Best lens for Racing

[Marky]

Right want to ask a question.
I want a 400 mm lens (zoom not prime) for my D70, been looking at the nikon 80-400 f5.6 and the sigma 80-400 f5.6 both with VR/OS.
But have seen reviews saying there both slow AF.
has any one used these so can say if there to slow for fast action or not, also does the VR work when painning as i not used VR before.
Many thanks
Mark

[bella]

i think i've got the 80-400, it's a good lens, but i would agree with what you've heard and say the af still isn't fast enough if you want to use that for head-on shots. i find the vr mildly irritating to be honest, and have now turned it off.

[zac510]

Are you behind the fence or in front with media accreditation?

[agosling]

I'm a Canon users so I can't speak about these lens other than to say any zoom with an f5.6 is probably not going to be that fast in any other respect either.

Any lens that has a big zoom range is going to be a compromise in terms of speed and image quality. My choice would be to get something in the 70-200 range and then get a 400 prime.

It really comes down to how serious you are and how much you want to spend. Good lens are VERY EXPENSIVE.

Give the Sigma a miss, I have tried third party lens in the past and I have always ended up coming back to Canon. I know there are people who will disagree, but third party lens are never as good as the Canon and Nikon gear, which is why you rarely see the pros using them.

[Marky]

Originally Posted by agosling

Give the Sigma a miss, I have tried third party lens in the past and I have always ended up coming back to Canon. I know there are people who will disagree, but third party lens are never as good as the Canon and Nikon gear, which is why you rarely see the pros using them.

i thought that, i have always stuck with Nikon because of that and friend works for Nikon so gets good deals.
i have been using just the 70-300 which has just standard glass in it so not very good lens anyway but get good results and just want to step up to next level. dont really want to go to Prime lens money.
but any one of those i would think is a big step up from what i was using

Mark

[bella]

yeah, my sigma was pants (as i've preached in the other threads about lenses and so on ). the difference between that and the nikon lens is massive, to say they're pretty much the same to buy money-wise.

[Marky]

Originally Posted by zac510

Are you behind the fence or in front with media accreditation?

Hi Zac im behind the fence at the momet im affraid

[Paul.GT]

Marky what sort of money are you going to spend,i use a 120-300 f2.8 sigma with 1.4x and 2xtele D2H and love it,also own a sigma 70-200 f2.8 which my boy uses on a d70 with good results.Paul

[RaptorUK]

Originally Posted by Marky

Right want to ask a question.
I want a 400 mm lens (zoom not prime) for my D70, been looking at the nikon 80-400 f5.6 and the sigma 80-400 f5.6 both with VR/OS.
But have seen reviews saying there both slow AF.

The AF is a little slow but not unusably so, I found it much quicker than the Sigma 50-500mm . . . ( I hate that Sigma )

Originally Posted by Marky

also does the VR work when panning as i not used VR before.

The VR does work when panning, I always used mine with VR on. I have taken lots of motorsports shots with the 80-400 VR.

If you want/need a zoom then your best bet is the 200-400mm VR, it's what I have now and have sold my Sigma 50-500mm and 80-400mm VR to help finance it.

A more affordable option would be a 300mm f2.8 (2nd hand) with 1.4 and 1.7 TCs . . . but you don't want a prime do you ? I also sold my 300mm f2.8 (very fast focusing) to help finance the 200-400mm VR . . .

[Hubble]

What about a 400MM f4 lens?

[KC]

No matter if you are shooting only daylight images or shooting both night and daytime. Get the fixed aperture lens, it will always shoot better than the variable aperture lens. A fixed aperture lens is almost always sharper, better color and contrast and faster focussing than a variable aperture lens. Also, having owned a Nikon D70s and now shooting with a D200, I would recommend only a lens with Nikon AFS/Sigma HSM/or similar focussing drive. The D70/D70s focus drive motor is good for about 20,000 actuations in my experience when used to drive a lens that does not feature its own drive motor. I shot a season of baseball, about 20,000 shots, with a D70s and el-cheapo Sigma 70-300 f4.0-5.6. The lens components, especially on a lens this long, will wear down the focus drive motor and it will require repair by Nikon to fix it. Luckily Nikon repaired mine under warranty and automatically replaced the shutter mechanism (good for 100,000 actuations). I replaced the Sigma 70-300 f4.0-5.6 with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM and besides never having a single maintenance issue again, my images are 1000% better. You probably don't realize how poorly focussed and flat looking your pictures are until you shoot a better lens. Then you'll kick the old one to the curb in a heartbeat. I now have about 170,000 actuations on my D200 (new just after Christmas) and the Sigma and it just keeps on ticking. I am currently looking at 400mm f4 fixed aperture lens for longer reach for daytime games and races.

[RaptorUK]

KC, I think you mean fixed focal length not fixed aperture ?

