What lens for motorsport & wildlife?
Discussion
Longtime lurker, getting on the slippery 'what lens' slope.....
I'm going to Le Mans this year and also live near Goodwood, so have plenty of opportunity for motorsport and wildlife photography and need a suitable lens. Currently have a 7D with the the Canon 18-55, which has been adequate for familiarisation with the camera, but not going to be much use for sports & wildlife. As a general, all round lens, i'm thinking a 70-200L 2.8 MK1 IS/Non IS is perfect, but wondering if the extra reach of the 100-400L 4.5/5.6 would be better?
Is there anything else I should consider?
I'm going to Le Mans this year and also live near Goodwood, so have plenty of opportunity for motorsport and wildlife photography and need a suitable lens. Currently have a 7D with the the Canon 18-55, which has been adequate for familiarisation with the camera, but not going to be much use for sports & wildlife. As a general, all round lens, i'm thinking a 70-200L 2.8 MK1 IS/Non IS is perfect, but wondering if the extra reach of the 100-400L 4.5/5.6 would be better?
Is there anything else I should consider?
Hi there,
I've just purchased the Canon 70-300L f4-5.6 which is a lovely bit of kit and can recommend it.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
I had the 100-400 before this, I do miss the extra reach but couldn't really get on with the push pull zoom. It was a very impressive lens though.
Can't really comment n the 70-200 though, the low light performance would be useful though!
James.
I've just purchased the Canon 70-300L f4-5.6 which is a lovely bit of kit and can recommend it.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
I had the 100-400 before this, I do miss the extra reach but couldn't really get on with the push pull zoom. It was a very impressive lens though.
Can't really comment n the 70-200 though, the low light performance would be useful though!
James.
Another recomendation for the 70-300L with a 7D. A marked improvement over the non-L 70-300 f/4-5.6 that I had previously which was fine on my 400D but never seemed to hit the mark with the 7D.
Don't underestimate the value of IS when shooting with a telephoto lens, particularly one that doesn't go faster than f/5.6 at the long end.
I do sometimes wonder whether a 70-200f/2.8 L with a 2X teleconvertor might be a very flexible combination - but have no experience of it.
Don't underestimate the value of IS when shooting with a telephoto lens, particularly one that doesn't go faster than f/5.6 at the long end.
I do sometimes wonder whether a 70-200f/2.8 L with a 2X teleconvertor might be a very flexible combination - but have no experience of it.
Seight_Returns said:
I do sometimes wonder whether a 70-200f/2.8 L with a 2X teleconvertor might be a very flexible combination - but have no experience of it.
It is a very good combination, the lens is very sharp to start with (inc wide open) and loses very little with the 2x TC (version 3) fitted. This gives a useful 140-400mm f/5.6 which will AF on all Canon bodies, not just the 1 series. The only downside is the weight. The bare lens weighs 1.5kgs (twice the weight of the non IS f/4 version) so when you add that to the TC and the camera, handholding it steady over long periods becomes tiring.Thanks for the various thoughts, particularly the 70-300, hadn't considered that. The digital review site looks to have some good reviews, I came across the photozone.ze site which was very technical, however I found the general tone slightly negative.
Don't really think there's a wrong choice and as 2nd hand values are quite strong, if I buy something and don't like it, should be able to sell on at little/if any loss.
Don't really think there's a wrong choice and as 2nd hand values are quite strong, if I buy something and don't like it, should be able to sell on at little/if any loss.
Lost In Space said:
Thanks for the various thoughts, particularly the 70-300, hadn't considered that. The digital review site looks to have some good reviews, I came across the photozone.ze site which was very technical, however I found the general tone slightly negative.
Don't really think there's a wrong choice and as 2nd hand values are quite strong, if I buy something and don't like it, should be able to sell on at little/if any loss.
Photozone.de is pretty accurate in my experience. Don't assume negativity. It's just a German expression of non-partisan assessment.Don't really think there's a wrong choice and as 2nd hand values are quite strong, if I buy something and don't like it, should be able to sell on at little/if any loss.
The "Investment" concept is a good approach imho. But it works best with, mainly, L spec glass in the case of Canons.
