Another lens suggestion

BBones · January 5, 2005

I do alot of racing photography and I am getting a 20D for the 2005 race season. Which lens would you recommend?

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS L

OR

The 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS

They both are in the same weight ratio and the cost is within about $500 of each other, and lets be honest, when you are looking to spend $2k on one lens a couple of hundred is not worth the debate. We are not talking about the kit lens versus one of those lenses either.

I figure both lenses can use the 1.4x TC so my zoom would be huge when you figure that in with the 1.6x crop, but I don't need action shots of their nose hairs.

I will want to do more then just shoot racing with the camera, animal shots for example.

blackwaterstudio · January 5, 2005

BBones wrote:

I do alot of racing photography and I am getting a 20D for the 2005 race season. Which lens would you recommend?

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS L

OR

The 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS

They both are in the same weight ratio and the cost is within about $500 of each other, and lets be honest, when you are looking to spend $2k on one lens a couple of hundred is not worth the debate. We are not talking about the kit lens versus one of those lenses either.

I figure both lenses can use the 1.4x TC so my zoom would be huge when you figure that in with the 1.6x crop, but I don't need action shots of their nose hairs.

I will want to do more then just shoot racing with the camera, animal shots for example.

The 2.8 will be fast enough to catch the action. When you slap a 1.4 on there it will move it up a stop so you'll be shooting at 3.8.

Steve Cavigliano · January 5, 2005

Brandon,

Both are good lenses, but the 70-200 F2.8's are pretty much in a class of their own. These are probably the best performing zooms available. Extremely highly rated and user feedback is outstanding. Fast, sharp and great bokeh. As mentioned, you can add a 1.4TC to make it a 98-280mm F4. Still fast and it gives you a bit more reach without sacrificing much image quality-wise.

If you will be shooting at high shutter speeds, you can save $500 and get the non-IS Canon L. Of course the IS is nice for handholding in poor light, but IMO, I wouldn't use it that often and it's just another thing to go wrong. And yes, I've seen quite a few reports about 70-200mm and 100-400mm IS lenses having the IS go out. At least a dozen cases over the last 3 months

Or, if you really want to save $ look into the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8. At a $1000 less than the Canon IS and about $500 less than the Canon non-IS, this lens is a steal. It is rated just as highly as the other 2. By rating sites and by users. It's heavier than the non-IS, but a few oz's lighter than the IS version.

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showgallery.php?cat=29

Just giving you a few more options to consider

Steve

mercphoto · January 5, 2005

Racing lenses

BBones wrote:

I do alot of racing photography and I am getting a 20D for the 2005 race season. Which lens would you recommend?

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS L

OR

The 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS

I believe the 70-200 is a much better image than the 28-300, so that is one thing to consider. What type of racing will you be doing? For example, motorsports you probably will take outdoors in bright light with relatively long shutter speeds, so f/11 will be the norm. Horse racing might mean very fast shutter speeds (I don't know, never done it) to freeze the tension in their muscles, so f/2.8 might be the norm.

Agreed that the 70-200 might not be the only lens you would want to use. Would be horrible in the pits/stalls/whatever, in which case a 24-70 (or Tamron 28-75) would be a great second choice. I do my motorsports, btw, with the 70-200, sometimes with a 1.4 TC.

BBones · January 5, 2005

Motorcycle racing. I have track access so I am right behind the crash barriers

mercphoto · January 5, 2005

Lens

BBones wrote:

Motorcycle racing. I have track access so I am right behind the crash barriers

Which are probably 100' away from the track, correct? (outside of corner, past run-off area). Or can you get to the corner worker stations (which are much closer?)

I would find a review of the 28-300 lens you are thinking of. My guess is, even though its L-glass, that the image quality is not high. That is a very wide zoom range. I'm going to wager you'll want the 70-200, which is a fantastic lens.

BBones · January 5, 2005

As mentioned, you can add a 1.4TC to make it a 98-280mm F4

But with the 20D having a 1.6x crop wouldn't it end up being 156-448mm?