I'm also a little confused about what shutter actuations has to do with focusing ? focusing movements will likely be more than 10x your shutter actuations . . .

Some non AF-S lenses also focus very quickly, e.g. 300mm AF-I , even with a 1.4x or 2 x TC.

[redshoes]

400mm f4 ? Come on people, lets get real for a second.

True a fixed length 400mm will always be a better option than a zoom, but ask yourself if that's a sensible suggestion in this instance. Although Marky hasn't specifically mentioned budget, he's given enough clues. The 2 options he said he's considered are both just short of the £1000 mark (or equivalent in you local currency) and he has later said that he doesn't "really want to go to Prime lens money".

Is there really any point in suggesting a 400mm prime costing 2 or 3 times his previous options?

[RaptorUK]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Is there really any point in suggesting a 400mm prime costing 2 or 3 times his previous options?

No, but a good 300mm f2.8 can be had 2nd hand for around £1000. Personally given the probable budget and the desire for a zoom I would suggest the Nikon 80-400mm VR is the best option . . .

[KC]

The best of the best are fixed focal length primes and by their very nature they are fixed aperture as they don't zoom anyway. What I meant by a fixed aperture is that the aperture does not change on its own as you zoom. The Sigma 70-300 f4.0-5.6 changes aperture as it zooms. The 300mm setting is only as fast as 5.6, one full stop slower than at 70mm f4.0. The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 will shoot at f2.8 through out its zoom range. It does this because the tube the lens is made of does not change length as you zoom. The zoom all happens internally.

The Nikon cameras are not designed the same as Canon. Canon lenses and third party Canon mount lenses all carry the focussing drive motor in the lens, no matter if it is a standard focus or a USM. Nikon places this drive motor in the camera body. Cheaper lenses use this motor to autofocus and it is not as robust as the USM/AFS/HSM drives that are in the better lenses. After having had this fail on my Nikon D70s I tend to look for AFS type lenses for my cameras. Most AFS type lenses for Nikon are fixed aperture lenses. There are some AFS lenses that are not constant aperture, the Nikkor 18-70 3.5-4.5G AFS that I own is like this. Its not half as sharp as my 50mm f1.8 is, but its also not a prime, which almost always are sharper.

I put a huge duty cycle on my gear. This places huge burden on the tiny little focussing drive in the camera body and on the D70/D70s its not really meant for this level of use. Its fine if you just shooting normal amounts of images (250 or so at a race), but I would probably shoot 2500 to 3000 shots for a race and for this kind of duty cycle I recommend the lens be the driving device in the equation.

The non-AFS lenses that focus quickly tend to be primes and by their design have less moving parts than telephoto zooms. My 50mm f1.8 is a cheap (US$90) non AFS lens and its pretty quick on focus, but it also has so few parts inside it it doesn't take much power to focus the primary.

The Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AF-D lens (replaced by newer Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 AFS-VR) is an example of a fantastic lens with a constant aperture but no Silentwave motor.

[henk4]

I got some experience with a Sigma 500 on a Canon, and the results look comparable to what people would get with the same size (but not weight) Canon lense. It seems to be the only really compatible Sigma lense around and works well for racing shots...

[minimangler]

Best lens i've used is an rather battered 80-200 f2.8 (i think 2.8) but it is just so good. Worth spending more for less distance and more quality IMO.

[MikeHoyer]

It's not THAT battered!

[minimangler]

its gone 10 rounds with tyson!

[David L]

Originally Posted by KC

The Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AF-D lens (replaced by newer Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 AFS-VR) is an example of a fantastic lens with a constant aperture but no Silentwave motor.

The Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AFS-D lens did have motors.. and can be very worthwhile looking out s/h..

It was also replaced by the 70-200 VR..

Dave

[MikeHoyer]

I know someone who's got one for sale.....

[minimangler]

iknow someone who wants one

[Marky]

Hi Guys thanks for all the replys sorry not answered been on hols.
have had a read of the replys been a great help i think im going to go for the nikor 80-400. i realy dont want a prime, ok it is a better lens but i want a bit of flexability. i have 70-300 nikor but want that bit extra zoom.
thanks all

Marky

[Hubble]

Originally Posted by Marky

Hi Guys thanks for all the replys sorry not answered been on hols.
have had a read of the replys been a great help i think im going to go for the nikor 80-400. i realy dont want a prime, ok it is a better lens but i want a bit of flexability. i have 70-300 nikor but want that bit extra zoom.
thanks all

Marky

I have found that primes make me think more about my composition, and take more care in my shots

[RaptorUK]

Originally Posted by Hubble

I have found that primes make me think more about my composition, and take more care in my shots

I totally understand what you mean . . but I found that unexpected action I wasn't able to catch due to not being able to zoom got quite frustrating for me . . .

The 80-400mm is a good compromise in terms of weight, quality, performance and cost, hope you have every success with it Marky