Decisions, decisions. . . .

[GlobalMind]

Greetings all.

So I am making the transition from a P&S Minolta over to a dSLR. The Minolta takes some good photos, but being a race junkie, I want to have some better equipment for that environment. The P&S just doesn't have the flexibility I want, and I know what I have taken so far can be better.

After some rather exhaustive research (as I am prone to do on these type of things) I have chosen the Canon 20D. I have talked to some friends of mine up in Indy (I am now in SFL) who have been shooting racing for 20+ years...but figure I could always use some other opinions. At this point, it really comes down to which lenses to get with my initial purchase.

I will be heading to probably 5 races this year, all IndyCar & Formula1. Homestead, FL - St. Pete, FL - Malaysia - and Indy (500 and USGP). SO that sets the stage for what I will use this thing for other than the usual "out & about" type of daily shooting.

For racing, I am usually able to get garage or pit passes but there would also be a good bit of trackside shooting from at least a little bit of distance, say 30-40ft (a bit of a guess)...or in the case of St Pete...you can get right next to it...street course.

I am planning on two lenses to start with....and I wasn't going to go with the Canon kit since it seems that 18-55 lens isn't all that great. I am sure I will buy more later..but want I good start. There are some cost considerations here, but I have planned on about $3k for the gear to start with.

So far I have looked at, well - plenty...but the somewhat short list of long zooms would be:

Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX IF HSM

Sigma 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG APO

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5/5.6L USM *

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM


Of course I also need something for more general stuff....and I was considering:


Sigma 18mm - 200mm f/3.5-6.3 *

Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM


The two with * next to them are what I am considering my first choice right now... I would definitely like the high speed motors on the long ones, not sure if it matters on the shorter lenses. Same goes for the IS...not sure I need that on the shorter lenses.


I will also be picking up a monopod with this, and I was also considering the optional battery grip for some additional runtime, and the extra shutter release.


Sorry this is rather long....but any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Kevin.

[livin4lax09]

what a lot of it will depend on is the conditions that you will be shooting in. If you're going to be shooting darker races, those f/5.6's are thrown right out the window. They are not nearly fast enough. What I would do is go on www.photographyreview.com, and check out the reviews on all those lenses. Some lenses, like to 70-300 canon you mentioned, don't have very good reviews. most 70-300 lenses you will find are just common "all-purpose" kits lenses. Not very good optics, and except for the f/4, not fast at all. 70mm was just about the only focal length I could use indoors, and 180mm is about the only focal length that yields decent shots. I would ask JSPhoto or SmartWombat, the moderators in this forum, since they know a lot about racing (more than I). I've never shot a race in my life.

[JSPhoto]

Hi Kevin,
I guess I will go with the two I use: Canon 70-200 f2,8 USM IS and the Canon 28-300 f3.5-5.6 USM IS. The 70-200 is great if the clouds or rain move in, and the 28-300 gives a lens capable of shooting anywhere from the turns or victory lane.

So I'm curious as to who you know up here in Indy who shoots racing, I probably know them. (you can PM me if you want with that one).

JS

[JSPhoto]

Hey Liven.

Theres no review on the 28-300 yet so here are some pro's and con's (alledgedly).

Canon 28-300mm USM IS f3.5-5.6

Pros:
From my experiance with it, it's a great all round lens, especially for photojournalists and sports photographers who need versitality and don't want to have to keep changing lenses all the time. I use it indoors and outdoors, but you need good light to use it or the AF will search. AF speed is very good for a lens of this coverage, and quicker than the older 35-350. The weight balances well with the 1D bodies but will be front heavy with the 20D.
If you have the 70-200 the two lenses use the same lens case so you can have one on the body and one on your belt and switch as needed.
The push pull zoom is more natural than turning the ring but many do not like the push pull. Dual mode IS is also helpful.

Cons:
Price
For some weight
AF searches in low light (typical for the aperature though)

Note:
Some also claim that they get dust on their sensor from using this lens due to the push pull zoom. Having used the lens in all kinds of conditions I have not had any dust issues from using it.
My guess is that those having dust issues have other issues such as improper technique changing lenses and non sealed bodies. Even at that I tried it in dusty conditions on my 300D and had no dust issues.


JS

[GlobalMind]

JS -

Thanks for the input. Over the past few months or so, as "Livin" has suggested I have read more reviews than I can count on all my various options...and went out and handled them too just to get some ideas.

I do like the Canon 70-200 f2.8 but my only question of course was length. Granted I know the digital will have a conversion factor that stretches that thing out a bit, but I was thinking I should have a 300 or more ideally. Maybe I am wrong on that. I do like the 28-300 but am starting to think that might be a bit too much $$ to deal with immediately.

I also don't necessarily have an issue with any of the Sigmas either. While I was in the store this weekend a fellow came in who had the 18-200 Sigma on a 20D and was very happy with it...so I am considering that as a more general lens. I know I'll end up buying a few more lenses as time goes on. Right now I want to get set up with a nice set that will get me going...and my feeling was one long one and a shorter one for roundabout daily stuff.

Kevin.

[masdog]

Hi Kevin. Welcome to the forums.

First, before you make any purchases, consider your budget. Don't buy equipment that you can't really afford, and if you're expecting to sell some pictures, make sure you can make enough to pay for that equipment.

Sigma makes some good lenses if you can't afford the offering from Canon. In fact, they make a lot of lenses that have very similar focal ranges and apetures as their Canon counterparts. Depending on who you talk to, you'll hear that Sigma's optics are at least comparable to Canon's, if not superior. There are drawbacks to buying a third-party lens, though, including the fact that the lens might not work properly on new bodies if Canon updates the EOS system.

Based on your list, I would probably buy the following 3: the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, the Canon 100-400, and a Sigma 24-70 F/2.8. The Canon 70-200mm is probably the best lens on the market with great optics, fast autofocus, and Canon's Image Stabilization system. The Canon 100-400 won't be very good at night, but it will give you a good reach during daytime races. If you don't want to pay the price for this lens, the Sigma 135-400 would be an acceptable compromise. And finally, for everyday photography, the Sigma 24-70 is probably your best bet. It is a very fast lens with an apeture of F/2.8, and it is comparable to Canon's 24-70L at about half the cost.

[SmartWombat]

Welcome !
As a Canon user I'd recommend what I've got in my bag
I shoot F1 too, but no accreditation

So I have a very similar set of needs.

My walk-about pit lane lens is the 24-70 f/2.8 L USM - I just wish it had IS for in the garage.
I use 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM as the main racing lens. Absolutely fantastic.
For longer reach, the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L USM, though it needs to be stopped down to f7.1 at least.

For creative closeup, I bought the EF-S 10-22 and wish I had now gone the extra for an EF lens.
Because my next step up is the 1DmkIIN and now I have no good wide angle lens for it - doh!

Think of the future investment you're making in Canon.
You're going to put more money into lenses than bodies (even after the 1D, I have!).

I tried the Sigma 80-400 and while it had that extra little at the wide end, the quality wasn't as good as the Canon 100-400 and there was huge flare off the diaphragm that ruined night GT racing.
I exchanged it as soon as I got back from le Mans for the Canon 100-400 and handed over even more money to the camera store !

Hope that helps, if you want to see what I've done with the 20D, look at my photobox gallery.
Or find photos that I've posted http://forums.photographyreview.com/...duser&u=235378 in the forums.

[JSPhoto]

SW,

The wide angle part is why I suggested the 28-300, it's really the best all around lens, and can be used indoors with a good flash. I carry two lenses, the 70-200 and the 28-300, both fit the same pouch so I can switch lenses as needed, This seems like the best approach, 2 lenses, one pouch on the belt loop. The 100-400 is Ok, but in most cases you don't need 400mm at a race track, especially at Indy, unless your shooting from up top somewhere and then you need a 600mm, which you can get using 2X converter on the 28-300. The disadvantage to the 100-400 at Indy is it limits the area you can shoot from, especially in turns 1,2,4. I have shot at Indy with the following from all 4 turns:

28-300 - very good for all corners
35-350 - very good for all corners
100-400 - only usable in turn 3, too tight (crops cars) in 1,2,4

JS

[SmartWombat]

Your knowledge of Indy is invauable.

I might try the 28-300 while the 70-200 goes in for repair. See if I can rent one.
But it seems too wide a zoom range for the image quality to be good, despite stopping down.
3:1 used to be the rule of thumb for a quality zoom.
Certianly the 100-400 loses sharpness at the end of the range unless stopped down.
Perhaps I'm too critical of my results.

[JSPhoto]

Your knowledge of Indy is invauable.

I might try the 28-300 while the 70-200 goes in for repair. See if I can rent one.
But it seems too wide a zoom range for the image quality to be good, despite stopping down.
3:1 used to be the rule of thumb for a quality zoom.
Certianly the 100-400 loses sharpness at the end of the range unless stopped down.
Perhaps I'm too critical of my results.

SW, Whats up with the 70-200? They don't have problems too often. As for image quality on the 28-300 I have had no issues there. Attached is a croppedview of a butterfly from a 100% view at 300mm. I was amazed by this lens after this. It did rather well at the indoor midget race as well, another surprise. the other shot is at 28mm.

JS

[livin4lax09]

i was going to say...that first one isn't very good quality...

than I read that it was 100% crop. I took a 180 on my opinion.

[GlobalMind]

Thank you all for your comments...here some various replies:

masdog,

You are correct...budget is certainly a consideration at this phase. I am sure I will buy more later...which is partly why this is a tough decision, what to get now. The Finance Minister is closely checking my numbers on this project but is supportive. There are some very good choices in what you mention I think...just need to make up my mind.


SW,

So it seems we have some similar interests with F1..and despite last year's USGP fiasco I will be back in 2006. I haven't missed one there yet...don't plan to. We are very much looking forward to the Malaysia trip...go half way around the world for a race...yea, why not.

To your point on investment, absolutely I know I'll have more lenses joining the arsenal sooner or later. I was considering some of those EF-S lenses but I will be passing those by due to their potential (or real) incompatibility with anything going forward.

JS,

Some good notes on Indy...for the 500 since I am not there all month I usually only have Carb Day and the Saturday autograph session & drivers meeting, aside from race day to do anything. On Carb Day I had been standing up in the Pit Lane Terrace or whatever they're calling it now (stage left of pagoda, over entrance to Gasoline Alley and the F1 garages. I can see into Gasoline Alley from there and also onto the front straight. Sometimes I might wander into the corners.

Of course I have Homestead & St Pete to shoot too. I am really excited about the possibility of getting some street level shots at St Pete.

For the USGP I am around turns 10-9, the twisty bits of the road course...and there are a couple other assorted spots there too. So maybe the 70-200 would be just fine for most all of this...at least for now.

So, back to my lists of "stuff"....a bit more research to do. I need to pick a couple that will get me most of what I want now, and then invest more later if I see the need.

Thanks again everyone.

Kevin.

[JSPhoto]

I don't think I could go back to the USGP, or any F1 race for that matter with the way things have been going.
As it is, F1 has no clue how the US media works, and denying access to the interested media and limiting access to just 60 shooters total will not gain them any friends, or fans in America.

Kevin, fyi - the 70-200 should work very well for most of what you want to shoot. And if you can afford it you may want to look into getting the 1.4x or 2x extender to go with it, which would hold you over untill you can afford something more lens wise.
JS

[SmartWombat]

I dropped the 70-200 with the lens hood on.
It bounced off the hood, onto the tripod ring, back on the hood, on the tripod ring about 4 times in all.
The front ring in front of the manual focus now rattles about 1/2mm

Seemingly no problems other then that, but I bet it's going to be expensive.
It's one reason I got the 100-400, apart form the extra reach, to substitute for the 70-200 while it's away.

[GlobalMind]

I have to say that the USGP 2005 was a rather surreal experience, sitting there with my headset on listening in on SPEED and others talk about the situation. All around me, save the one fellow in front of me who also had a scanner, no one had a clue up till when they all pulled off what was about to happen. And then to have all these morons tossing trash onto the track, launching beer cans....the "race" was an insult...the "fans" were worse in my view.

But, I love racing...and I like F1. I have some great seats, right at T1 of the road course...and I will be back in 2006. In my view of it, I am lucky I didn't have to travel thousands of miles to arrive there and spend years saving up to do it like the Columbians a few rows ahead of me in 2005.

Man, what a day.

So, um what were we talking about again? Oh yea, lenses.... LOL

I do think the 70-200 seems to look like a really good choice. Now I just need to select a shorter range lens to cover the difference. I would love the Canon 24-70 IS USM 2.8 I think it is...but that's not gonna happen at over $1k. Not now at least. The 28-135 is tempting though...except back ordered everywhere.

Kevin.

[masdog]

Kevin,

Look into other Sigma lenses. They have a 24-70 lens that doubles as a macro, and their 28-105 lens is also pretty good.

[JSPhoto]

No more 28-135's for me....I have broken three of em now. The latest last night. All three succumed to basketball Oh well, last nights was a rental

JS

[GlobalMind]

No more 28-135's for me....I have broken three of em now. The latest last night. All three succumed to basketball Oh well, last nights was a rental
JS

Ouch. You think they are uniquely prone to damage or umm, were they just in the wrong place at the wrong time? ;)

K.

[GlobalMind]

Kevin,

Look into other Sigma lenses. They have a 24-70 lens that doubles as a macro, and their 28-105 lens is also pretty good.

Thanks I'll check out some of those too....

K.

[JSPhoto]

Ouch. You think they are uniquely prone to damage or umm, were they just in the wrong place at the wrong time? ;)

K.

Wrong plaace wrong time....basketballs appear to be stronger than 28-135 lenses from my unscientific testing

JS

[GlobalMind]

Morning all.

Ok so my post last night must have gone into never-never land....oh well...

So it seems I need to cut this down price-wise.

I think I can select a shorter lens as there are a few options to pick from that would work fine.

The rub is on the longer one. While I really like the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, I don't think it's in the cards at the moment. I am thinking I want to stick with the Canon gear for now...but I know Sigma has some nice ones out there too which would work.

So, I was thinking about the 70-200 f4L USM...given it doesn't have IS and isn't quite as fast as the 2.8....but anyone have thouhts on it? I was thinking I could get into the better L glass this way and then step up later.

K.

[JSPhoto]

That lens is a very good lens, just realize it won't work well in low light situations, but for daylight and really good lighting it is a very sharp lens. It's also a bit lighter too

JS

[JSPhoto]

Kevin,
Well since you sit in turn 4 (road course Turn 1) you know right where I am a lot of the time for the Brickyard and Indy 500 as I'm in turn 4 most of the time just about 40 yards from the road course. Depending on where your seat is you could use up to a 300 or 400 for there.
Where I shoot from though 90mm will just get the length of a car directly across from me coming off of 4.
Turn three you can use a 135 and fill the frame with a car.

JS

[GlobalMind]

Kevin,
Well since you sit in turn 4 (road course Turn 1) you know right where I am a lot of the time for the Brickyard and Indy 500 as I'm in turn 4 most of the time just about 40 yards from the road course. Depending on where your seat is you could use up to a 300 or 400 for there.
Where I shoot from though 90mm will just get the length of a car directly across from me coming off of 4.
Turn three you can use a 135 and fill the frame with a car.

JS

Yea my Indy seats are at the last section or so of the North Vista...can you say Danica's wreck right in front of us this year....Then for the USGP we're dead on road course T1 or as you say exit of T4 on the oval.

Being on the inside does help get those killer shots...stands are a bit harder. The more I think of it I think that 70-200 f4L ight be the way to go along with maybe the 28-135 or something like it for a walkaround type deal. I don't really mind the overlap in length. But who knows... At this point I think the 70-200 f4L is the most bang for buck today and I can just add on from there!

Maybe I could toss on the 1.4x converter to get a bit more length out of it if I need it.

Thanks for the help...I am sure I'll be back.

K.

[SmartWombat]

Adding the converter takes a stop of exposure too, so you're on the f/5.6 limit for auto-focus then.