With motocross, are you really so far away you need 400mm+ lenses that often?
like any subject, you newer know when. the pic I posted on #19 skidding down a hill while his very expensive factory Honda cartwheels away, that is seriously relevant media content given the rider and track. I was shooting a place at Unadilla called The Wall. They used to call it screw U. Basically you go down a really steep hill, do a U turn, and come right back up it. A big U on the side of a hill.
I was shooting from the top as the made their ascent and were hard on the gas. Very dramatic action, but Bogle lost it coming down and it was a total shoot from the hip and hope for the best but one of my favorite shots to date given the person place and time (pro national event, top name rider, #1 track in the US) and I think its safe to say the big lens, even though I was "too close" helped play a part in grabbing the image and providing me a "full image" point being working close with a smaller lens is nice but it can be just as limiting OR MORE than a big lens with regards to your available coverage. Hope that makes sense..
I don't know if I'm quite ready to drop $11K on a 400 2.8 but the 500 and 600's not being 2.8 are cheaper and a tad more intriguing at that price. ...
Whilst I realise you're unlikely to be interested in this - because apart from anything else, this thread is about primes - I'd re-suggest you consider renting / trying the 200 - 400 f4.
As a Canon shooter, I've never used one, but over the yrs I've seen many superb pics (mainly w/life) that have been shot using this lens.
It's been lusted after by many Canon shooters in the past to such an extent some have bought a Nikon body, just so's they can use said lens.
(In the same way that Nikon shooters have bought Canon bodies just to use Canon's MPE -65 macro lens)
Canon shooters now have their own 200/400... but that's a different and - to you - irrelevant story.
Whilst I realise you're unlikely to be interested in this - because apart from anything else, this thread is about primes - I'd re-suggest you consider renting / trying the 200 - 400 f4.
As a Canon shooter, I've never used one, but over the yrs I've seen many superb pics (mainly w/life) that have been shot using this lens.
It's been lusted after by many Canon shooters in the past to such an extent some have bought a Nikon body, just so's they can use said lens.
(In the same way that Nikon shooters have bought Canon bodies just to use Canon's MPE -65 macro lens)
Canon shooters now have their own 200/400... but that's a different and - to you - irrelevant story.
pp
thanks. how many pixels on subject would that lens have?
Before I had my 70-700 zoom I had the nikon 80 -200 zoom. both 2.8
the 80 -200 was less than half the price of the 70 -200 but I traded it in after a year for the 70 - 200.
Whilst I realise you're unlikely to be interested in this - because apart from anything else, this thread is about primes - I'd re-suggest you consider renting / trying the 200 - 400 f4.
As a Canon shooter, I've never used one, but over the yrs I've seen many superb pics (mainly w/life) that have been shot using this lens.
It's been lusted after by many Canon shooters in the past to such an extent some have bought a Nikon body, just so's they can use said lens.
(In the same way that Nikon shooters have bought Canon bodies just to use Canon's MPE -65 macro lens)
Canon shooters now have their own 200/400... but that's a different and - to you - irrelevant story.
thanks. how many pixels on subject would that lens have?
.
Well, being a zoom, it'd vary, depending on setting used.
Using your 300 as a reference focal length and the numbers already mentioned for the two extremes of the zoom
4 / 9 / 16 pixels on subject for 200 / 300 / 400mm respectively ...assuming all other factors - like distance from subject - constant.
Whilst using the 200 end would give you less than half what the 300 would then it'd obviously allow you to keep pic elements in frame, that the 300 couldn't.
Moving closer to the action, (and getting similarly framed shots as with the 300) - as pathfinder's excellent advice suggest - would also be possible.
Not in a position to offer laptop advice btw - sorry.
Comments
like any subject, you newer know when. the pic I posted on #19 skidding down a hill while his very expensive factory Honda cartwheels away, that is seriously relevant media content given the rider and track. I was shooting a place at Unadilla called The Wall. They used to call it screw U. Basically you go down a really steep hill, do a U turn, and come right back up it. A big U on the side of a hill.
I was shooting from the top as the made their ascent and were hard on the gas. Very dramatic action, but Bogle lost it coming down and it was a total shoot from the hip and hope for the best but one of my favorite shots to date given the person place and time (pro national event, top name rider, #1 track in the US) and I think its safe to say the big lens, even though I was "too close" helped play a part in grabbing the image and providing me a "full image" point being working close with a smaller lens is nice but it can be just as limiting OR MORE than a big lens with regards to your available coverage. Hope that makes sense..
Whilst I realise you're unlikely to be interested in this - because apart from anything else, this thread is about primes - I'd re-suggest you consider renting / trying the 200 - 400 f4.
As a Canon shooter, I've never used one, but over the yrs I've seen many superb pics (mainly w/life) that have been shot using this lens.
It's been lusted after by many Canon shooters in the past to such an extent some have bought a Nikon body, just so's they can use said lens.
(In the same way that Nikon shooters have bought Canon bodies just to use Canon's MPE -65 macro lens)
Canon shooters now have their own 200/400... but that's a different and - to you - irrelevant story.
pp
Flickr
thanks. how many pixels on subject would that lens have?
Before I had my 70-700 zoom I had the nikon 80 -200 zoom. both 2.8
the 80 -200 was less than half the price of the 70 -200 but I traded it in after a year for the 70 - 200.
I think the 80-200 took a nicer pic...
any thoughts on this laptop for post processing?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1187907-REG/dell_aw17r3_1675slv_alienwre_i7_6700hq_8gb_1tb_gtx970m_windows_10_17_3.html
Well, being a zoom, it'd vary, depending on setting used.
Using your 300 as a reference focal length and the numbers already mentioned for the two extremes of the zoom
4 / 9 / 16 pixels on subject for 200 / 300 / 400mm respectively ...assuming all other factors - like distance from subject - constant.
Whilst using the 200 end would give you less than half what the 300 would then it'd obviously allow you to keep pic elements in frame, that the 300 couldn't.
Moving closer to the action, (and getting similarly framed shots as with the 300) - as pathfinder's excellent advice suggest - would also be possible.
Not in a position to offer laptop advice btw - sorry.
pp
Flickr