Need Advice for fast Sport photography

Mike Werner

OK folks, I need some advice. I've been shooting landscapes and portraits most of my life, but now need to start doing motorsport sports.

I did my first assignment 2 weeks ago in France (beach enduro), shot some 5,000 photos. They came out OK, but it was obvious that I need to complement my lenses. Using 20 - 120 is nice for landscapes, but I lost out of a lot of great pics not having proper zooms.

I'm running a D70, Fuji S1Prp and S3Pro and will probably get the D200.

Here's what I mean. This is the start of the race, 1000 motorcycles leaving. I was about 1 kilometer away.



As you can see, it's hazy. I need to get closer but not use a tripod.

This is what I wanted:



(they were much closer here).



Half way to me. Here I'd need to zoom in to pick out individual riders.

Here's another problem



This was shot with a 70mm, but due to the fast action, I couldn't focus fast enough, so it got blurred.

Close action shots are OK



This was taken with 36mm

The other problem the lens will have to overcome is lots of dirt



Lots of it... so can't get confused...



Taken with a 150mm

So, how do I take situations like this:



and single out like this:



or get close like this



or even closer




So, what are my choices ?? Taking into account that money IS an object !! I see the Nikon have a 80-400mm VR lens. Would that do the trick if I scraped up the money.

Or would cheaper Tamron/Sigma do the trick ??? Or am I dreaming and need to buy several lenses ??

Your opinions/advice much appreciated!!

chuckice

I'd save the pennies and go with the 70-200 2.8 VR. Light is an issue and having the zoom flexibility is very important with sports. You could go with a 200 or 300 2.8 prime but I think you need that zoom. Next recommendation would be a 200-400 f/4 but that's the big bux. The 70-200 is optically perfect and a GREAT sports lens. Does a fantastic job tracking and snagging focus...the 2.8 is crucial. That lens does the best job of non-hunting for sports on the D70 that I've found. Hope that helps...happy to offer more tips if you need.

Here's some samples from the D70 + 70-200.

Mike Werner

chuckice wrote:

I'd save the pennies and go with the 70-200 2.8 VR. Light is an issue and having the zoom flexibility is very important with sports. You could go with a 200 or 300 2.8 prime but I think you need that zoom. Next recommendation would be a 200-400 f/4 but that's the big bux. The 70-200 is optically perfect and a GREAT sports lens. Does a fantastic job tracking and snagging focus...the 2.8 is crucial. That lens does the best job of non-hunting for sports on the D70 that I've found. Hope that helps...happy to offer more tips if you need.

Sounds good Charles. Will 200 however bring me close enough for the action ? At times I need to stay a mile or so away, as with the start abive.

The clarity of your pics is great, guess an advantage of a 2.8. It sure looks good.

chuckice

Mike Werner wrote:

Sounds good Charles. Will 200 however bring me close enough for the action ? At times I need to stay a mile or so away, as with the start abive.

The clarity of your pics is great, guess an advantage of a 2.8. It sure looks good.

The only thing that's going to really help you for that distance is a really big boy like the Sigma 300-800. That's one option but it's BIG & HEAVY. I honestly don't know what motorcycles a mile away would look like in that lens tho! I think you need to decide your pros & cons. Having a 2.8 or 4 is really where you need to be for great sports shots but anything longer than 200mm with that light starts putting you in another class of lens. The Sigma 120-300 is another option that I've heard good things about and that splits the diff between a 70-200 and a 200-400. The problem is still 400 won't get you tight on that distanced action.

I personally wouldn't pay the money for a lens that's so specialized to give you the shots you want from that distance. I'd go for something more versatile and less money. You have to consider field weight as well. Anything that's going to produce worthwhile shots from that distance will likely mean carrying around at least a heavy lens/monopod combo and probably a tripod at max pull.

Tough call! I think your shots from the closer action would GREATLY benefit from a little extra pull and speed. You'll get that from the 70-200 without a doubt. The Sigma 120-300 might be a nice compromise...but she's pricey too!

You can also look at the 1.7x TC and that'll get you a 120-340/4.8 out of the 70-200. Not bad as well...it's not as fast/sharp at 340 but it's worth the few hundred bux to add a little extra pull for only 1.5 stops.

Mike Werner

chuckice wrote:

The only thing that's going to really help you for that distance is a really big boy like the Sigma 300-800. That's one option but it's BIG & HEAVY. I honestly don't know what motorcycles a mile away would look like in that lens tho! I think you need to decide your pros & cons. Having a 2.8 or 4 is really where you need to be for great sports shots but anything longer than 200mm with that light starts putting you in another class of lens. The Sigma 120-300 is another option that I've heard good things about and that splits the diff between a 70-200 and a 200-400. The problem is still 400 won't get you tight on that distanced action.

I personally wouldn't pay the money for a lens that's so specialized to give you the shots you want from that distance. I'd go for something more versatile and less money. You have to consider field weight as well. Anything that's going to produce worthwhile shots from that distance will likely mean carrying around at least a heavy lens/monopod combo and probably a tripod at max pull.

Tough call! I think your shots from the closer action would GREATLY benefit from a little extra pull and speed. You'll get that from the 70-200 without a doubt. The Sigma 120-300 might be a nice compromise...but she's pricey too!

You can also look at the 1.7x TC and that'll get you a 120-340/4.8 out of the 70-200. Not bad as well...it's not as fast/sharp at 340 but it's worth the few hundred bux to add a little extra pull for only 1.5 stops.

Yeah, I've just started looking at the 70-200 now. Pricey but reasonable. I think I'm going to end up with 2 lenses (the other more towards the 400), which I need to swap with a good 120 for close action.

I've got a gig in a few months in Romania following an enduro through the mountains, often at quite a distance, on a motorcycle myself, so need to take the weight into account.

Might as well start talking to the boss....

chuckice

Mike Werner wrote:

Yeah, I've just started looking at the 70-200 now. Pricey but reasonable. I think I'm going to end up with 2 lenses (the other more towards the 400), which I need to swap with a good 120 for close action.

I've got a gig in a few months in Romania following an enduro through the mountains, often at quite a distance, on a motorcycle myself, so need to take the weight into account.

Might as well start talking to the boss....

Tough call...anything that will give you the light you want/need will likely directly correlate to weight.

galaxycowpoke

Hi, Mike,

I'm not entirely clear on your exact question. I'm guessing you want advice on a telephoto lens for motorsports.

A lot of it depends on your style, access, location, and so on.

I shoot Canon these days so am not too familiar with Nikon gear.

But generally speaking, for the images you posted, I would get the longest lens I could reliably handhold. And it sounds as if that would also fit your budget better than something requiring a monopod (the big 400s and all 5 and 6s).

Looking at your last shoot as an example, I'd say you need 150-300 for the close stuff and 400-600 to pull in the distant stuff. Image stabilization also helps correct for lens movement when tracking moving objects.

I would add that with motorsports I think it's usually an advantage to get closer with your feet than with the lens as I think it helps the camera and lens track and/or focus on the actual thing that's moving within the image. That's one difference between landscape and sports. Having said that, I find that I draw on landscape and portrait techniques when doing sports as well. It's very challenging.

I shot this with a 70-200. But I was frightfully close. Three riders had crashed right in front of me at that spot. You really need to know the track and the sport and use your head to stay safe.

Steve Cavigliano

Mike,
It looks like your budget will be the limiter. Some of these lenses are over $2000 usd. Most are in the $1200-$1500 range. If I were having the same issues you cite (lack of reach but need wider angle lengths also) I'd check out the 50-500 Sigma. Less than $900 and while not an exceptionally fast focuser (not slow either) it does give you lots of reach along with 'normal" angle length if needed. See what folks on Nikon lens forums have to say about using the Bigma with your cameras. I know it gets pretty good reviews from Canon users.

Other than changing lenses, or paying $2000+ for a Nikon super zoom, I don't see too many other options

Steve

Mike Werner

Saxon wrote:

Hi, Mike,

I'm not entirely clear on your exact question. I'm guessing you want advice on a telephoto lens for motorsports.

A lot of it depends on your style, access, location, and so on.

I shoot Canon these days so am not too familiar with Nikon gear.

But generally speaking, for the images you posted, I would get the longest lens I could reliably handhold. And it sounds as if that would also fit your budget better than something requiring a monopod (the big 400s and all 5 and 6s).

Looking at your last shoot as an example, I'd say you need 150-300 for the close stuff and 400-600 to pull in the distant stuff. Image stabilization also helps correct for lens movement when tracking moving objects.

I would add that with motorsports I think it's usually an advantage to get closer with your feet than with the lens as I think it helps the camera and lens track and/or focus on the actual thing that's moving within the image. That's one difference between landscape and sports. Having said that, I find that I draw on landscape and portrait techniques when doing sports as well. It's very challenging.

