Lenses - The next step...?

[Emotive Images]

I currently do most of my motor racing photography with a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO HSM which I love to bits.

I'm looking to buy another longer lens to complement (or possibly replace) this one, and that will be used solely for motor racing. Oh, yeah ... I don't have a bottomless pit of funds to dip into

Any suggestions? I'm a Nikon nut, BTW.

Would I be as well off just opting for a 2x teleconverter, or is there a lens out there that is a logical next step from the 70-200?

-Mark.
www.emotiveimages.com

[kdr]

i'd look for a 300mm f2.8, see if your budget will stretch to add a converter.

[Emotive Images]

Thanks for the suggestion. I could probably just about squeeze both out of my budget.

I find the zoom great for framing and composing shots, would a fixed focal length lens not be restrictive compared to a zoom.

I only ask as I have only ever owned zoom lenses.

Mark.
www.emotiveimages.com

[vs346]

a fixed lens will only require you to walk a bit to frame and compose shots. the advantage of having a crisp 300mm 2.8 will completely outweigh the relative inconvenience of having to move about.

plus you'll find you will pay more attention to composition, which can only be a good thing.

[kdr]

are you going to trade in your zoom? if not then problem solved.

fixed focal length obviously isn't as flexible as a zoom....but this can be eliminated by either walking closer or further away from the subject!

in all seriousness if you asked a pro shooting motorsport what you need the first thing he'd say is as long a fixed focal length quality lens as you can afford. its a no brainer.

oops vs...snap!

[thebear]

Originally Posted by Emotive Images

I find the zoom great for framing and composing shots, would a fixed focal length lens not be restrictive compared to a zoom.
www.emotiveimages.com

Start by leaving your lens at 200mm for a while. If you go to a 300 you will have to shoot almost everything "head on". Panning will be extremely difficult. Static pix (action in the pits, etc) will not be a problem. You didn't mention if you are using a tri/monopod. It will be necessary with the 300mm as most are ƒ1:5.6 at best so your shutter speeds will decrease accordingly.

[Emotive Images]

Thanks for all the responses. I intend to hold on to my zoom (I love it too much!), so a 300mm+ "foot powered zoom" may be the way to go.

Yes, I have a monopod, so no problem there.

-Mark
www.emotiveimages.com

[PaulSands]

Originally Posted by thebear

If you go to a 300 you will have to shoot almost everything "head on". Panning will be extremely difficult.

I beg to differ I find using a 300 to pan helps because it instills some discipline into your shooting and keeps you on your toes. It makes you think about your shots a little more
http://paulsands.org/mal081405/web/slides/Img_4453.html

[MikeHoyer]

I've got a 300mm f4, best thing I ever bought. Before that I had a 135-400 zoom, and the difference is incredible. Although ideally I want a 400mm or 500mm prime, and a 70-200 f2.8 zoom, but funds don't really stretch that far at the moment

[thebear]

As you intend to keep the Sigma and it is a 2.8 definitely consider a teleconverter as a 2x will result in a still useful 5.6 aperture, plus you will have a 160-400mm zoom. One caveat however: Verify that the converter and lens are optically compatible. The Sigma web site (l lost the link but will PM when I find it) had a comment about that. Of course they may have been promoting their converters but I wasn't in the market and didn't study it.

The camera store should be able to let you at least take a few pix outside on the street to verify things.

[Emotive Images]

You're right, no sense in downgrading an excellent lens by cutting corners on the teleconverter. I made sure I got Sigma's EX UV filter too, which wasn't cheap.

I will definately be getting a teleconverter anyway, regardless of the decision I come to on the second lens.

Thanks.

-Mark
www.emotiveimages.com

[Peter Mallett]

I posted this in another thread. It (and the others in the thread) was taken during my first attempt at fully automatic photgraphy from the BRDC stand at Silverstone, using a Sigma 135-400 zoom and Kodak Ultra. The camera is a Canon EOS3000.

http://www.mallettracing.co.uk/IMAGE...5/10210013.jpg

This was on maximum zoom no mono thingy or tripod either. Never could get on with those for motorsport.

However its a good example and will maybe assist you in your decision.

[James North]

Hi guys.

I know this is probably become the most boring infuriating type of thread. So I apolgise in advance for keeping it alive!

I'm strongly considering extending my current loan to fund a prime lens. Although I do love my Sigma 50-500 f4.6.3, I'm absolutely yearning to try one of these f2.8. And I feel every little bit of extra fine equipment should help me develop and become a little more consistant.

I have a short list at the moment.

Sigma 120-300mm f2.8

Sigma 70-200mm f2.8

Canon 70-200mm L f2.8 (stablizer)

Canon 70-200mm L f2.8

I have to say at the moment I've very tempted by the canon 70-200mm with the stablizer option. I the price 7dayshop.com are offering is quite good. But is the stablizer option worth it? would the non stablizer lens be just as good?

