Photography / Camera chat thread.

[dyzio]

What sort of lens should one be looking at if you're planning a few visits to race tracks?

I was thinking about a SIGMA 70-300mm f/4.0 5.6 APO, but it doesn't look like it has any image stabilisation or a hsm motor. hen I found this Sigma 50-200mm f4-5.6 DC Optical Stabiliser HSM.

Any idea if a 200mm lens would be "sufficient"? Camera is a Canon 400D.

Cheers

[mister c]

I use a 70 - 300 Canon lens on my 300d which seems to be ample for the circuits I've been to. Mine aren't image stabilised & I dont "bin" many of my pictures. Sometimes a bit of blur gives it some mood

Originally Posted by dyzio

What sort of lens should one be looking at if you're planning a few visits to race tracks?

I was thinking about a SIGMA 70-300mm f/4.0 5.6 APO, but it doesn't look like it has any image stabilisation or a hsm motor. hen I found this Sigma 50-200mm f4-5.6 DC Optical Stabiliser HSM.

Any idea if a 200mm lens would be "sufficient"? Camera is a Canon 400D.

Cheers

200 mm might be a tad on the short side, but depending on distance it might be do-able.
Personally, assuming I'd be using the lens mainly for race tracks, I'd give a bit more importance to ultrasonic / hypersonic / whatever motor drives with manual focus override than to optical stabilization.
Reasons? A few: ultrasonic motors are usually quicker (which you'll need...) and if you have instant focus override without having to flick buttons back and forth it's a lot quicker to pre-focus the camera when the autofocus sensor screws it up completely for you and starts hunting from minimum distance to infinity and back
The lack of optical stabilization wouldn't bother me as much because you'll probably be shooting either at very fast shutter speeds (and there is a lot of controversy about using OS / VR at 1/500s or faster, with a lot of people saying it does more harm than good), or panning with the bikes / cars at slower speeds, where you actually want a blurry background and sharp subject. If the OS / VR system isn't good enough to be able to detect panning motion and disable the axys of stabilization in the direction of panning, you will want to turn it off anyway...

This said, I'd be looking for a Canon 70-300 lens if you're on a budget. If your budget is smaller than that, I've also heard some praise for Tamron's newest 70-300, but have never used it before so it's just hearsay. If money isn't really a problem, then I'd be looking at a 70-200 f/4L or f/2.8L with a 1.4x teleconverter!

[dyzio]

Unfortunately out of the two, only the later one has a high speed motor. I really like the fact that it can be bought new for around £150

The 70-300mm usm Canon sounds nice but it's over £300 :/

Originally Posted by dyzio

Unfortunately out of the two, only the later one has a high speed motor. I really like the fact that it can be bought new for around £150

Is that the Tamron or the Sigma in your previous post? If it's the Tamron, then it's probably one of the older cheap versions, the new one should be closer to the Canon's price...

[dyzio]

The "shorter" Sigma from the previous post: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SIGMA-50-200-H...item2eb2698037

[dyzio]

Although this Canon looks interesting, gonna have to look for some reviews:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-Canon-EF-7...item4cf3b7a523

Originally Posted by dyzio

Although this Canon looks interesting, gonna have to look for some reviews:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-Canon-EF-7...item4cf3b7a523

Mmm the couple of reviews I've read so far aren't very encouraging... softness at the telephoto end (common in this price range), USM motor but without full time manual override, and cheap build.
Unfortunately you do get what you pay for, just like with Nikon's 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6G. Cheap as chips, but cr@p quality.
If you don't want to spend much more than that, then it's either looking at a shorter zoom (and Canon makes a very honest 55-250 lens both with USM and IS), or 3rd party lenses...

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by Filipe M.

200 mm might be a tad on the short side, but depending on distance it might be do-able.

I'd have to say based on my experience that 200mm isnt enough. I struggled with my 200mm and Donnington and also at Thruxton as well. Because of the extra catch fencing / distance the spectators are away I found that I was taking my pics and then having to crop them afterwards which I didnt like.

If you can afford it, go for the 300mm it's much more flexable. I know it costs more but I havent regreted it.

[dyzio]

Originally Posted by Filipe M.

Mmm the couple of reviews I've read so far aren't very encouraging...

Sounds like you are correct
I've found some reviews as well and they said the same thing

So far the 200hsm Sigma looks ok, but I'll keep an eye out on others, I don't need it right now.

Cheers