Auto Racing Lens Kit for DSLR?

I've read some great threads in this forum about shooting at various forms of auto racing

venues and have really learned lots from the many posters - amateur and pro alike -

Thanks!

 

Seeking advice on a prime long lens for use at road courses primarily (F1, ChampCar,

sportscars, vintage, etc.) but possibly at some oval tracks as well (Indy, Nascar).

 

I've just bought a DSLR with a 1.5X crop factor (Minolta Maxxum 7D). I've made a guess

that an 80-200/f2.8 would be useful and have just bought one off eBay (thinking about

getting a 2X TC to go with it - will that be useful?). I'm thinking that I will probably want

at least one longer lens, even with the crop factor. The options I'm considering are a 300/

f4 and a 400/f4.5. The 400 is about 2" longer and a little over a pound heavier, so "haul-

it-around" size is a little bit of a factor, but my primary objective is to get the right focal

length. Will the 300 be a good length (maybe with occasional TC use) or do I need to go

for the 400?

You'll want a 400mm f/4 or f/2.8 & a 600mm f/4 and something short like a 16-35mm f/

2.8 as well.

I get away with an 80-200 f2.8 and have gone upto 300 for F1 shots.

That's with film SLRs.

So 300 + a TC may be too long, unless of course you want details of the

driver's nose hairs.

Because of the crop factor, your now '120-300' seems just right.

 

A good 2x TC is usually better on fixed lenses than zooms. Furthermore, you have to close the aperture 2 stops; so 2.8 x2= 5.6 +2 stops = F11 at 600mm or close. It would be usable only when the cars are motionless (departure and refueling). A 1.4x TC is a great complement to a 300mm F4 but i don't think you will need that much power.

 

I would add instead a 24mm or 28mm(giving 35mm or 42mm coverage), a small and light lens if you ever need a wider view. Don't forget that changing lens often could bring a little dust inside the camera, an awfull thing with most DSLR. So stick to your fast zoom, it probably is everything you need for car racing.

Hi Ron,

 

There are a lot of great F1 and other racing shots in the archives, looking through them

the best photographers are useing 400 2.8 on digital cameras with no TC's. Whilst digital

high iso performance is reducing the necessity for mega glass the truth is most of the

outstanding shots are taken with it. The AF and sharpness levels drop to unuseful levels

when a 2xTC is used on a 80-200. So given your options I would go for the 400 f4.5.

 

Take care, Scott.

Well, you can use any lens at all to get the shot you want. On the long end you're better off getting a Minolta 300 2.8 (you need to reduce depth of field on the long end with a dslr since you're further away) and a Minolta 1.4x. With dig you then have a 450 2.8 and a 630 4.0 film FOV. Along with the 80-200 2.8 you'd be set, although I use a 50-135 to get the 80-200 FOV with my Nikons. A 400 2.8/600 4.0 with dig FOV (600/900) weigh a ton and are overkill these days for racing (the 400 isn't in FL, but weight). A 55 3.5 non-ai Micro did this deed <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/bss.jpg"> Detroit '82 </a>.

Agree with Jay Hectors advice, don't think Minolta make a 400 2.8 do they?

Oh yes the Sigma 120-300 2.8 would make a versatile and very vaiable option if it is within your budget.

I thought this might be the right place to ask that question!!! Thanks folks!

 

I conclude from the above:

 

* 80-200/f2.8 probably was a good choice

 

* skip trying to use TC on the 80-200

 

* will need a wide zoom or wide prime (I have a 28-75/f2.8, a 20/f2.8 and will probably

get the Minolta 17-35/f2.8-4 when I get a rebate check from Minolta on the 7D that's

good only on their lenses, so I may have that covered)

 

* not options - as Erin said, Minolta doesn't make a 400/f2.8, only f4.5, and the Sigma

120-300/f2.8 isn't made in Minolta mount

 

* may not even need a long prime in addition to the 80-200

 

* no clear consensus on which long prime, but your knowledge of the subject put me onto

a consideration I really hadn't thought about - a short depth of field is probably very

useful for isolating the car from it's surroundings.

 

* no clear consensus on 300 vs 400, but it sounds like 300 might be enough (especially if

coupled with the matching Minolta 1.4TC on occasion). So maybe the question becomes:

is the shorter DOF of a 300/f2.8 compared to a 300/f4 important enough for an extra

$700-800 + 2-lbs.?

 

Anyway, great food for thought - thanks again folks!

Yes.

i would prefer a 300 F4 over a F2.8 because i just don't want to carry the weight. Make a test: calculate what total weight it would be, including all other gear you will bring, pack it and go for a long walk. Those bags are always heavier at the end of the day...