BBones · January 5, 2005

Which are probably 100' away from the track, correct

Try alot closer. With the bikes I am about 5 feet from the edge of the track at times, 15 feet other's. To get the head on shots though I need the added zoom so I am not so much in the line of fire and I will need to have a camera fast enough to lock and maintain focus as they come at me.

mercphoto · January 5, 2005

BBones wrote:

Try alot closer. With the bikes I am about 5 feet from the edge of the track at times, 15 feet other's. To get the head on shots though I need the added zoom so I am not so much in the line of fire and I will need to have a camera fast enough to lock and maintain focus as they come at me.

I find myself that close at dirt bike racing. I use either my 28-135 lens, or my 70-200. This with a 20D camera. Dirt bikes move slower than road racing bikes though. Not sure if you will need a 1-series to focus track.

davev · January 6, 2005

BBones wrote:

Try alot closer. With the bikes I am about 5 feet from the edge of the track at times, 15 feet other's. To get the head on shots though I need the added zoom so I am not so much in the line of fire and I will need to have a camera fast enough to lock and maintain focus as they come at me.

I have to ask, If a bike is coming straight at you, moving, I don't know, 100mph,
how is any camera going to focus fast enough to lock it in?
I can't get a slow flying bird in focus.
Wouldn't you want to prefocus to a spot on the track and wait for the bike
to come into the zone? Is AI servo (spelling) that good? What F stop will
you need to keep a bike in focus from front to rear?

I'm just trying to learn.

I would think you would want the 28-300is for this type of shooting.
Larger objects, outdoors, I would think you'd need more DOF, therefore
the F2.8 is worthless. Just my thoughts, but I may be off base.

dave.

mercphoto · January 6, 2005

davev wrote:

I have to ask, If a bike is coming straight at you, moving, I don't know, 100mph, how is any camera going to focus fast enough to lock it in?

If the bike is 10 feet away from you at that speed, it can't. If it's a hundred yards away its easy. And, it depends a lot on the camera itself (1-series will do it, 20D likely will, 300D won't), and the lens (some USM's focus much faster than others).

The AI-Servo focusing is predictive. That requires processing power, and that costs money.

I would think you would want the 28-300is for this type of shooting.Larger objects, outdoors, I would think you'd need more DOF, thereforethe F2.8 is worthless. Just my thoughts, but I may be off base.

Lenses auto-focus wide-open, then step down when you hit the shutter. Big apertures let in lots of light. Lots of light makes it easier/faster/more accurate on the auto focus mechanism. f/2.8 for action is far from worthless for action, even if you shoot at f/8-11.

davev · January 7, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

If the bike is 10 feet away from you at that speed, it can't. If it's a hundred yards away its easy. And, it depends a lot on the camera itself (1-series will do it, 20D likely will, 300D won't), and the lens (some USM's focus much faster than others).

The AI-Servo focusing is predictive. That requires processing power, and that costs money.

Lenses auto-focus wide-open, then step down when you hit the shutter. Big apertures let in lots of light. Lots of light makes it easier/faster/more accurate on the auto focus mechanism. f/2.8 for action is far from worthless for action, even if you shoot at f/8-11.

Ya see, that's why I said I'm learning. I never thought about the focusing
at F2.8, but shooting at f11. I'm feeling smarter already.:D

For some quick math for the other part, a bike moving at 100mph, coming
straight for you, is moving about 150 feet per second. 100 yards = 2 seconds
If the camera can focus and lock in .2 seconds, the bike has moved forward
30 feet. Is there a camera and lens combo that can come up with clear
pics on something moving that fast, that close to you? I sure don't know
the answer, I just learned about the lens using it's largest aperture for
focusing.

Thanks Bill for the info.

dave.

P.S. I came up with the .2 seconds for a shot because in continuse shooting
a D20 can get 5 frames a second, therefore, .2 for one shot.
Once again, I don't know this for a fact, just trying to use reason.

One more thing, is there a spell checker here? As you can see, spelling
isn't one of my strong points.

Thanks again.

Mongrel · January 7, 2005

AF speed of Canon 1D, 1D MkII, and 1Ds MkII...
I found this in the Canon document "Getting the Most From Your EOS 1 Class Digital SLR" and thought I'd share it.