I shot this with a 70-200. But I was frightfully close.

Yup, correct, it's a telephoto lens for motorcycle sports. That's really why I'm looking for the mythical lens, the one that does it all....

I do get close. In fact in the last race I had a race marshal stand next to me to pull me away if a bike got out of control....

Mike Werner

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Mike,
It looks like your budget will be the limiter. Some of these lenses are over $2000 usd. Most are in the $1200-$1500 range. If I were having the same issues you cite (lack of reach but need wider angles lengths also) I'd check out the 50-500 Sigma. Less than $900 and while not an exceptionally fast focuser (not slow either) it does give you lots of reach along with 'normal" angle length if needed. See what folks on Nikon lens forums have to say about using the Bigma with your cameras. I know it gets pretty good reviews from Canon users.

Other than changing lenses, or paying $2000+ for a Nikon super zoom, I don't see too many other options

Steve

Thanks Steve. Had seen the Sigma 50-500 yet, must research it a bit more. That looks promising, as does the price.

It's a chicken & egg situation. I'll get paid for the pics, but they need quality. But to get quality, I need to get paid..... c'est la vie...

chuckice

Mike Werner wrote:

Thanks Steve. Had seen the Sigma 50-500 yet, must research it a bit more. That looks promising, as does the price.

It's a chicken & egg situation. I'll get paid for the pics, but they need quality. But to get quality, I need to get paid..... c'est la vie...

The Sigma 50-500 "Bigma" is SLOW at full pull. NOT a sports lens IMO. At 6.3 you'd better be WELL lit! I'd say the Bigma is more of a wildlife, slow sports lens. I've used it a handful of times and it's AF is a little slow...at least for me.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=380686&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

Steve Cavigliano

Chuck may have a point. And for sure, I don't know how well this lens will function with your Nikons.

All I can relate is that I have used a Bigma to take thousands of sports and in-flight bird shots and I never had any problems Yes, it doesn't focus as fast as a Canon L prime. Yes, it is a bit softer from 400mm to full zoom. Yes, it does benefit from stopping down (as most zooms do). Yes, it is mainly a "good light" lens. But, most of the other F4.5+ lenses are also.

It isn't a "miracle lens" but it can probably do the job for you, as it did for me, relatively cheaply.

Mid-zoom


Or full-zoom


As an aside, these are smaller versions of originals and were not sharpened for down-sized viewing.

Steve

chuckice

Steve...I'm not sure that the D70 can drive the AF well enough on the Bigma for serious sports. It couldn't for me and I can't imagine cycling is slower than motocross type action. I think the 20D/D200 class is more appropriate and likely even higher when you hit tough light...you're definitely asking alot of the Bigma at 500mm on a D70/Rebel.

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Chuck may have a point. And for sure, I don't know how well this lens will function with your Nikons.

All I can relate is that I have used a Bigma to take thousands of sports and in-flight bird shots and I never had any problems Yes, it doesn't focus as fast as a Canon L prime. Yes, it is a bit softer from 400mm to full zoom. Yes, it does benefit from stopping down (as most zooms do). Yes, it is mainly a "good light" lens. But, most of the other F4.5+ lenses are also.

It isn't a "miracle lens" but it can probably do the job for you, as it did for me, relatively cheaply.

Mid-zoom


Or full-zoom


As an aside, these are smaller versions of originals and were not sharpened for down-sized viewing.

Steve

Steve Cavigliano

Charles,
Yep, I figured it was something like that. I haven't seen many DReb Bigma users and the issue you mention may well be the reason why. Not to mention that it's a 4.4lb lens and dwarfs the DReb.....lol

Also, I would be remiss not to mention that it is a handfull to shoot handheld. And don't even think about anything less than 1/500 speeds without added support (tri/mono pod, beanbag, fence, etc...).

Steve

gsgary

For motox i use a 300mm and a 70-200 works well for me,I can't see how i would get any good shots from 1 kilometre away, the 70-200 is perfect at 70mm for close corners this was taken at 70mm on a slow shutter

XO-Studios

For certain things in MX and SX and EXC you will need a good lens, but even more important you will need to learn how to manually focus at high speeds. The issue with dirt and dust is that the camera will focus on that rather than the rider/bike you are going for. Going manual focus will completely eliminate that, but there is however a steep learning curve for that.

