Sigma 50-150 2.8, quick enough for Motorsport?

[ukaskew]

I'm currently trying to decide which shorter lens to get for Motorsport, I have a Sigma 120-300 2.8 and I'm finding the wide end far too long for many of the shots I like to take. I used to have a Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-S and even that felt a bit long on occasions.

Had a good look around and the Sigma 50-150 2.8 seemed to tick most of the boxes, and there is very little 'wasted' crossover between that and the 120-300. It also appears to be reasonably compact, which would be a massive bonus as it would give me a telephoto option when I go on holiday/trips etc, and therefore hopefully get rid of the need for yet another lens in the future.

Does or has anyone used it for motorsport, though? My only concern is AF speed, not that I have read anything bad in that respect, just that I want to make sure it's plenty quick enough for 100mph cars etc, I haven't come across too many action pics with it.

 

[desantnik]

Wouldn't a 70-200 be the standard answer to this one...

Even if its fast enough, 50-150 probably isn't a length range I'd want for motorsport... (on a 1.5x crop body...)

I tend to find tarmac circuit based stuff is usually 100mm+ and the only time you want to be really wide is for the close up stuff like MX or rally (where 70mm I found to be too long in places).

Probably I'd punt for a 70-200 to go with your 120-300 and if you were into the closeup stuff, add a 24-70 to the pile at some point (they seem to be de rigeur at the moment )

 

[njtruscott]

I use the 50-150 for Speedway and Grasstrack although you tend to be able to get closer to the action than you would at a race track, nearly all the images on my Flickr were taken with this lens.

 

[ukaskew]

Wouldn't a 70-200 be the standard answer to this one...

I've owned an 80-200 2.8 as mentioned above, but that was still a little long for the sort of shots (circuit based) that I like to experiment with, I try not to 'follow the crowd' with motorsport so I'm looking for something a little different, so I'm 100% sure that as far as focal lengths go, the 50-150 would be perfect. My 80-200 was also far bigger than would be comfortable as a walkaround (for when I go to New York, for example) but the 50-150 looks very manageable.

This was at 100mm with my old 80-200 to give you a rough idea of my thinking, but there are plenty of places I can think of where I would like far far less length than that...

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/335537671_TjS65-L.jpg

 

[ukaskew]

I went ahead and bought a 50-150 2.8, mainly because one cropped up second hand at a good price.

What a lens, hard to believe how small it is considering it's a full 100mm of f2.8 goodness, amazingly compact. As a walkaround it has loads of potential, especially as I would never usually even consider taking my Nikon 80-200 2.8 our for a walk due to its size and weight.

Took it to Bruges this weekend, actually fit in my coat pocket when I was using my other lens on my camera.

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/432938747_ErEMm-L.jpg
http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/432939394_h83zc-L.jpg
http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/432919699_tRTEF-L.jpg
http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/432933649_hYQF2-L.jpg

Did a very brief motorsport test and AF seemed fine as well...

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/426706182_z48v2-L.jpg

 

[whitey]

this was a question i was asking myself a while back, i think i even posted on it, i went for the 70-200 option in the end as it covers more range, i would say if your using less than the 70mm you maybe to close lol