QUOTE:

"All EOS-1 class digital SLRs feature RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) processors so that multiple operations can be performed simultaneously. The extra speed created through this method has made it possible to increase the power and sophistication of the algorithms employed for predictive AF. Using an EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and a fully charged battery pack, the original EOS-1 with Power Drive Booster PB-E1 could track a subject moving at 300 kph/186 mph as close as 26 meters/85 ft. Using an EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens and a fully charged battery pack, an EOS-1D Mark II or EOS-1Ds Mark II can track a subject moving at 300 kph/186 mph as close as 20 meters/66 ft."

Link to the complete document here:

http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf

Very interesting and informative about the EOS 1 Series cameras.

jimf · January 7, 2005

davev wrote:

I have to ask, If a bike is coming straight at you, moving, I don't know, 100mph,
how is any camera going to focus fast enough to lock it in?
I can't get a slow flying bird in focus.

Have we all gotten so lazy we've forgotten about manual focus? :-) Prefocus on the track section you're interested in and snap when the bike comes through.

I would think you would want the 28-300is for this type of shooting.
Larger objects, outdoors, I would think you'd need more DOF, therefore
the F2.8 is worthless. Just my thoughts, but I may be off base.

I would skip the 28-300, lenses with that kind of range are going to be making big compromises -- especially at the extremes. If you're looking for a longer lens on a budget it's hard to do better than the 75-300 USM IS. It's not particularly fast, but the stabilization is effective. It is, however, a very slow-focusing lens if you're trying to use AF. So don't do that.

Unfortunately the 75-300 doesn't have the ability to turn off horizontal stabilization, which you will probably want to do at the track. For this reason alone if you have the money I would get the 70-200 and just live with the shorter focal length.

Seamus · January 7, 2005

sigma
Don't rule out the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I bought it after getting advice here. It is half the price of the Canon.

davev · January 7, 2005

Mongrel wrote:

I found this in the Canon document "Getting the Most From Your EOS 1 Class Digital SLR" and thought I'd share it.

Link to the complete document here:

http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf

Very interesting and informative about the EOS 1 Series cameras.

This should be a must read.
Thanks for the link.

dave.

OlgaJ · January 8, 2005

jimf wrote:

Have we all gotten so lazy we've forgotten about manual focus? :-) Prefocus on the track section you're interested in and snap when the bike comes through.

Spoken with young eyes, I presume?

My eyes could never see as well thru the viewfinder as the AF can.

Olga

pathfinder · January 8, 2005

OlgaJ wrote:

Spoken with young eyes, I presume?

My eyes could never see as well thru the viewfinder as the AF can.

Olga

To appreciate how much clearer the viewfinder's were 20 years ago, everyone should take a gander through the viewfinder of an OM-4 or and original Canon F-1 sometime. Those were bodies designed to aid manual focusing! The viewfinder in the 20D is dim in comparison and I spent the day shooting with a 20D today,

jimf · January 8, 2005

OlgaJ wrote:

Spoken with young eyes, I presume?

Depends on what you mean by young, I'm 38. I do have excellent eyesight though.

My eyes could never see as well thru the viewfinder as the AF can.

I admit that the AF is generally faster and more accurate than I am (at least so long as I pick a focusing point). It would help a lot if the silly cameras still had focusing aids, but I guess it's too much to ask to have them on cameras that cost less than automobiles.

My approach for that kind of thing is usually to pick something at the range I want to shoot, let the AF lock on it, then flip to manual mode to keep the focus. Works fine. Either that or do the same AF lock, wait, and quickly frame and shoot when the subject comes in range.

OlgaJ · January 8, 2005

jimf wrote:

Depends on what you mean by young, I'm 38. I do have excellent eyesight though.

Yes, that's what I call young... My son is 38.

Olga

fish · January 9, 2005

OlgaJ wrote:

Spoken with young eyes, I presume?

My eyes could never see as well thru the viewfinder as the AF can.

Olga

Amen, Olga.

Fast and accurate AF is a miracle for those of us with imperfect eyesight.

Another lens suggestion

Comments