I'd warmly appreciate any thoughts on these lenses, and any other suggestions you might have. But bear in mind, My budget can not stretch past £1500 and even that is stretching it.

[Emotive Images]

My 70-200mm f/2.8 doesn't have image stabilisation and I can't say I've had an occasion to wish that it did. If the lens was any longer, then it's absolutely a must have feature. But shooting from around 1/100th to 1/300th second, I've not had any trouble hand holding it. It will be a heck of a lot less unweildy than your BIGMA too.

-Mark.

[James North]

I like the way you say BIGMA!

Yeah it's bloody heavy. Mind you I've had some pretty good results from it. Can I see some examples from the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 please?

Normally I have no problems in opting for Sigma over Canon lenses because Sigma are quite close to Canon quality but less pricey. Thanks.

[Emotive Images]

Sure James,

Here are some of my personal favourites, all taken with the Sigma.

http://emotiveimages.com/eigallery/B...61_Neal?full=1

http://emotiveimages.com/eigallery/B...hrowers?full=1

http://emotiveimages.com/eigallery/B...DSC3740?full=1

http://emotiveimages.com/eigallery/B...DSC3653?full=1

http://emotiveimages.com/eigallery/B...DSC9058?full=1

-Mark.

[James North]

Thanks Mark.

Love the wet weather reflection shots.

I kinda made my decision before this post by jumping at a good deal for the sigma 70-200 f2.8

So many of those pictures vindicate the desision. I hope to have it in time for my next media access for the F1. I already have have plans for it.

(might take in a x2 teleconvertor for the slight longer stuff as well, since f5.6 at 400mm is better than f6.1 or so at 400mm (what my 50-500 is capable off).

I'm hoping with a fasten lens, that my consistancy will improve even more.

[APS]

Hi all, i have some examples from the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 :

http://www.motorsport-images.com/btccpage1.html

in fact most of the images from 2004 were taken with the lens .

I now use the 100-300 f4 , gives the little extra reach when used with the EX 1.4x @ f5.6 or used alone @ f4 the clarity is superb.

As a thought i would personally say the 70-200 f2.8 is the best lens i ever owned .

As for the question if money was not an issue i would deffinatley invest in the 120-300 f2.8 i know someone who uses it and in all areas it is superb .

regards Tony

[MikeHoyer]

I think I'm gonna get one of these Sigmas aswell, well I might be able to get a Nikon 80-200 f2.8, but if that falls through I'll go for the sigma.

[KennyG]

You can't beat having a decent reach F2.8 for our wonderful late and early season days when the light isn't that good. If you have a camera where you can crank up the ISO to 800, or even 1600 on really bad days, without too much noise then you can just about get away with a slower lens. Also, a good F2.8 gives much better bokeh (background OOF/blur) with the subject standing out.

You will keep a good lens for many years and it should be regarded as an investment not an expense.

[MikeHoyer]

Ah, that's OK then!

I saw one that I could pay for over time, so long as I paid for it by next March (which was no problem, they wouldn't charge interest).

[BigRed450]

The Sigma 80-400 OS may be an optiion for you.

[924nut]

Originally Posted by KennyG

You can't beat having a decent reach F2.8 for our wonderful late and early season days when the light isn't that good. If you have a camera where you can crank up the ISO to 800, or even 1600 on really bad days, without too much noise then you can just about get away with a slower lens. Also, a good F2.8 gives much better bokeh (background OOF/blur) with the subject standing out.

You will keep a good lens for many years and it should be regarded as an investment not an expense.

Interesting comment that Kenny with regard to the ISO settings - I have been wary of cranking up the ISO - I was treating it very much as I always did with film (loosing too much definition with very fast film) but you clearly are not averse to using this technique - I will have to give it a good experiment - nb - the ISO on the 7D goes up to 3200 but somehow i dont think that I will be going that far

[James North]

What I found with the 70-200mm f2.8 is that it completely transforms my work in the pits. It's a godsend.

Light was pretty good at times at Silverstone during the September test, so I also got some of my best ever pictures from my 50-500 as well.

[Bernard Bram]

Originally Posted by 924nut

Interesting comment that Kenny with regard to the ISO settings - I have been wary of cranking up the ISO - I was treating it very much as I always did with film (loosing too much definition with very fast film) but you clearly are not averse to using this technique - I will have to give it a good experiment - nb - the ISO on the 7D goes up to 3200 but somehow i dont think that I will be going that far

You can get Neat Image for about 25€ (Home Edition). Noise at ISO800 is really no problem anymore, though postprocessing does take some work. Considering a fast lens for low noise pictures costs about 100x, those 25€ was the best investment i did after spending 4000€ on my equipment.