My vote would go for the Nikon 70-200/2.8D AF-S VR. I have the older None VR 80-200 of that guy, and the sharpness is unbelievable.

FWIW, YMMV,

XO,

maczippy

Is this on the beach at le Touquet? ('scuse the spelling)..

Okay, some advice when shooting around sand. Stick with a prime (especially around sand and fine dirt), you could've done a lot better all round with a 300 (f2.8 or even f4). You also have to realise that with such a huge group you're not going to be able to capture everything, especially as it comes barrelling towards you towards you, so it's usually a question of deciding what you're going to get.

Here's what i would've shot, a total pack shot (the fact taht you have so many riders on a beach is a sight in itself), and then I would've moved back to grab a corner where they all come together.

Me, I'd go for the expansive group shot then worry about picking off groups the next time around.

You shouldn't use a tripod anywhere near a track IMO. The first shot I wouldn't even have bothered trying to capture, and of late I'm leaning towards scenic shots (I'll post a new thread in a moment from Fontana)....

Out of those images you posted this one:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mike.werner/images/Good-84-Action.jpg

and this one

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mike.werner/images/Bad-105-Long.jpg (with the guy in white totally cropped out) do it for me....

Just some thoughts!!

Andrew

Mike Werner

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Charles,
Yep, I figured it was something like that. I haven't seen many DReb Bigma users and the issue you mention may well be the reason why. Not to mention that it's a 4.4lb lens and dwarfs the DReb.....lol

Also, I would be remiss not to mention that it is a handfull to shoot handheld. And don't even think about anything less than 1/500 speeds without added support (tri/mono pod, beanbag, fence, etc...).

Steve

Well, that kills that idea... 4.4 lbs just adds too much to the overall package.

Mike Werner

XO-Studios wrote:

For certain things in MX and SX and EXC you will need a good lens, but even more important you will need to learn how to manually focus at high speeds. The issue with dirt and dust is that the camera will focus on that rather than the rider/bike you are going for. Going manual focus will completely eliminate that, but there is however a steep learning curve for that.

My vote would go for the Nikon 70-200/2.8D AF-S VR. I have the older None VR 80-200 of that guy, and the sharpness is unbelievable.

FWIW, YMMV,

XO,

Don't have a problem with fast manual focus, as long as the lens zoom is easy to use. Had a Tamron once were it was difficult to zoom and focus at the same time.

Looks like I'll need to get the 70-200, that's for sure.

Mike Werner

maczippy wrote:

Is this on the beach at le Touquet? ('scuse the spelling)..

Okay, some advice when shooting around sand. Stick with a prime (especially around sand and fine dirt), you could've done a lot better all round with a 300 (f2.8 or even f4). You also have to realise that with such a huge group you're not going to be able to capture everything, especially as it comes barrelling towards you towards you, so it's usually a question of deciding what you're going to get.

Here's what i would've shot, a total pack shot (the fact taht you have so many riders on a beach is a sight in itself), and then I would've moved back to grab a corner where they all come together.

Me, I'd go for the expansive group shot then worry about picking off groups the next time around.

You shouldn't use a tripod anywhere near a track IMO. The first shot I wouldn't even have bothered trying to capture, and of late I'm leaning towards scenic shots (I'll post a new thread in a moment from Fontana)....

Out of those images you posted this one:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mike.werner/images/Good-84-Action.jpg

and this one

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mike.werner/images/Bad-105-Long.jpg (with the guy in white totally cropped out) do it for me....

Just some thoughts!!

Andrew

Correct, it was the beach of Le Touquet.

I tried getting the total pack shot, for the reasons you mention, and one kilometer away from the start, it just wasn't possible since there are 1000 motorcycle spread out over 3 rows deep, the line was far too long.

And totally impossible to chnage position when they started. It took a couple of seconds for the first bike to arrive (he was doing 190 kph).

Thanks for the feedback. I realize that most of the issues I had are lens related, not set up properly. The S3Pro is a great camera, but not for fast sports like this one. It worked fine for the close up shots of the fallen riders. The D70 did a far better job. Funny, I had the D70 before the S3, and never really liked it, the colors bland. Now, it's the reverse. The D70 works fantastic in fast action. Time to look at the D200..

maczippy

I thought so, I was a regular "watcher" many moons ago (I'm from the UK)

If you ever need anything please feel free to email me too..

Andrew