 

That said, once on location, the 2.8 on a monopod is great. Furthermore, the 1.4x TC is a better match since you will still have F4 for that '420'. If you pick the F2.8, buy also the 1.4X (a must) and maybe also the 2x TC (often, models are dedicated for that specific lens).

 

You could also start with only your 80-200 for a race or two or rent that big lens for a race time.

 

I am not convinced that kind of power is suitable for a fast moving (but predictable)subject unless there is some image stabilisation technology.

I think you're probably right Francois. I should try the 80-200 for awhile before making

that decision. I have a 200/f2.8 with matching 2X and I'll stick that on some to see what

the 400 FOV looks like. My early season race trips are all ovals until the Mid-Ohio Sports

Car Course season starts in May, so I just need to be patient and get over a bad case of

GAS.

 

btw; one of the advantages of the Minolta 7D is that it has image stabilization (they call it

"AntiShake") built into the body (the sensor actually moves around) so that it works with

essentially all lenses. It works amazingly well - I've taken handheld shots with the 200/

f2.8 and 2X TC at 1/125 sec. that were very sharp. That 400mm combination times the

1.5 crop factor equaled great embarrassment at how shaky I was based on the view thru

the finder, but every photo worked.

You should look at some of Fred Sickler's photos on PN using his 500mm Reflex Nikkor at your local tracks. That's a 750mm equiv. Long lenses are a must, and I used a 500 Reflex for a long time with K64 handheld (well, leaning against things and using guardrails for support) <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/villb01.jpg"> Long Beach </a> and <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/stomm.jpg"> Riverside </a>. Whatever you do you need the reach.

One last thing : you should put your money where it mather the most.

 

Those race cars sure seem important to you and i guess they won't be your firsts as spectator. With the lenses that you already own, you should be able to find out at what focal lenght are most of your shots taken and also the ones you like the most (not necessarely the same), and if some range is missing.

 

Exemple A : most are at the long end of your 80-200 but there is a need for slightly longer sometimes : then buy the 300 F4

 

Exemple B : 300 seems just right for a large amount : then buy the 300 F2.8

 

Exemple C : 400 is nice and you won't miss the gap with 200 : then buy a 400

 

Exemple D : it's amazing how all long focals seem usefull at times : then buy a 300 F2.8 + 1.4 TC + 2x TC.

 

Or to put it more clearly : don't buy faster or longer than the 300 F4 unless you find it will be your main lens.

A lot of people have addressed this already but I will give it my two cents... Being that you are shooting with a subframe DSLR adn have the advantage of the 1.5x, I would look at how many stops you will loose if you employ the TC before investing in it. I shot last year's Canadian GP with my Canon 10D(1.6x)and their 70-200 f/2.8 L lens and have used from time to time the Canon 2x TC with it as well. I find the weight even without a monopod easy to handle over a 3-4 day GP weekend and came away with some nice shots.

 

 

The one thing I would ask myself is.. Realistically, how close will I be able to get and then if you can rent a few lenses. Take them to the local park where you will be able to approximate how close you think you will be able to get and then start taking photos of moving cars with each lens and TC combination. You might find that the 300 is the perfect addition to your kit or conversely rule it out entirely and go for the 400. Either way you will be able to not only see the distance, but how well you are able to cope with tracking a moving car at your given magnification.

 

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=414105">Here are a few examples</a> of what I was able to shoot with my 10D and 70-200 f/2.8 (some with 2X TC so look at image details for what my shot settings were)

 

 

Good luck and please let us know how your photos turn out.

 

 

-Norman Perkel

Norman - WOW! I attend the USGP every year, and if i come home this year with only

one or two shots in the league of your collection, I'll be extremely pleased with my

progress.

 

In looking thru them, the ones that catch my eye the most seem to all have been made

with the 2X at 400mm. My favorite is "Ralf in Lockup". I'm going to wait about buying a

300mm until I test with my 200/f2.8 prime and matching 2X. It looks like I may need the

400! (Also, based on advice in this thread and a couple of other sources, I've found a

good deal on a used Minolta 1.4X that is match-designed for my 200 prime as well as the

300s and the 400 I'm looking at, so I've got that coming.)

 

Thanks for your help everyone - I'm really geared up now for the season to start, but I am

going to go practice on the streets of Cincinnati some between now and then.

Hi Ron I checked on the Sigma site and indeed, you are correct the 120-300 2.8 is not manufactured in a Minolta mount. Another option is the 100-300 f4 EX HSM. This model is made in Minolta mount. It is a very well regarded lens and highly spoken of by those who own it, ergonomicly excellent, robust and reliable, very sharp, fast focusing, contrasty, and reasonably fast aperture. A good quality zoom is very versatile as you will have found out with your recent 80-200 2.8 acquisition.

Ron,

 

Thanks for the kind comments regarding my shots... I appreciate it.

 

-Norman