|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
3 Nov 2011, 15:11 (Ref:2981118) | #26 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,834
|
I remember when 75-300mm first appeared in any sort of quality, for 35mm film bodies. If you wanted more, you bought a 500/600mm mirror lens!
Now folks with crop bodies are complaining a 300 is too short? So go and buy a 600 f4. That's about the only thing that you seem to want! Though I did see a Nikon 800mm in the Silverstone grandstands at Britcar... Then again it was on a D3. |
||
__________________
Tim Yorath Ecurie Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch Fan of "the sacred monster Christophe Bouchut"... |
30 Dec 2011, 15:04 (Ref:3005552) | #27 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,204
|
I have the canon 400mm 5.6L, it's great and supposed to be sharper and faster auto focusing than the 100-400,, it was perfect for silverstone. course, you'd want something smaller for paddock shots
|
||
|
31 Dec 2011, 18:42 (Ref:3005924) | #28 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,834
|
Dunno. You could get some stunning detail images with that thing! My son uses a 300 f4 Nikkor in pits n paddock, and isolates a drivers eyes, in a mirror, sort of shot.
|
||
__________________
Tim Yorath Ecurie Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch Fan of "the sacred monster Christophe Bouchut"... |
1 Jan 2012, 12:34 (Ref:3006076) | #29 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 273
|
Im looking for a new lens, the price of the canon 100-400 puts me off.
Been looking into the sigma 120-400, seems to be rated high up against the canon and is alot less. |
||
|
16 Jan 2012, 14:19 (Ref:3012328) | #30 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2
|
Quote:
So I really prefer a Canon 100-400, it covers a lot more! |
||
|
18 Jan 2012, 04:20 (Ref:3013184) | #31 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 51
|
Canon 100-400mm is not really a daddy when it comes to motorsports. In fact I have never seen any full time staffer use one. Even the two guys I know who have one refer to it as the canon dust pump. For that kind of money save up more and just get a 70-200mm F2.8 IS2. The 70-200 can be used for taking awesome driver portraits, pit lane, the gird walk and race action. Where as the dust pump would only be track-side use and its not even very good at that considering its a F5.6 at longer focal lengths. With the 70-200mm you can snap on a 1.4 TC and so long as you stop it down a little it will still return sharp shots with little degradation to AF speed. I would not recommend anything more than a 1.4 on a zoom lens. If you need longer optics I would opt for a 300mm F2.8 but I would take a guess that's way out of the budget.
70-200 with 1.4 TC (before I owned a 300mm F2.8) |
|
|
18 Jan 2012, 07:21 (Ref:3013211) | #32 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 946
|
|||
__________________
Andrew Cliffe - Norwich Photo & Racing Exposure |
21 Jan 2012, 17:59 (Ref:3015066) | #33 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 480
|
Quote:
With the 100-400 being SO bad I guess I had better sell mine then On the other hand - may as well keep it for now .DAVID. |
|||
__________________
Photographer for the CSCC You can sleep in a car BUT you can't race a house!!! |
21 Jan 2012, 19:22 (Ref:3015087) | #34 | |
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,426
|
||
|
21 Jan 2012, 21:33 (Ref:3015109) | #35 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 480
|
3rd body. . . . . . now your just showing off
Anyway - back to the original question - sorry I can't help with anything cheaper for similar results. .DAVID. |
||
__________________
Photographer for the CSCC You can sleep in a car BUT you can't race a house!!! |
22 Jan 2012, 00:10 (Ref:3015155) | #36 | |
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,426
|
||
|
22 Jan 2012, 00:43 (Ref:3015163) | #37 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 51
|
I never said it cant produce good photos, just that I think the 70-200mm is a better investment despite being more money. I just feel that the 100-400 is somewhat of a specialized lens, and that perhaps a 70-200 would be more universal in terms of using it outside of shooting cars. I never gave it the nickname dustpump, its just what the two guys who own it call it. One of them openly admits the AF speed is not ideal for racing. Given that the thread is called "is there a better lens out there" I think my original response was perfectly acceptable. If you want a even better answer, if you are only shooting one or two races a year just save yourself the money and rent. For cost of $60 you can rent a $5,000 lens for a weekend.
|
|
|
22 Jan 2012, 11:06 (Ref:3015246) | #38 | |
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,426
|
I've seen some excellent shots taken using a 100-400, even with an extender, with other subject matter - birds for example, where the detail in feathers and colour is everything.
It's always going to be a compromise and the very latest sensors may be stretching its capabilities somewhat or, to put that anouther way, it may not be able to get the best out of them. But then judging by the new lens developments that Canon have been trying to prepare recently (disrupted by tsunamis and other things) many lenses may not be able to extract the very best results that are now possible. (Or it could be marketing hype of course ....) I have a 70-200 f2.8 IS II and it's a cracking lens. It will also produce some great shots with MkII 2x extender fitted, especially when there is some light around. Sadly I seemed to be at a lot of dark and damp meetings in the UK last year so the top quality hit rate ratio dropped a bit as might be expected. On the upside at least the available light and spray offered some variety for the images. I've never used a 100-400. I was very tempted until I hired the 70-200 for a weekend and fell for it despite its limited focal length (for quite a lot of motor sport locations in the UK at least) and higher price. Right now a long EOS prime would be nice, but I have a manual FD mount prime to fall back on when I have enough enthusiasm to carry it around! No AF - that may be a benefit in some ways. Mind you with that lot I would probably need an assistant! |
|
|
22 Jan 2012, 11:30 (Ref:3015253) | #39 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,197
|
Quote:
I find that I rarely use the 70-300 beyond 200mm at most circuits (it's a bit soft up towards 300 in anycase). I miss out on the 'head on' shots which often need a longer length (but they don't tend to do a lot for me anyway). So if I'm brave enough to splash out on the 70-200 I would also combine it with an extender. |
|||
__________________
Gary Clarke |
22 Jan 2012, 15:38 (Ref:3015317) | #40 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,426
|
Quote:
Hi Gary, I should also have mentioned that I'm using this attached to a Canon 1D3 mostly in the anticipation that the 'Pro' elements of body and lens will be at least a little more effective than 'lesser' bodies, at least for fast action stuff and follow focusing. The head on shots really do need at least 400mm in my view. 500 at f4 even better unless you have a lot of croppable resolution to play with. I have an old 600mm full manual lens that, by the time an adapter is fitted, is probably closer to 800mm and then multiply by the sensor crop factor. When everything comes together (mostly needs good light from a useful direction) the 'head on' results can be excellent. Pan shots are, to say the least, somewhat trickier! The great thing about long lenses and wide apertures is the extremely short DoF available Blurred backgrounds, mostly hiding circuit mess, are more readily accessible. The problem with 400mm f5.6 for large parts of most circuits is that even when panning the background crud spoils things in most locations around the circuit. Even when panning. So you end up with putting up with the the tyre wall/fences/whatever or limiting the places you shoot from. It's not quite so bad if the circuits are 'dressed' for a big event. However, in the absence of a large investment budget and a packhorse for transportation a 70-200 from almost any part of a manufacturer's lens range is a flexible choice and usually rewarded with very sharp images. FWIW I also have a 70-300 and it too is a little soft at the 300 end - though not as soft as it was before service and recalibration ... |
||
|
5 Feb 2012, 16:06 (Ref:3021846) | #41 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1
|
|||
|
7 Feb 2012, 09:33 (Ref:3022542) | #42 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,752
|
Just stumbled on this thread and it makes for very interesting reading.
Like the original poster I'm currently using a Canon 55-250mm lens (on a Canon EOS500D body) and, although I'm mighty pleased with some shots I've taken, I really feel like I'm a bit lacking in range at certain tracks so I I want an upgrade. The Canon 100 - 400 certainly seems to be the "dream" lens (and there are some cracking pictures taken with it!), but I just can't justify that sort of money for a lens at the moment. Are there any Sigma users in here? Do they give a decent performance for lesser money, or is it just a falso economy and I'm better off saving for the Canon? |
||
|
10 Feb 2012, 13:28 (Ref:3024099) | #43 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12
|
After a long time hunting around, I've managed to get this lens just in time for the motorsport season! and at a bargain price aswell!
£780, second hand - but still the optical performance is perfect! |
||
|
10 Feb 2012, 14:18 (Ref:3024119) | #44 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,834
|
|||
__________________
Tim Yorath Ecurie Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch Fan of "the sacred monster Christophe Bouchut"... |
10 Feb 2012, 19:47 (Ref:3024230) | #45 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 946
|
I'm a Sigma user, quite happy - mine was sharper than the Canon 100-400 but the Canon offered more contrast out of the camera, but I used a global adjustment to give a bit of oomph to the contrast.
I don't use it as much now as I now use a Canon 300mm prime. |
||
__________________
Andrew Cliffe - Norwich Photo & Racing Exposure |
24 Feb 2012, 13:33 (Ref:3030379) | #46 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,045
|
OK, I have just purchased a Canon EOS550D with an 18-135 mm lens. I don't have a huge budget and so probably can't afford the Canon Lens 100-400mm as discussed here, what would be a good budget alternative bearing in mind I am a mere amateur. As a marshal I get as close to the action as any photographer, but we obviously don't take pictures whilst on duty, so my position of advantage is as a spectator, any thoughts on a suitable budget lens much appreciated - thanks
Martin |
||
__________________
Life is for living, it is later than you think….. |
24 Feb 2012, 13:51 (Ref:3030387) | #47 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 946
|
Sigma 100-300 f4 EX in my experience offers superior sharpness and aperture over the Canon 100-400 but usually needs a contrast adjustment in post processing. If that is too much, then the Canon 70-300IS is worth looking at, and at the budget end Canon 55-250IS is pretty good and not heavy. You can also crop heavily and still get images that will print perfectly at A4 or even A3 or larger.
|
||
__________________
Andrew Cliffe - Norwich Photo & Racing Exposure |
24 Feb 2012, 15:17 (Ref:3030427) | #48 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,045
|
Quote:
Bladders............... |
|||
__________________
Life is for living, it is later than you think….. |
24 Feb 2012, 16:44 (Ref:3030461) | #49 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 946
|
The Canon 70-200 f4 L is a great lens as well, but not quite long enough.
|
||
__________________
Andrew Cliffe - Norwich Photo & Racing Exposure |
28 Feb 2012, 14:49 (Ref:3032452) | #50 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,834
|
Most makes have a 75-300 in there somewhere. Ideal for 'value' long range shots. They won't be as fast, or as sharp, as some kit compared in here, but they will not cost the earth, and they weigh next to nothing...
Horses for courses. |
||
__________________
Tim Yorath Ecurie Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch Fan of "the sacred monster Christophe Bouchut"... |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM | woodyracing | Motorsport Art & Photography | 46 | 27 Apr 2011 07:37 |
Canon's EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens | Allen Mead | Motorsport Art & Photography | 5 | 21 Mar 2006 12:19 |
Canon Lenses for Canon 350d? | Michael Wyles | Motorsport Art & Photography | 14 | 18 Jul 2005 17:50 |
Canon 100-400 L series+ x2 converter | TuscanR | Motorsport Art & Photography | 17 | 23 Mar 2005 13:13 |