Telephoto zoom lens for Motorsport & Wildlife 1k budget - Your advice please

B

bdigital

Suspended / Banned
Messages
332
Edit My Images
No
Telephoto zoom lens for Motorsport & Wildlife 1k budget - Your advice please

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone, I am after some help & advice. I have tried my best to structure this in a way that is easy to read but more than happy to answer questions if you have them.

I am in the market for a new telephoto zoom lens and I would like some help & opinions as part of my research.

The uses are:

- Motorsport (BSB, BTCC, MotoGP, DTM, WSB) Mostly at Brands Hatch, Thruxton and Silversone but also the occasional Snetterton trip.
- Wildlife - Zoo visits (big cats mainly), but also birds
- Avaition - Not something i have done before, but i would like to give it a go.

I currently have a canon 550D and have been using a pretty basic Tamron 70-300m f4.5 - f5.5 zoom lens (non IS). I have managed some decent results with the lens (see example below), but only with its sweet spot when the conditions are just right. The main limitations I have found is max focal length not quite enough, slow focusing speed with mediocre accuracy and image quality at the 300mm end (images are washed out and not as sharp)

My requirements are:

Must have:

- 400mm (im going for this because the 300mm doesnt quite reach in some of the spots i shoot from at the track)
- IS (including the panning technology that some lenses offer)
- Ability to fit extension tubes
- An improvement in image quality
- An improvement in focusing speed and accuracy
- Good quality even when extended out to 400mm

Desirable but not essential:

- Faster than f4.5 ( might be tricky in my price range, but willing to consider something if its close to budget)


My budget is around 1k - And i have seen two contenders in this bracket. The Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG OS (Around £650) and the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM


What i would like to know from you!

- Do you have experience of either of these lenses?
- Is f4.5 fast enough
- Are there any others in this bracket worth considering?
- Is there anything faster for similar money?
- Thinking out of the box, would i be better off buying a shorter, faster lens and then adding extension tubes? (cant see this being cost effective but thought i would mention)

Thank you very much for taking the time to read.

A pic taken on my tamron:

Shakey by bdigital101, on Flickr
 
Welcome to TP!

I think the 100-400 would be ideal for you - you won't get a faster aperture @ 400mm without paying a fortune. The lens has a good reputation and as long as you can live with the trombone zoom it is the ideal choice.

Phil
 
philthejuggler said:
I think the 100-400 would be ideal for you - you won't get a faster aperture @ 400mm without paying a fortune. The lens has a good reputation and as long as you can live with the trombone zoom it is the ideal choice.

Phil
Click to expand...


And yes, I've played with this lens - it wasn't for me, but it sounds ideal for you.

Phil
 
Another option worth considering is the 300mm f/4 L IS + a 1.4x extender (cheaper kenko would do if money tight)

This gives you faster aperture @ 300mm and still gives 420mm of reach.
 
philthejuggler said:
Another option worth considering is the 300mm f/4 L IS + a 1.4x extender (cheaper kenko would do if money tight)

This gives you faster aperture @ 300mm and still gives 420mm of reach.
Click to expand...

Yeah i had considered that, but not got any experience with tubes. Do they degrade image quality at all?

Also, how much faster is .5 difference?

Thank you very much for the fast responses by the way - Really happy that ive stumbled across this forum because i can see theres loads of information here.

Also, why was the 400 not for you? Anything in particular?
 
scottthehat said:
sigma 50-500mm os its an awsome lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks is this the one you mean? Sigma Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 APO DG HSM

Its around 1k so within the price range, but will it produce as good quality images as the canon? Bearing in mind i dont need the additional length.

Shame there isnt a sigma 400m that is quicker than 4.5 but not more than 1k - Otherwise i think my mind would be made up!
 
bdigital said:
Yeah i had considered that, but not got any experience with tubes. Do they degrade image quality at all?

Also, how much faster is .5 difference?

Thank you very much for the fast responses by the way - Really happy that ive stumbled across this forum because i can see theres loads of information here.

Also, why was the 400 not for you? Anything in particular?
Click to expand...


The quality of the 300 f/4 L IS is superb with and without the 1.4x extender. You lose one stop of light so it is the same f stop at 420 as the 100-400. At 300mm the prime is better and a stop faster, at 400 / 420mm the zoom is better.

Here is an example of the 300mm with a Canon 1.4xII extender attached. The top of the range Kenko is supposed to be similar in quality to the Canon.


Almost all of this gallery was with the 300 f/4, some with the extender attached (exif is shown on the right hand side of each shot under info).

http://www.philhackettphotography.com/p1011549075

Phil
 
philthejuggler said:
The quality of the 300 f/4 L IS is superb with and without the 1.4x extender. You lose one stop of light so it is the same f stop at 420 as the 100-400. At 300mm the prime is better and a stop faster, at 400 / 420mm the zoom is better.

Here is an example of the 300mm with a Canon 1.4xII extender attached. The top of the range Kenko is supposed to be similar in quality to the Canon.


Almost all of this gallery was with the 300 f/4, some with the extender attached (exif is shown on the right hand side of each shot under info).

http://www.philhackettphotography.com/p1011549075

Phil
Click to expand...

Wow, the images look brilliant - Thank you for that.

Ive just realised that the 300mm is a prime lens though, i know that they produce better image quality.....;but i would be afraid to rely on one for my motorsport shots! Loosing the ability to zoom in and out might limit me somewhat. Or at least i think it will.

hmmm - This sort of decision is never easy!
 
It's the old 'Jack of all trades and master of none' situation!

I think the 100-400L is a safe choice - it's always been popular with wildlife / motorsport / aircraft photographers and will be slightly sharper at 400mm than the 300mm + converter.

The 300mm is a great lens though and it's close-focussing ability makes it superb for butterflies, flowers etc.

Phil
 
philthejuggler said:
It's the old 'Jack of all trades and master of none' situation!

I think the 100-400L is a safe choice - it's always been popular with wildlife / motorsport / aircraft photographers and will be slightly sharper at 400mm than the 300mm + converter.

The 300mm is a great lens though and it's close-focussing ability makes it superb for butterflies, flowers etc.

Phil
Click to expand...

Thank you Phil - I really appreciate the help.

Im going to brands hatch for the BSB final in a couple of weeks, and im going to see what sticking witn 300mm is like - just to get a feel for what it would be like to have the prime lens.

In all honesty i wont always need the 400m range, its just some situations. At a track like brands il need a mixture of ranges depending on where im shooting from.

I just wanted something that will give me more opportunity to shoot, and something that will improve the quality of my images.

I take it that its a safe bet all of the lenses will be a marked improvement in terms of quality?

Does anyone else have any thoughts or opinions? Any fans of the sigma instead of the canon?
 
bdigital said:
Thank you Phil - I really appreciate the help.

Im going to brands hatch for the BSB final in a couple of weeks, and im going to see what sticking witn 300mm is like - just to get a feel for what it would be like to have the prime lens.

In all honesty i wont always need the 400m range, its just some situations. At a track like brands il need a mixture of ranges depending on where im shooting from.

I just wanted something that will give me more opportunity to shoot, and something that will improve the quality of my images.

I take it that its a safe bet all of the lenses will be a marked improvement in terms of quality?

Does anyone else have any thoughts or opinions? Any fans of the sigma instead of the canon?
Click to expand...

If you can live with 300mm most of the time then definitely get the prime - the extra stop will be useful depending on the light conditions. Sometimes needing 400mm is no issue with the extender, it's just if you need to zoom you have a problem.

Anyway I know nothing about the new Sigmas so will let others chime in on that. You will not be disappointed with either the 300 f/4L or the 100-400L.
 
I think the canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 would be a good, safe choice for you.

We've got several of them and they are probably our most popular lens, and are usually hired for motor events and airshows.

You should be able to pick up a good 2nd hand one for around £850 or a brand new one for around £1050.