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 17th January 04:01
I'd recommend hiring a lens from someone like lensesforhire.co.uk . I used them to hire lenses for Silverstone MotoGP and F1 this year, hiring the 70-200mm f.28 IS, the 300mm F4 and the 100-400l along with 2.0x extender (not all at the same time btw).
All 3 produced great shots, with the 300m F4 being the sharpest. I found the F2.8 on the 70-200 could give you some great separation with blurred foreground and background BUT get the focus depth wrong and the narrow depth of field means you're subject is blurred. It's good for shooting through fences though as the high apeture nicely blurs the fence to oblivion
When I used the 100-400l I think I found that most of the time I was using it in the 280-300mm range.
The 300m prime is great but lacks flexibility. It is light though and has an integrated lens hood.
On the day when I wanted the best quality and the most flexibility I used the 70-200 with the 2.0x extender and kept a 50mm f.18 to hand.
All in all, great kit that I can't afford to own but was able to rent at a reasonable price. I probably paid about £400 in all to hire out £4k worth of kit and that cost was split between two of us.
All 3 produced great shots, with the 300m F4 being the sharpest. I found the F2.8 on the 70-200 could give you some great separation with blurred foreground and background BUT get the focus depth wrong and the narrow depth of field means you're subject is blurred. It's good for shooting through fences though as the high apeture nicely blurs the fence to oblivion
When I used the 100-400l I think I found that most of the time I was using it in the 280-300mm range.
The 300m prime is great but lacks flexibility. It is light though and has an integrated lens hood.
On the day when I wanted the best quality and the most flexibility I used the 70-200 with the 2.0x extender and kept a 50mm f.18 to hand.
All in all, great kit that I can't afford to own but was able to rent at a reasonable price. I probably paid about £400 in all to hire out £4k worth of kit and that cost was split between two of us.
Another alternative - I have the 70-300 DO - VERY compact given the range. You can pick them up for around £500 on eBay. Compares very favourably in terms of IQ with my mates 100-400.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
Can't argue with that!A local chap does quite well with a Sigma 120-300 and bird pics, he had another long Sigma before that one ( I forget exactly which, may of been the 120-400 ).
I've got a 100-400 on a 7D, not especially fast but they are a constant companion for motorpsort & wildlife togs. You can get s/h ones for £800 or so.
If you did go 70-200 2.8 you could always pick up a teleconverter at a later date - lots on the internet of the pros and cons.
There is a thread here : http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.p... for just about every lens known to man (well, Canon men anyway), lots of shots, the main lens forum has lots of opinion/what lens? talk too.
I've got a 100-400 on a 7D, not especially fast but they are a constant companion for motorpsort & wildlife togs. You can get s/h ones for £800 or so.
If you did go 70-200 2.8 you could always pick up a teleconverter at a later date - lots on the internet of the pros and cons.
There is a thread here : http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.p... for just about every lens known to man (well, Canon men anyway
), lots of shots, the main lens forum has lots of opinion/what lens? talk too.central said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Can I throw in a curve ball and ask people's opinions on the long Sigmas lenses - eg 120-400 and 150-500 (I think). Worth considering or not ?
Dibs, my pics on the bird thread were all taken with the 150-500 
2012-05-21 by jimmyb156, on Flickr
Usual caveats apply with long lenses, sharper at f/8 then wide open, not at its sharpest at 400 etc. But at half the price of the Canon 100-400 you cant really argue with the value.
I would say however that as my time as a photographer increases, i do get more frustrated with this lens not being as sharp as my other lenses ( 2 of 3 of which are primes, so maybe im not being fair.) Stopping down to f/8 isn't always possible, particularly in the (not) sunny UK! The trouble is that worthy upgrades are comfortably north of £1000, and quickly getting silly in price.
A very interesting lens for me is the sigma 120-300 2.8, along with a 2x teleconverter. But that little combo would be around £2300. Which is about £2300 more then my current photography budget
You pays your money and takes your choice, but i would say the 120-400 is good value. But there are of course better lenses out there!
I'd say the 70-200 is too short for motorsport and wildlife, I've got the f2.8 non IS version and it is my main lens (I have shot a lot of motorsport with it) but these days if I'm shooting motorsport I hire a 300mm or 400mm prime. If I was looking for a one lens solution I'd go for the 70-300mmL too.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff