I am new to SLR photography so i was just wondering what lenses would be good for racing, specifically motorcycles, such as AMA and MotoGP. I bought a KM Maxxum 70 Date because i prefer 35mm over digital. i am trying to figure this out now because the next race i am going to is in five months and i need to save up to buy the lens, being in college its hard to buy something when you really want which i am sure most of you already know. i am also thinking about buying the Domke f-803 because i like how it looks and i want something that does not attract attention when i am standing around watching the races with up to 80000 other people. if anyone has any ideas i would greatly appreciate it.

i also forgot to mention that i am a biology major in college so i was wondering if you have any ideas on lenses for nature pictures. thank you.

When you say nature, do you mean landscape photography, or macro (super-closeup) photography?

When you say nature, do you mean landscape photography, or macro (super-closeup) photography?


i plan on studying marine mammals and other animals. i dont really plan on much landscape photography.

I think that requires a special type of camera. I don't know if they make any waterproof housings for DSLRs.

Rob-
Welcome to the site. Hope you don't mind that I moved your post to the sports forum. I figured you probably didn't notice it. There are a bunch of race photographers here and they'll be able to help you more. Plus, it's just better to have this type of post on this forum.

I used to shoot a lot of motorcycle racing. I switched from manual focus to a Canon EOS autofocus system specfically to shoot motorcycles. My first AF kit was a Canon EOS A2E with the standard (crappy) 28-80mm USM lens. I immediately bought the Canon 300mm f/4L lens to shoot racing at Laguna Seca. I think a 300mm is the minimum for most motorcycle roadracing photography. A 200mm lens will work for cars. But bikes are so much smaller and move around so much more, that you really need a longer lens.

We have a Nature forum, too. You might want to post there, also. That said, long lenses are also important for shooting wildlife. So a 300mm lens will be good for roadracing and shy wildlife. And yes, there are underwater housings available digital SLRs. If you check the review section you'll see we have an underwater photography review section. It's not the most complete review section, but it has links to housing manufacturers and you can get an idea of what's available and what kind of money it will cost you.

Hope that gets you started. If you have more questions - and I'm sure you do - let us know. The motorsports photographers on this forum really know their stuff. There's also some good motorcycle photography in the gallery. And the Nature and Wildlife forum is also an excellent resource.

Sorry, PJ. I probably should have checked the reviews section before saying anything about the Underwater Housings.

Rob, there are many experienced photographers on this board when it comes to shooting racing. JSPhoto, Photo-John, Smart Wombat, and a few others have a lot of experience with both auto and bike racing.

Hey Rob,

There are a lot of things to consider before deciding which lenses you need. OK, we know most of it is motorcycle racing, but is it day or night, inside or outside.
Motorcycle racing is, by nature a dirty enviroment, so you need to consider gear that will keep the dust and dirt out of the camera body....or get very good at cleaning your gear constantly. Same goes for dirt track racing on an oval.
Lens wise you should have at least two, one wide angle like a 19-35 or if possible 19-70 (don't think there is one but you get the idea), a 70-200 f2.8. You need the f2.8 as it's a faster lens for low light.

Myself, I use Canon gear, and have a 70-200 f2.8 and a 28-300 f3.5-5.6 which covers everything I need for racing. For night racing you also need a good flash.

JS

the races that i am going to go to are outside, road racing. it is during the day as well. right now the only lens i have is the one that it came with, a 28-100 f/3.5-5.6. the two lenses that i am looking at are a 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 APO and a 100-400 f/4.5-6.7 APO. i was wondering what the APO means and if there is any difference between the imported KM lenses and the USA KM lenses. the imported are lower in price, especially for the 100-400, with a difference of $100 :(. as for a bag i have been looking at is the domke f-803, i dont know if it is good at keeping dust out or not, so any info would greatly be appreciated on any of these ideas.

APO stands for apochromatic. Apochromatic lenses are corrected for color problems which can be common in zoom lenses. For future reference, here's a link to the photo glossary: http://www.photographyreview.com/photoglossarycrx.aspx

If you can get a 300mm primes lens, that would be the best. Unless you have official press access, you won't need anything shorter than a 300mm lens at any track. And you'll get better quality glass, faster AF, and a faster maximum aperture if you buy a prime lens. One alternative - and a very, very good one - is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. That lens is expensive, but it's awesome. It's the only zoom in the length that I'd consider. I almost bought one about a year ago.

The main difference between a US lens and non-US lens is the warranty. Most manufacturers won't honor a non-US warranty in the United States. However, you will save money, the lens design is almost always exactly the same, and people don't usually have problems with lenses. A non-US lens is a reasonable gamble to make.

Domke bags are popular with photojournalists. Like you, they like that they don't shout out, "Camera Bag!" However, I don't think they're build as well or as comfortable as more conventional camera bags. Also, if you're going to be carrying your camera equipment for any time or distance, then you should really get a backpack. I had a huge shoulder bag for years and it would do a number on my back, neck, and shoulder. And that was at the motorcycle races.

Check Sigma's website sigma.com I think and see what the APO stands for, I beleive it is something with the type of glass and design of specific glass in the lens (bad memory) Either lens would work of the two you mention. The only problem may be with conditions such as rain and dust. The Sigma lenses are not sealed as well as the Canon "L" series however I never had trouble with the Sigma 70-200. Rain on the otherhand can be a problem and I'd suggest getting some gear to keep your lens and camera dry.

No camera bag is going to be dust proof, I suggest going to a camera shop and looking at different bags and then deciding. I don't even use one, I keep everything on me, spare lens in a belt case, spare batteries, cards etc. are always within reach of one hand or the other. When it's cold out my spare batteries go in my jacket along with my cards and flash. I know where everything is and there is no chance of loosing anything...unless I'm lost :o

JS

i was looking at the Sigma website and i looked at the 120-300 f/2.8 and, unfortunately, they dont make it for the Minolta. what do you think about the 135-400 f/4.5-5.6. i usually get a paddock pass to get into the pit area, so i will be using my 28-100 f/3.5-5.6 to get close ups of the riders. otherwise i am mostly going to be taking pictures of them on the bikes. thanks for all of the feedback guys.

those two lenses should give you the coverage you need, and at a speed that will work if you start losing light or in areas where the light is blocked by trees etc.

JS

If you want to go with a 300mm zoom, Bestbuy has one for under 200. I am not familiar with that lens though, and it is 4.5-5.6, so it may not be fast enough.

I got two lenses at a pawnshop recently, a 28mm f/2.8 and a 70-210 f/4, for $100. So, you may want to try, just ask the pawnshop if you can have them checked and get a refund if any problems. They said i could, so i took them to a camera shop and ran a roll with each, no problems. Also, you don't get a warranty (of course), but it's still a pretty decent deal.

Well I can't talk about Minolta specifically, because I went the Canon route.

I'd say get the best quality lens that you can afford.

Since you only have one body, you either need a super zoom that will do everything (28-300) or a couple of lenses that will do most work.
If you have pit/paddock access, then look in the 24-70 range.
For the track, if you have a pass then 70-200 is all you need for most shots.
That would do almost everything in two lenses.

If money's tight, then I would consider prime lenses, not zoom, because you can get decent quality for less money than a zoom of the same quality.

Go for the widest aperture you can, you probably won't want to shoot at f2.8 much of hte time, but by the time you've stopped down to f5.6 (where the cheaper lenses are wide open) you'll get better image quality.

Having said that all I've bought Canon.'L' series zoom lenses, even though I've got a 20D body. I expected to keep the lenses longer than the body, and getting the best lenses I could afford means (I hope) ! won't want to upgrade when I get a Pro body.

If you have more than one body, you have less chance of dust in the camera, but from that point of view 35mm is way easier to clean than digital. Can you imaging having to clean your film in between races? That's what digital shooters have to put up with, if there's dust on the sensor.

That's why my next purchase is a second body, so I don't have to swap lenses so often.