richard_martin10

<p>My original post was intended as personal research. I don't understand why it went in the direction of talking me out of Nikon. Motor sports is a very specialized form of photography and not many people in any of the forums do it. More focal points is not important, I only use the center one with AF set on servo. More megapixels are unimportant to me also, I did purchase, then sold off a 50D. I wasn't happy with the output of that camera, the pics seemed to be a bit soft and lacking in detail despite 5 more MP. My specific interest was what Nikon cameras and lenses have the same snappy performance that I'm used to in the Canon system....with some of the answers from users who kept on topic at least I feel I have better understanding of the Nikon system.....Thanks all for the help in that respect.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks all for your input. I'm not considering a switch at the moment but I'm looking down the road at possible options. As I said in my original post my results have been excellent. I feel no need for more megapixels, and the AF is as good as it gets with the 40D, its never an issue at any racing event I've been to. The 2 bodies that I have are getting up there in shutter count, the 300mm is from 1997 and Canon no longer has parts should it break down, so my question is basically research. No better source of info then the people that have the cameras and lenses in there hands, right!? I'm sure I'll have to do something at the end of next season, no better time then the present to learn and give me time to think about what to do.</p>

<p>Hello all....I was looking for some help with Nikon products, 2 of my local dealers seemed to be awfully uniformed about the product so I'll ask here! I've been shooting motorsports for ages and currently have a Canon 40D with 3 lenses with USM focus motors. The results are excellent, both camera and lenses easily keeping up with cars moving as fast as 200 mph. The 10.1 mp of the 40D is also just right. What does Nikon offer that can focus just as fast and give me the results I'm getting now? My current focal length lenses are 15-85, 70-200 F/4, and a 300 F/4. Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>I've had this lens for almost 3 years, it is excellent. The VC version doesn't test anywhere even close to the quality of the non VC version and my opinion is at this focal length you don't need it. I never had an issue with the lens and would buy it again in an instant. Put it on your camera and don't look back!</p>

<p>Camera settings are correct. Seems to happen more with telephoto use.</p>

 

<p>Has anyone had any overexposure problems with their 50D and what have you done about it? I had to swap out my 40D for a 50D out of neccessity not choice and although I'm generally happy with the performance this seems to be one quirk. Thanks, Rich</p>

<p>My Tamron has been with me for nearly 4 years now, first on my XTi, then my 40D, now my 50D. It is a great lens, very sharp, nice color and contrast, 2.8, light weight, and nice focal range......what more could you ask for? I highly recommend this lens! </p>

<p>I'm always surprised by people reacting by saying to get the "better" lens, meaning the higher priced one. my first telephoto was the 70-200 F/4 non is. I was very happy with the performance but at one point I had a chance to buy a 2.8 version for a very good price. I sold the F/4 and bought the used 2.8 and after lugging it around for 2 races (auto racing is my specialty) and not seeing any difference in the AF performance or the photographic results, I sold it as I didn't need the 2.8 aperture or the extra weight and bulk of the lens. I now have another brand new F/4L in the bag that will surely stay there unless I find the need for the IS at some point. Only you know your shooting needs but unless you are always shooting in dim light then you are better off with a brand new F/4............by the way, I'm in North Jersey and find the difference in price between the 2 lenses is more like 300-400 bucks..........good luck, Rich</p>

<p>One more thing......seldom do I shoot above 1/1000 and thats only for head on shots. I prefer 1/500 or so since that give you movement on the wheels, otherwise the car looks like its just sitting on the track! Comparisions to birds are interesting, while they are not as fast as the cars they are much smaller.....otoh I've been to several tracks where the cars are moving so fast that its very hard to catch them regardless of shutter speed or equipment.</p>

<p>Just to clarify and eliminate any other lenses coming into play, I am looking for a comparison of the 70-200 2.8 non IS vs. 70-200 F/4 IS. I'm not considering any giagantic apertured/priced primes. My primary interest is if the 2.8 is noticibly faster and more accurately focusing then the f/4, and opinions about image quality. Thanks, Rich</p>

<p>I've been shooting motorsports for years as a spectator but more recently have been credentialed and have been shooting next to a lot of pros. Most of them use the 2.8 but I can never figure out why as it really is a portrait lens. When asked why they just say thats the lens to use, no specific reason other then "its fast". If you look at my results from the F/4 you wouldn't necessarily agree with the 2.8 philosophy. I would never shoot cars on track at 2.8 unless it was dusk, and the weight of the lens can be an issue when you are hoofing it around tracks that can be as much as 4 miles.....I did it for several races and it wasn't fun! As far as 7D vs. 50D the burst rate is not a selling point for me as I shoot mostly one shot or bursts of 2-3 at most depending on the speed of the cars, I find my 40D is more then capable, but I got a 50D on an estate sale so why not? My feeling is the F/4 IS version with rave reviews of spectacular resolution would make a better match to the 50D. Just looking for as many opinions as possible. Heres a link to some of my stuff..... <a href="http://lastturnclub.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=733&Itemid=66">http://lastturnclub.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=733&Itemid=66</a> These shots were taken with a 40D and 70-200 F/4L non IS and 300 F/4L non IS which has been sold.</p>