Thanks

Andrew
 
In my opion the 50-500mm os is better than the 100-400mm and lots on here have gone from the 100-400mm to the 50-500mm os, as for quality its as good as my nikon pro lenses.
heres some photos from mine
SJB_8422.jpg


SJB_7972.jpg


SJB_8337.jpg


SJB_7591.jpg


CCTVEDIT1.jpg


SJB_1096.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'd seriously plonk for the Canon 300 f4 IS and a Kenko 1.4x TC.

Zooms are all well and good but lets be honest, for wildlife and most motorsport its always lack of length thats the problem - you will shoot at max zoom every time.

Therefore, get a prime to start with.

I had my suggested combo when I shot Canon gear, its really nice - I won't bore you with examples, there's enough out there and opinions on it.

PS not being rude, but 1k isn't a big budget to get you over the 300mm mark... thats where the costs spiral up like a [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]...
 
The Canon 100-400 would be a good choice, another to consider is the Sigma 150-500, I used one for three years until upgrading. It has an awesome IS system, better than the Canon. A couple of motorsport shots with it.

IMG_5215.jpg


IMG_4592.jpg


and a bird

Img_5951c.jpg
 
Some really great shots there guys - It is really helpful for me to see examples pictures taken with these lenses.

With regard to zoom vs prime - The lens will be my only zoom lens purchase for at least 1.5 years, so I like the flexibility the zoom brings. Whatever lens i go for is going to be an improvement regardless of what range i shoot out so i really dont want a reason to have to swap back to the zoom if the situation requires it.

I have been looking at the Sigma 50-500mm OS and it does look appealing. Its the proverbial spanner in the works lol.

If I was to compare the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 against the Sigma 50-500mm OS what would be the stand out differences?
 
300mm f4 q great lens was my main sport / aviation lens until I upgraded last year to the bigger brother. The f4 works very well with the canon 1.4x TC, but you do need the light to get the best from that combo.

300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_3850copy1.jpg


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_4393copy2.jpg


300mm f4
IMG_3794_edited-2.jpg


300mm f4
IMG_2159_edited-2.jpg


300mm f4 with 1.4x TC
IMG_3362_edited-2.jpg


As for a prime not being any good for motorsport as desantnik said
you will shoot at max zoom every time.
Click to expand...
especially on the race circuit in the UK, ok there are a few places on certain circuits where you can get closer to the action, but the majority require 300-400mm +

As for a sigma alternative, 50-500mm OS or 150-500mm OS will get you to 450mm 'ish and I've been impressed with the aviation shots I've seen over this year, but their major flaw is still f6.3 at 500mm, the lens just still on the slow side. Their the cheaper partner the 120-400mm OS, but another lens that I would consider is the sigma 100-300mm f4 (discontinued) but used prices around £500 and its a great lens, very fast, sharp, takes a 1.4x TC only downside is no OS, but a very good lens.

The sigma 120-300mm f2.8 (non OS), yes ideal for motorsport, takes TCs reasonable well, but issues with build quality, back focusing and performance fall off in low light (autofocus tracking).

Most people go zoom for their versatility (although for action photography, you get little time to zoom in or out without missing the shot, most just set a focal length and take the image), but a few of us have opted for primes because they have much better optics and its how you use the lens that will get you the shots

Peter
 
The other thing thats worth mentioning... for wildlife and for airshows the subject distance change is either zero for the former or very distant for the latter - its when you have rapid subject distance change to "close" (ie 10m) that the camera and the lens have to work the hardest.

What works well for aviation and wildlife might not work so well for motorsport.

As with anything, I qualify this with the usual statement of mine - sure you will get SOME shots with lesser performing gear but if you want better hit rates you will need the better gear.

I could post you great shots from my old Canon 350D and 70-300IS combo... yes, they did happen but not nearly frequently enough.

PS if you doubt my motorsport knowledge, take a look at the website link...
 
scottthehat said:
Have you used both, All my friends that had 100-400mm no longer have them and guess what they do have and its not white.
Click to expand...

To be honest, the 100-400 I've always thought to be a bit "meh" but as I said earlier, 1k isn't much money to get something decent for motorsport over 300mm and the 100-400 or 400 5.6 does get you sort of there.

