500mm, what to get?

[MatskiMonk]

Right, so I'm now into my fourth year of takin' pictures. Although I like to shoot what I can, when I can, by main focus is taking pics at motor races. Both of my (not so) trusty 300mm's have been alright so far, but I find that I'm constantly on the 300mm limit, and now, for various reasons I want more.

... so, I'm looking at budget 500's, Canon fit (EOS 60D). This is a hobby for me, so I'm not about to spend thousands, a low (very low) 4 figure £GBP sum isn't out of the question, but something in the £500 - £800 range is desirable - this covers the Sigma 150-500 OS, or the older 150-500 non-OS but F4-6.3 - which are the two I've had a quick look at.

So, I'm looking for suggestions, guidance, warnings and general advice on 500mm lenses.

(I've also thought about getting a 200mm prime with a big aperture, and using a 2× tube to get me up to 400, but it seems like a bit of hassle for no real benefit)

?

 

[wfooshee]

When you say tube, do you mean extension tube, or teleconverter? An extension tube will magnify your image, but you'll lose infinity focus, it'll be close focus only. Since you specified 2x, I'll assume you mean teleconverter.

A 200mm large aperture will cost at least as much as a "budget" lens that reached 500. And remember that a 2x costs you 2 stops of exposure, i.e. and f:4 becomes and f:8, and f:2.8 becomes an f:5.6, etc.

I tried a Tamron 200-500 I got on eBay for not quite 800 bucks. It was awful, and I immediately reBayed it, and got the same money for it that I paid, plus a dollar!

I've heard nice things about the Sigma 150-500 OS but have not used one. They're out there for just over a thousand dollars here, no clue what that translates to for you foreigners.

If you know when you want to use it, you might try renting a lens before buying. I don't know if such exists in the UK, but there are lots of sites here that offer rental equipment.

Oddly, my own experience shooting at race tracks is that I rarely get past 150mm, sometimes well under 100. I don't shoot from grandstands, I shoot through or over the fence at trackside.

 

[Mikeybc]

Are you currently using a tripod ? You'll surely need one at 500 mm. A decent fast used 200 mm prime with a 2x teleconverter may work but like said above you'll loose lose your speed unless your prepared to shoot at higher ISO's. If you shot at ISO 200 you would need to bump it to 800, but your 60D should be fairly clean up to 1600.

I used to own the Sigma 120- 400 OS....for around 2 weeks. I ended up returning it to the store. The OS was very noisy and erratic in operation, I've read that many people have had OS failures with Sigma lenses . It was also too big, heavy and cumbersome. I now use a 70-300 VR and will crop in photoshop if needed.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Yup, meant teleconverter. One of my local camera shops had had a couple of used 200mm primes go through there in quick succession that were reasonably priced, that's the only reason I considered it.. the loss of aperture is really what put me off.

Lens rental is possible, there are a couple of events that I'd really want a long lens for so I could in theory, but the security deposit you have to put down would pretty much buy me the lens anyway.

Not sure what kind of things you shoot, or where, but here in the UK the bigger tracks all have FIA catch fences - often with railings that mean you can't get close enough for your camera to completely negate the catch fence, and the smaller tracks have limited viewing areas, meaning the good places are rammed with spectators and your shots are limited.

Also, we get a lot of bad weather, or at least 'grey days' in the BTCC (which I go to a lot), which means at full zoom on a 300 the aperture is smaller than I'd like it, which means the ISO has to go up, or the exposure time has to go up - I don't have the steadiest of hands so panning shots at a distance often end up blurred.

The TL;DR version of that is, I've got more options with 500mm.

As a quick example, this pic was taken at the last Chicane at Thruxton, it's a popular place for photographers and it's normally rammed with spectators and Marshalls standing in the way.

This was taken at 300mm, F/5.6, ISO-500 and at 1/2000, so the lack of fine definition on the Red car isn't really due to my shaky hands or ISO grain - it's mostly because it was a cheap Canon 300mm.. But, imagine I was going for the chicane entrance, yes I could crop it to get a fuller frame of the car, but the clarity would be pretty awful. My thinking is that a 500, being far less stretched when in the 300-400 range, will give me a better chance of getting a good image.