<p>I'm making some changes in my bag in the next week or so and wanted to get a bit of input on what I know is a subject thats been talked to death! What I'm interested in is people that have shot motorsports or any other high speed sports with the non IS 70-200 2.8 and/or the IS F/4 70-200. I'm curious about how much more accurate the auto focus becomes with the center focal point being more sensitive with 2.8 lenses. I've shot with a 2.8 and haven't really noticed much if any difference. I'm very happy with my non IS F/4 but I'm going up to a 50D so I'm thinking the far better resolution of the IS F/4 may be a better way to go. What do you guys think? Thanks in advance for everyones help.</p>

<p>I have a question that i can't seem to find a straight answer to; on the center focal point of the 40D, 50D, etc. it is said that with lenses of F2.8 or greater activates a more sensitive center focal point with cross/horizontal/vertical lines for more accuracy. I get this concept but what no one seems to have an answer to is what happens when you use the F/2.8 lens at smaller apertures? Does that make the more sensitive focal point revert back to only cross line sensitivity and how much of a difference has anyone noticed......I'm toying with changing equipment and would like a sure answer....Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>2 subjects that I love are auto racing and trains. I use the same tecnique for both subjects. AF is set to servo, center focusing point only, and TV mode (shutter priority). On a sunny day most trains can be shot at between 1/500 and 1/1000 to get a nice still, if you want some motion in the background perhaps 1/400 or slightly less will give you the desired result. ISO for me is always 200 on my 40D, I like the results at that setting. </p>

<p>I shot vintage race cars at the New Jersey Vintage Grand Prix, New Jersey Motorsports Park, Millville NJ.</p><div></div>

<p>I had the Sigma and now own the Tamron. Hands down the Tamron is a superior lens. Sharper, better focusing, CA not an issue. You won't even think about the extra 20mm focal length once you try the Tamron......non VC version!</p>

<p>I picked up an unused 70-200 F/4 and the 1.4 mk2 extender for 750.00/free shipping. I have a 40D, and my other lenses are a Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, and 300 F/4L non IS. </p>

<p>Absolutely not. I feel that my 40D would be all the camera I ever need for what I use it for. Same goes for lenses, I'm extemely happy with my 70-200 F/4 and 300 F/4, both non IS. An "upgrade" is all in the eye of the beholder!</p>

<p>I finally purchased a nice lens on Ebay despite all my rantings on previous posts! The deal was a good one because it also included a 1.4 extender which I always was curious about trying. Most of my work is motorsports photography and I won't have a chance to try it at the track for a month but I went out this afternoon using my 70-200 F/4 and 300 F/4 with and without the extender and I can't believe the results. I'm usually annoyed by pixel peepers but I did just that with all the shots I took and if I wasn't looking at the shooting info I would not be able to tell which shots were done with the extender. Focus speed didn't seem to be affected either, if they perform as well at the track as they did today I'll be thrilled! Cheers to Canon for what seems to be a marvelous product.</p>

<p>It seems to be a recent thing on Ebay, perhaps because Canon prices are going up quickly. In August or Sept. of 2008 I picked up 2 beautiful lenses from different sellers, both pristine, a 70-200 2.8 and a 400 5.6 for very reasonable $. Still can be done but requires much hunting, patience, and perserverance!</p>

<p>I've bid on items where is seems pretty obvious that some shill bidding is going on. The most blatant one was when I bid on a bicycle a couple of years ago, it got out of hand pretty quickly and I stopped bidding. Within minutes of the auction ending the seller contacted me and said the winner wouldn't pay and offered me a "deal" that was nearly double the bikes value. This water damaged lens just seems so ridiculous to me, I might take a chance with it at no more then 100.00 but I'll bet this one ends up in the 800.00 range. I guess now is the time to sell bridges to people also!</p>

<p>A few days ago I posted a rant on how prices of Canon lenses on Ebay are getting crazy, in some cases used examples selling for more then new ones. Now I've seen everything because as I write this at 8:15PM EDT there is a 70-200 2.8 IS that is ending in about 2 1/2 hours, the owner states he fell through the ice on a freshwater lake with his camera and this lens. He says that Canon has told him the lens is beyond repair, by the photos its obvious that its still filled with water, it is now over 660.00 with 25 bids! Am I missing something or have people gone completely nuts?</p>

<p>Thanks all for your quick help on some answers.........its a done deal at 765.00. For those that suggested an IS version instead, I have no need as this lens is headed for motorsports duty. I have no problem hand holding a 400 5.6 or a 70 200 2.8 so using this one will be a piece of cake! Anyone know if Canon still services this lens? Thanks again, Rich</p>

<p>I have a chance to purchase a 300 F/4L, used but in as new condition. No marks at all on the outside, no scratches on the glass front or back, just a couple of small specks of dust inside the lens. I took a few pics and they are razor sharp, picture quality is superb, AF is blazingly fast, all functions seem perfect. Price is irresistable! My only doubt is a 1993 date code. I'm told that the lens sat for years unused, this seems obvious from the condition............any downside to purchasing it?</p>

<p>I doubt you need a tripod to make this comparison. I never use one, its so light and easy to handhold that it couldn't possibly affect the results of a comparison.</p>