The Right Lens for the Task

[stephen_justice]

I write stories (coverage and bios) for a drag racing magazine and a web site

devoted to that sport. My experience with writing far outways my knowledge of

photography, but I need to contribute my own pictures to support the stories.

After one year of learning, I decided to upgrade my equipment and purchased the

Nikon D200. My knowledge of lens is very limited, but thought the 80x400 would

work well for what I am doing. After joining this site, I'm not so sure. It

appears this is a great lens for birds and animals, but I will probably never

go there. There are several races coming up and I still have time to return it

and get one or more better suited for shooting real fast race cars zooming down

the drag strip. I posted once before, but I believe I did not explain my needs

clear enough to this audience. I have prepared a portfolio on this site, but

not sure if all members can access it. The portfolio shows, basically, the

types of photography I need to do. Thank you very much for listening, Stephen

Justice Pinole, CA, USA

[elliot1]

The type of lens you need is dependent on many factors, including but not limited to the distance from you to the subjects you are photographing, the position you are relative to the subjects and the lighting conditions. And of course, budget.

 

If you are fairly perpendicular to the cars going down the track and shooting in daylight, you will do fine with the lens you have. If you are shooting at night and/or the cars are moving towards you or away from you, you will likely need a lens that focusses faster and has an aperture of at least 2.8. For night shooting, you may want to consider the 85mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.4 if you can get close enough.

 

You might want to give some additional details (if you can) so you can get some really solid advice.

[stephen_justice]

Elliott,

 

The only thing that separates me from the race cars is K railing. So, I'm right there. Last year I used the Canon Digital Rebel XT with a Canon 70x300 lens (see results in my portfolio). Generally, the race cars are moving toward the photographer, but one can always do just the opposite. I actually tried the Nikon 70x300 at a test race while waiting for the big one; the results were better than last year. I like to shoot at 1/1000 second at f8 using ISO=400, but I don't think that will work with the big guy. I looked at what other people had, but most are tight-lipped about it, so there is not a lot of information sharing at the track; thus, I'm here--Stephen Justice

[klix]

Assuming the D200's AF module can track the cars, your lens choice becomes a question of focal length. There is no doubt in my mind that you would want an AFS lens. Having said that, unless you need the long end of the 80-400mm, I would say your best option would be the 70-200mm. If you need a little longer FL, you may want to add a TC-14e teleconverter.

 

If you think you will be shooting at 300mm to 400mm often, and have the budget then the 200mm-400mm may be the best lens for you.

 

If you're in SoCal, you may want to contact Calumet store nearest you and ask for rental availability of either lens. The nice thing about them is that you can rent a lens on a Friday afternoon and retun it on Monday, and they will only charge you for one day.

 

Good luck!

 

KL

[elliot1]

If you liked the 70-300 then you will love the 70-200 2.8 as Kl IX suggests. Image quality is superb and you will be able to shoot at fast shutter speeds with low ISO's. It is pretty heavy so you will likely need a tripod or monopod if you are out shooting for a long time.

 

The difference from 200mm to 300mm is minimal - you can easily crop your pictures to 'zoom' in on the action without loss in quality.

 

You may need a wide angle lens as well - there are many inexpensive primes to available.

[hayward]

Yeah, I would suggest the 70-200, as well. It is the best glass in the range you would need. Its only real limitation is that it is too short for some purposes and too long for others. Presumably you will have press access and get pretty close, so the long end isn't worrisome. I would want to have a 17-35mm or 17-55mm as well, so all of your shots don' have the same perspective.

[anthony_valvo]

Let provide a better alternative. Get the Sigma 100-300MM F4 HSM. Its an excellent, pro quality piece of glass. The F4 aperture is better than the Nikkor 80-400 at the long end. The focus is similar to AF-S, which means fast and quiet. The 80-400 is a camera driven focus lens and these have never been speedy focusers on non-pro bodies. The Sigma does not have VR, but this is less of a benefit for the work you are doing. The Sigma is a physically larger lens, but nicely build and a pleasure to use. You might want to pick-up a monopod and you will be all set.

 

Good Luck,

 

Anthony

[stephen_justice]

I want to thank everyone who contributed a response. I'm leaning towards Anthony's recommendation because it is less expensive and with the remaining funds,I might be able to purchase the wide angle lens as John suggests. He is right; I do need a wide angle lens, but again, which one do I select. John mentioned the 17x35 and 17x55; how do they differ.As always, your assistance is appreciated. BTW, I live in Northern California (Bay Area) which is a great place for photographers. We have one of the greatest urban park systems anywhere (East Bay Regional Park District--thousands and thousands of acres of unspoiled beauty right next to home). Stephen Justice

[paul stewart]

I can recommend the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 for a shorter lens.

[gunawan_tjokrosetio]

Nikon 17-55 is a DX lens, which means a lens that's design for digital cameras, whereas 17-35 is design for conventional cameras.