Need zoom lens advice

Doug

Doug

Suspended / Banned
Messages
947
Name
Doug
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys,

I am looking to purchase a new zoom lens for my D60 body. I currently have a 18-55 Kit lens and I need some longer reach for motorsport events.

I am looking at the 55-200 VR Nikon lens, but I feel this may not have enough zoom. I would be tempted by a 70-300 but I would need one that that the image stabilisation built in aswell as the motor so it works with my body.

I mainly want some glass that will be good for motorsport mainly but that will work with general photography.

I have to say that the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 looks pretty much perfect but I am worried that 200 just isnt enough reach for motorsport? But then again anymore may prove to be too much for everyday use.

I want to be able to take pictures to this standard with my set up:

3314710388_7eb9316b67_o.jpg


Credit to 'rrfierce' as it is the picture he posted in one of his for sale adverts.

Could the 70-300 VR Nikon be able to get results like that? or do you really need some fast glass?

Originally the budget was £150 but I think I can stretch to £400 - £450 at a push if the glass is going to be something really special!

What would you guys buy if you were in my shoes?
 
Changed my mind about budget etc. Please see revised post above.

Any motor sport shooting advice muchly appreciated!
 
Hi there. Before someone comes along and flames me for saying this, you don't need fast glass for a decent shot.

Of course, you get what you pay for - and pricier lenses are faster, but you'd get some cracking shots with consumer zooms. Dependent upon your field of shooting [and I take it you're after trackside action] then reach is the thing you'll miss most.

I've shot my regular haunt - Goodwood - with a 70-200 2.8, an 18-200 Nikkor and the 70-300 Nikkor. Goodwood's circuit is a little idiosyncratic as you can get quite close [and in fact, at Festival of Speed, 70mm's often too long but that's another story..] so the 200mm covers pretty much most things - but at places like Silverstone or Snetterton, it helps to have a little extra zooming power.

Plus, for panning shots, you're not using the fast lens for its rapid shutter ability - in fact, you're often holding back on the shutter speed to 1/100 or less to get a feeling of motion. A good panning technique beats a good lens anyday.

The 70-300vr is sharp pretty much across its entire range, has VR and comes in £100 less than the cheapest 70-200 2.8, which lacks reach for your application. Bokeh is irrelevant when you're panning, but if you wanted portraiture aswell then that's a point scored to the fast glass.

2604696021_db596a4eb7.jpg


2436538645_ceba256a19.jpg


both taken with the Nikkor 18-200 superzoom, which the 70-300 blows out of the water for sharpness and reach.
 
Hi Doug,

I have a D40 with the 55-200 non vr and the 70-300 AF-S VR. The 70-300 is what can only be described as a fantastic lens and very well suited to motorsport. It certainly punches well above it's price tag. Most of the wildlife stuff in my Flickr, and motorsport in my gallery, has been with this lens if you want some examples.

I think there are one or two floating about on the for sale forum on here at the £325 mark that would be worth a look :shrug:.

I have only used the lens at Snetterton but found that I was quite often using it at 240 - 270mm, even though it was a quiet day and I could get to stand where I wanted.

I would say that if you can stretch, or wait for a good s/h one then it would be worth it.

Hope this helps :thinking:
 
Hi Doug.

The image you have used is superb. I think to get a shot like that you may need something a little faster than a 70-300VR. I think you will be hard pushed to find a 70-200 F.2.8 with a budget around the £400 mark. May be worth looking around for a used Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with the addition of a 1.4 extension at a later date if you find you need it.

Hope this helps and if anyone disagrees with my view that the 70-300 VR would not produce similar results it would be great to see some of the images. I have a 70-300 in the post having just bought one form here.
 
But we're back to the depth of field argument - low light ability is irrelevant for most [daylight] racing shots, as is bokeh; what you need is something sharp enough at the long end to let you take a shot at, say, 1/100 [remember you often have to stop down at low shutter speeds to avoid overexposure].

I'll try and dig up a 70-300VR race shot, but I'll have to upload one to Flickr first, so it might be tomorrow as I'm on call ATM.]
 
With some hard haggling you just might get a sigma 100-300 f4, which I'm sure you know took that picture. Fast glass is great for poor light but the nikon 70-300 will be excellent in most conditions. Different tracks require different lenses, I took my nikon 70-300 and sigma 70-200 to Cadwell and spent most of the day with the sigma as I rarely went over 200mm.


As to danbroads comments on Bokeh and low light. You would be suprised how much grey cloud cover can be a probem and I have seen many pros comment on the use of fast glass to help make marshells, ambulances and other background clutter be less of a distraction.
 
I hate being in such a position!

I was thinking that the Siggy 70-200 would be a great all round lens to use for both normal work and motorsport but i doubt I will have the reach needed.

Can anyone confirm if a 1.4x Sigma Teleconvertor would still retain Auto Focus on a D60 body with the above Sigma lens?
 
1.4x and 2x will auto focus on D60 with the 70-200. I have the 2x and used it at Cadwell with the 70-200, didn't get the best out of the combo but that was down to me as I only took a few shots when it was quiet. I'm looking to add a 1.4x to my kit:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top