 

[Azuremen]

What cheap Canon? The 75-300mm EF that is only a couple hundred dollars? If so, that lens is just junk in my opinion.

Honestly, you won't get better image quality of out of a 500mm that doesn't cost a lot. I think you'd be better off picking up an L telephoto and maybe a 1.4x or 2x converter if you are operating on a budget. I tested the 75-300 against my 70-200mm F/4L, and I concluded I could make the same enlargements with better detail just cropping in on the 200mm F/4L than bothering with 300mm of the economy lens.

 

[MatskiMonk]

What cheap Canon? The 75-300mm EF that is only a couple hundred dollars? If so, that lens is just junk in my opinion.

Honestly, you won't get better image quality of out of a 500mm that doesn't cost a lot. I think you'd be better off picking up an L telephoto and maybe a 1.4x or 2x converter if you are operating on a budget. I tested the 75-300 against my 70-200mm F/4L, and I concluded I could make the same enlargements with better detail just cropping in on the 200mm F/4L than bothering with 300mm of the economy lens.

The Canon is/was just a kit lens and is basically rubbish, even the Sigma equivalent seems to offer better optics, based on my kit bag. I haven't ruled out a shorter, but better lens, it's just that it's a bit of a leap of faith.... 'd be curious to see some crops of a 200mm, with or without a teleconverter.

 

[Azuremen]

The Canon is/was just a kit lens and is basically rubbish, even the Sigma equivalent seems to offer better optics, based on my kit bag. I haven't ruled out a shorter, but better lens, it's just that it's a bit of a leap of faith.... 'd be curious to see some crops of a 200mm, with or without a teleconverter.

Well, you can always rent a lens if you are very curious. But L lenses make make consumer level lenses look like a joke, generally speaking. Especially the consumer zooms and kit lenses.

I don't have too many examples from cars that I can just crop up at the moment, but this from the 70-200mm F/4L at 73mm (which is softer than 200mm)

And a 100% crop on the front bit...

Only sharpening here is the default amount applied in raw.

EDIT: Figured I'd add one more example of what can come out of the 70-200mm - 1/100th, ISO 6400, F/4, 200mm

 

[wfooshee]

Well, to add to the kit-lens/better-lens comparo:

First image is one I was quite proud of at the time, shot with a D50 and Nikon's 55-200 kit lens, early enough to not have VR.

This one was two years later, with a D5000 and Nikon's 70-300 ED VR. Yes, it's a different camera, but it's the glass that makes the difference.

Just to prove it's the glass, here's another one by the D5000, but with the aforementioned abomination that was the Tamron 200-500:

I should add that none of those images are the full frame. The last one is actually the largest piece of the frame, the least amount cut off, yet it's the most hideous. That lens really was...... bad.


One more comparison....

55-200 kit:

70-300 ED VR:

 

[Grand Prix]

I'd take a look at the 100-400mm zoom and the 400mm f/5.6 prime. If you put on a 1.4 teleconverter that is non-reporting, (like Kenko) you could possibly retain autofocus at f/8, although it would be rather slow. Perhaps just the 400mm prime would do the job, you could always crop in, as it is a very sharp lens from the images I've seen taken with it. Its autofocus is also top-notch from what I read, it is often used for tracking flying birds, so I imagine tracking much larger cars wouldn't be much of a problem.

Downside is that it has no IS. Perhaps a monopod would be sufficient?

I've been looking at the 300mm f/4, 100-400mm, and 400mm f/5.6 for some time now, and I haven't really reached a decision yet myself for that focal length range. Canon made it ridiculously difficult to choose, and if they put IS in an updated 400mm f/5.6, it would be rather pricey indeed.

So you're not alone,

 

[Mikeybc]

@ OP....A used Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM might be in your budget, pair it with a good 1.4x teleconverter and you'd have great images IMHO. You'd be at 420mm on a 1.6 crop body.

This one was two years later, with a D5000 and Nikon's 70-300 ED VR. Yes, it's a different camera, but it's the glass that makes the difference.

I also have that 70-300 ED VR, I really like it a lot and its still pretty sharp at 300mm,

handheld @ 300mm

 

[MatskiMonk]

Hmm, interesting read, thanks for the example photos guys.

It does seem evident that, in my price range, something longer than 400mm just won't be worth it.

I'm tempted to maybe bite the bullet and go for a Canon L. The 100-400 appears to be available used at the top end of my budget (even new from eBay, when shipped halfway around the world ). And I'm thinking the quality will be good enough to go for a crop.

Maybe the 200 with an extender, most racing shots I do are at shutter priority 1/160-1/340(IIRC) for panning, which I'm thinking gives me a big enough aperture to cope with an extender in overcast conditions.

I want to get it done by the time I go to DTM at Brands in May at the latest, this gives me most time to get the money sorted out, but means I'll gave to cope with my Sigma 300mm for the BTCC at Brands and Donington.

 

[dex92]

I would get the 100-400 personally, I've just got one myself to get me abit more reach as the 70-200 is a cracking bit of glass but too short for head on shots. I was looking at the sigma as well but was put off by the f6.3 at 500, don't get me wrong is quite slow autofocus but the sigmas even slower but I am comparing it to my 70-200 which is instant. Two from each lens but coming from the 75-300 I think I read you will notice a massive difference in pictures.
70-200

IMG_7939 by Motorsport-Mad-Dex, on Flickr


IMG_8620 by Motorsport-Mad-Dex, on Flickr

100-400


IMG_8309 by Motorsport-Mad-Dex, on Flickr


Tewaser by Motorsport-Mad-Dex, on Flickr

Dex

 

[MatskiMonk]

Thanks Dex, I like that second shot of the car running off track :tup

Hmm, another recommendation for the 100-400 L... this could be an expensive year!

 

[dex92]

Thanks Dex, I like that second shot of the car running off track :tup

Hmm, another recommendation for the 100-400 L... this could be an expensive year!

Thanks. It's been an expensive year for me this year with a 7D and 100-400 but its worth it or at least that's what I keep telling myself haha.

Cheeky I know but if anyone's got Facebook and got a spare second to click and like it would be much appreciated to help me win a drift pic competition.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...3323460.103430.341198802633190&type=3&theater

 

[Grand Prix]

After thinking about it some more, for motorsport and just one camera, 100-400mm is probably the best option. I guess you'll never know what kind of angles you can get - a 300mm or 400mm prime might be a bit constricting in some cases. If I wanted to do motorsport photography I'd probably go for the 100-400mm zoom also. It won't be as sharp as the prime 400mm, but it's still pretty damn good. 👍

 

[Rue]

I used a 200mm f/2.8L prime with a x2 teleconverter MKIII for track shots at Le Mans and was very happy with the results. I think the lens is discontinued now, but you might be able to pick one up used. It's a shedload cheaper than the 70-200mm f/2.8L and although it has no IS, with practice you can get some really good results.

This was shot through a fence at 400mm...

The 200mm f/2.8L is so good IMO that you don't even need the teleconverter for track work. Cropping is just fine so long as your ISO performance is half decent.

Porsche 917 @ Le Mans Classic '12 by Rupert Procter, on Flickr

 

[AMG.]

I've never owned the 100-400 Canon but from what I've read and seen it is a very good performer albeit and old lens. Canon is bringing out 200-440 with internal 1.4 converter but it will cost a bloody fortune.
I used to have the Sigma 170-500 but it's results were always soft. Since then I decided to never buy 'cheap' glass anymore and nowadays shoot either with the 300 2.8IS or 500 f4.

If you really want 500mm or more you will have to fork out some serious money. If not the 100-400 is a good option.

Be aware that adding a converter to some lenses icw your camera make the autofocus not work any longer.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Thanks Rue and AMG,


I'm pretty much decided it will be an L series canon lens, whether or not its a 100-400, or a prime 200 will depend on what I can afford by the the time I need it... which is currently May.

Unfortunately the blasted car needs several hundred pounds spending on it, which sets me back a month or so...grrrr.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Well... since my car is costing me an arm and a leg, and I'm buying a 318iS as a runabout in a month or so there's no way I can get an L before half the season is over, so I put some money down on a used Sigma APO f5.6-6.3 170mm-500mm, and I'll pick it up at the end of the month.

I took a few shots with it outside the shop and I've reviewed the pics since... it's alright, it's not great, but at a third of the cost of a used L telephoto, I figured it was worth a try. It's first outing will be at Brands Hatch for the BTCC. I'll no doubt post up some pics for reference.

 

[Bye Ya]

I used a 200mm f/2.8L prime with a x2 teleconverter MKIII for track shots at Le Mans and was very happy with the results. I think the lens is discontinued now, but you might be able to pick one up used. It's a shedload cheaper than the 70-200mm f/2.8L and although it has no IS, with practice you can get some really good results.

Those look great. My longest lens is currently a 200mm, but I may have to look into a converter now. I have read however that with some AF lenses you lose autofocus capability with a TC. Is that true in your case?

 

[wfooshee]

You'll lose autofocus if the convertor puts you down around f:8, generally speaking. That means a 1.4x converter would put your f:5.6 lens right there. An f:4 could take a 1.4x but not a 2x.
Probably.

 

[Bye Ya]

Ok, good to know. Mine is an f4.

 

[MatskiMonk]

So,

I picked up the afore mentioned Sigma lens.. (170-500 APO f5-6.3 ---non IS)... One of these (not my pic):

It was cheap, and I'd taken note of what lots of you had said, so my expectations weren't too high.

I was supposed to be at the BTCC yesterday, but thanks to family commitments I missed it, so I've just been out in the arctic cold to see what it was like. The only subjects within walking distance that seemed to be a good analogy for the race track use I intend for the lens, were the birds at the local reservoir.

These pics are unedited (though resized down to 1920×1080). To be honest, birds in flight with a 500mm were virtually impossible to capture, so I backed it off a bit. The pics aren't great, I just wanted to see what kind of definition I'd get, and how much light/aperture/focal length I'd get/need for a crisp(ish) picture - these pics represent the better combination of settings. (it was a dull overcast day)

1

2

3

4

5

Overall, it's not too bad. If I kept it in Av, and maxed out the aperture, exposure time was easily enough to get crisp shots, even with my less than steady hands.

Crucially, in the 300-400 range it's good enough, what I was after was something that meant I wasn't permanently at the end of the 300mm's range... this gives me a useful amount over and maintains the (decidedly average quality) that I get from the 300.

I will still go for an ?-400mm L once I get the chance.. but I think I'll see how I get on with this for the summer of 2013. If I start saving my pennies now, I might get something awesome for next year

 

[wfooshee]

Try some with middle-of-the road apertures (f:8, f:11, even f:16, as wide open is usually the least sharp a lens can possibly be, as well as running your depth of field down to mere inches. Of course, that throws you into serious ISO ranges and I don't know what your camera's like in the 1600-3200 world. Mine requires good noise filtering in post.

Stabilization helps there, too (says the guy with his stabilized 70-300 .) When I'm shooting long, I shoot shutter-priority, and I'll allow exposure to go a stop under-exposed in the viewfinder reading. One stop is easy to fix in post without having to fix other stuff after. My camera also has an auto-ISO where I can tell it what I want to shoot at, and how high it can go auomatically if I can't ue what I asked for, and that's another advantage in iffy light.

I think these are better than I would have expected, given the overcast. A little sunshine sure wouldn't have hurt anything, would it?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Had it been a brighter day, I'd have been at F8, I don't take it over ISO-1000 normally unless I've no choice, though it wasn't until posting these I realised that I'd knocked down the Expo Comp by a notch, bugger.