 70-200 / f2.8 I used manual focus all the time at motorsport, my hit rate has improved using AF with the f2.8 but my panning/composition hasn't :bang:
 
You definitely need AF for motorsports unless you're an absolute GOD and there aren't many of those around nowadays. The last one I know of created the universe etc....

The action in sports is so varied and fast that you don't have time to worry about the focussing, so the faster a focussing lens you can get the better.

Also if you're doing your job properly, you're concentrating on composition, what distracting backgorunds there are in frame, whether you're going for an atmospheric motion filled pan, a wide open 'environmental' view etc, etc all in all which leaves you very little right frontal lobe capacity to then track said fast moving object to manually focus on it.

Did I say you definitely need AF for motorsports........:shrug:

Also depending on how you want to progress your motorsports photography, dictates the glass you will buy. If you're serious about it and going further, then I would advise you to buy the best quality you can. Don't waste your time (and money) settling for 2nd best, finding your shots are 2nd rate whatever you do/change and then selling your lens at a probable loss and buying the lens you should have bought first off.

For me, on a Nikon that would be Nikkor AFS glass. AFS is Nikon's fast focussing range of lenses.

Trust me (again), I used a sigma zoom on the D100 I started out with and it was no where near fast enough for my motorcyle racing shots unless the bikes were in a tight hairpin turn and I was 10 feet away from them.

The minute I got an AFS lens, my in-focus shots changed dramatically yet my style and technique hadn't so it could only have been the Sigma that was "at fault" to be perfectly honest.

The Nikkor AFS 300mm F4 can be bought for less than £650 new and within your budget second hand.

If you want to maximise your in-focus count then get Nikkor AFS attached to your body.

I've done my miles and "flying hours" trackside so do have a little experience on this.

Good luck.

Regards, Guy
 
reddeathdrinker said:
AF is not guaranteed above f/5.6 when you add the TC - however, certain lens/TC combos can work - I had AF working fine on my D80, with the Tamron 70-300mm and a Sigma 2x TC a few years back.
Click to expand...

Yes, I should have said guaranteed- iirc when I tried the 1.4x Sigma tc on my 70-300 VR/D80 combo it did af, but only pointing it a very brightly lit area and only at 1600 iso and from what I remember the viewfinder was very dim...
 
CopeImages said:
The Nikkor AFS 300mm F4 can be bought for less than £650 new and within your budget second hand.
Click to expand...

Any pointers as to a seller that has these new at under £650? The cheapest price I've been quoted recently (and the dollar has strengthened against the pound since then) was £680 from Kerso...
 
Walto said:
Kingy - when you say it just about passes - whats good and bad about it?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the focal length more than anything. 300mm will do for a lot of the time but I've still found that I want to get closer to the action, although I guess this is a fairly common desire amongst photographers unless you have a full kit bag??

My budget stops me buying any more kit for a while at least but I'm veryhappy with the value the 70-300VR lens has added :)
 
CopeImages said:
You definitely need AF for motorsports unless you're an absolute GOD and there aren't many of those around nowadays. The last one I know of created the universe etc....
Click to expand...

Thankyou :D , I'd always wondered how I'd got my shots :thumbs:
 
There seems to be a lot of general 'rules' when it comes to getting a motorsport lens, but it all depends on how you want to shoot motorsport, really.

When you think of the standard 'almost head on' shots you see everywhere that are frame filling with blurred backgrounds, you will need a very fast, very long, very expensive lens. But I honestly don't think you need that to get good photos. I was told I would probably need a camera with quicker fps when I bought my D50 for motorsport, but I've only ever held the shutter release down for a burst 2 or 3 times in the past two years, it's just something I've never wanted/needed to use.

Same goes for focal length, I actually miss not having my 80-200 any more, many will tell you that's too short, but I found it to be an immensely creative piece of glass and used it far more than I ever thought I would. Many of the really interesting/different motorsport photos that crop up on here are with an 80-200 lens. If I could trade my 120-300 2.8 back in for my 80-200 AF-S I probably would if I could be sure I wouldn't be out of pocket.

Personally I would go with one of the 70/80-200 2.8 lens (second-hand) and then add a 1.4 teleconverter at a later date. If you get reasonably fast glass chances are you can keep it for good, as you can add a teleconverter for extra reach, something you probably won't be able to do with one of the 70-300 f4-5.6 lens. I managed to pick up my 80-200 2.8 AF-S for £499 second-hand, but you could probably shoot comfortably with the non AF-S Nikon or the Sigma version and get that for at least £100 less.
 
I have a D40x, and originally used the Nikon 55-200mm VR AF-S lens for aviation shots and motorsport. However, there were a significant number of shots at 200mm or close to, which could have used a longer focus lens.

I borrowed a Nikon 70-300mm VR AF-S lens and found that it gave me the extra edge on flexibility and choice, that the 55-200mm could not quite reach for my target subjects.

So, the 55-200mm was sold and I now have a 70-300mm lens. The majority of shots that I take are less than 200mm focal length, but the higher magification over 200mm for some subjects is well worth it.

Of course, larger lenses and another Nikon body would extend capabilities even further, but this means carrying a lot of kit around, and a bigger budget!

Note that Sigma do a 70-300mm lens with a built in motor for Nikons. This is cheaper than the Nikon lens, but I have no experience of it.

Edward
 
Again, thanks for all your comments, I'm not too hot on the technical aspects of this game yet so all suggestions are appreciated. I find myself agreeing with the sentiment that it may be better to save for longer and try to get hold of something of better quality rather than just the extra length. I think I will keep an eye on the 2nd hand market and look to get something at the beginning of next season.
 
Walto said:
Again, thanks for all your comments, I'm not too hot on the technical aspects of this game yet so all suggestions are appreciated. I find myself agreeing with the sentiment that it may be better to save for longer and try to get hold of something of better quality rather than just the extra length. I think I will keep an eye on the 2nd hand market and look to get something at the beginning of next season.
Click to expand...

If you are looking at 2nd hand Walto, keep an eye on people like Grays of Westminster ( http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/ ). They have a pretty extensive 2nd hand lens and body section and offer warranty on 2nd hand stuff too.
 
i would look for a second hand sigma 100-300 (maybe alittle more) but its a fantastic lens, i use one and wouldnt be without it (unless a £1500 came my way for a sigma 120-300)
 
andrewc said:
Does the Sigma have the AF motor in Noink fit?
Click to expand...

If HSM is stated in the title, then yes. It's their version of AF-S.

I tried many lenses before finally going for the 70-200VR. There is no other lens anywhere near it's standard. I didn't try the 80-200 AFS so perhaps that's nearly as good but good luck finding one!

I appreciate there is a budget for most. Sigma 70-200 is OK IMO. And I mean, OK at best. :nono:

As said, AFS is a MUST for motorsport. The 70-300VR would be best the next best bet, as I used to use my 18-200 as my motorsport lens. AFS is very quick, but the only downside is the lack of aperture as you go up the focal range. Keeping a good shutter speed and adjusting the ISO is the way to go if you don't have f/2.8.
 
the sigma 100-300 does have HSM.

mine is fantastic, not tried a Nikon 70-200. the other halfs dad has one and had a sigma 70-200 before that and said it was great.

i should have mine today and will take some test shots over the weekend with it and post up some example
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top