The choice is essentially 300 f4 + TC or start multiplying your budget by 2 to 10 times to get the truly top notch gear which for most just isn't a reality.
 
Right ok - Some really helpful advice here and im doing my best to take it all on board! - I have also been doing my research by reading reviews and looking at photos taken with these lenses.

There seems to be quite a strong feeling that the Canon EF 300mm F/4.0 L IS USM + Canon Extender EF 1.4x is a great combo and although my initial reaction to a prime lens was negative im not going to ignore so many people telling me its a great combo. Especially as some of you obviously shoot at the BTCC and BSB (which is my main haunts too) and with great results.

This evening, im going to import the RAWs from my last brands hatch visit, pick my best shots and look at the EXIF data to see what zoom/distance they were taken with. This will help me judge what focual length im using my current zoom lens at most of the time.

Upon my next visit to brands (12th - 14th Oct) for the BSB I will test out what it would be like to have my current zoom lens at 300mm the whole time (with the option of extending with an imaginary extender!).

Off the top of my head, the only spot i can think of where 300mm would be too close might be on the inside of Druids. There are a few good spots down the back part of the GP track which might be around 280mm?? (please chime in if you know) but i will take a look at my images tonight to see.

Il report back with my findings!!

Thanks again everyone for helping out, i know 1k isnt the best budget for what im after but its a lot of money to me, so having some people in the know to talk it over with really means a lot!
 
100-400 is an great lens as is the 300 f4. I prefer the 100-400 for the versatilty however.
 
Something else to add is that the typical motorsport tog will have:

70-200 (2.8 if you can)
300 prime (2.8 if you can)
1.4x tc
plus something like a 18-55/17-40 for paddock/pitlane

For BTCC (or other car series) I normally shoot mainly with a 70-200, cars being bigger than bikes, whereas BSB (etc) its 300 prime with or without TC's or a 500 prime (if I can borrow it from a colleague for the weekend!).
 
desantnik said:
Something else to add is that the typical motorsport tog will have:

70-200 (2.8 if you can)
300 prime (2.8 if you can)
1.4x tc
plus something like a 18-55/17-40 for paddock/pitlane

For BTCC (or other car series) I normally shoot mainly with a 70-200, cars being bigger than bikes, whereas BSB (etc) its 300 prime with or without TC's or a 500 prime (if I can borrow it from a colleague for the weekend!).
Click to expand...
What apature do you use for your motorsport stuff if you dont mind me asking.,
where does f2.8 come in handy for it. Honest question im not being funny.
cheers.
 
Last edited:
You probably never actually shoot wide open, the advantage is to have twice as much light on the af sensors during focusing, which gives greater accuracy.
 
desantnik said:
You probably never actually shoot wide open, the advantage is to have twice as much light on the af sensors during focusing, which gives greater accuracy.
Click to expand...
oh right ok thanks just wondered thats all as most shot i have seen and have taken are up above f13 normaly, does a f2.8 lens focus faster than an f4 lens, i would think in low light it would but in normal light would you notice the differenc, thanks for your time.
 
Yes you do notice the difference, not just speed but accuracy.
 
hollis_f said:
If you normally shoot above f13 then you normally get images blurred by diffraction effects.
Click to expand...
I dont do endless amounts of motorsport but what i have done alot I have even had to use low 1(iso 100) with a shutter speed at 1/100th and had to use f18(bright sunny day) there nothing you can do if you want blur unless you want that still look,
On duller days its fine you can drop the apture to under f10 set the shutter speed and i let the iso do its thing normally set it for 200-800 for motorsprt and it works great.
 
ND filters are your friend :-P
 
CPL also causes weird "oil slick" effects from polycarb windscreens and colour distortion from plastic panels...
 
To be honest, its not something I care a lot about really in most cases... the only time I am watchful about aperture is when I am using TC's...

Rest of the time, set the ISO as low as I can get away with and dial in the shutter speed I want.

Aperture is really only relevant in this discussion with a thought towards the AF process, which opens up to max aperture for target aquisition, before closing down during shutter release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top