Best lens for action?

[c_mac]

Ok so I am planning on getting a lens for action shots, mostly cars and motorcycles on the track. Generally it will be sunny, but as weather goes its not always sunny.

I have been looking at the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS and the 70-200 f/4L. I talked to my local photo shop and they suggested the 70-200. I know there are some 3rd party lenses but I don't know anything about them, so if you have any alternatives, please say so.

As far as price goes, I would like to stay within $100-$200 of the Canons. Preferably the lesser end. I am on a budget.

 

[darich]

Get a lens with as wide an aperture as you can afford. That way you'll be able to work in poorer light conditions and still maintain a reasonably fast exposure. It'll also help to throw the background out of focus with a shallow depth of field. This is useful because when you're panning you don't watch the background. If it's thrown out of focus then it's something you can pretty much forget about while shooting.
A fast lens ie wide aperture will let you shoot fast and slow exposures while a slower lens will always be more limited.
I know everything is bought according to your budget but buy as high quality lens as you can afford - even if you upgrade your camera, the lens will simply attach onto the new one (unless you change brand of course!)
IS is quite good but not designed for panning. I believe you'd need what's called stage 2 IS which is more expensive. IS is good for reducing camera shake when shooting stationary subjects but not for reducing it while panning.
Bear in mind that practicing your panning technique can go a long way to improving your shots rather than just buying a more expensive lens. If you're on digital try practicing on birds flying in the garden or cars in the street.
It's also worth remembering that when you fire a shot you'll be "blind" for a split second. Aim the camera very slightly ahead of the subject and allow some space for moving into. And don't try to fill the frame either because you'll merely crop the head/wheel/nose (delete as appropriate) It's better to zoom out a bit and crop later if necessary.

 

[Becky]

The 70-200mm f4 was my recent choice as I was budgeting a bit too... theres the f2.8 version-the extra stop WILL make a difference and would probably be better for the action job, but it costs a lot more, so if you're on a budget I'd have the 70-200mm f4... its still a great piece of kit... and L lens quality is unbeatable.

 

[Big Mike]

Either of those lenses will cost you at least $500 US.

You won't find much for $100-$200...especially for sports. Pro sports photographers use the most expensive lenses...because that's that they need to get the shot.

In your budget...look at a 50mm F1.8 or maybe a 70-300 f/4-5.6 (no IS).

 

[Johnboy2978]

I recently got the sigma ex 70-200 2.8 new for $600 on ebay (search for seller CametaAuctions). Seems to go a good job. B&H sells this lens for $830 and it gets a really good review:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102&sort=7&cat=all&page=16

As stated previously, it's hard to find much of a lens for $100, though I also have a Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 which is pretty decent for the price (I think about $125) but isn't nearly as well built as the Sigma. The Sigma is quite heavy (around 3.5 pounds)

 

[c_mac]

sorry for the confusion...i meant within 100 -200 dollars of the 70-200 f/4L. not just $100 - $200 in general. I know I get what I pay for and wished I was able to afford the f/2.8 but at this time my budget is really limited (I am still attending college, FWIW) I have really been watching eBay hoping to find something but so far everything is either the same price as BH/Adorama or higher!

The sigma 70-200 2.8 has been recommended to me by a few other people as well, I am certain that it must be a good lens otherwise no one would suggest it.

Maybe though when the time comes to finally make the decision I may have a little more money in the pot!!!!

So now I have to choose between the 70-200L or the sigma 70-200 2.8....i hate making decisions sometimes! lol

 

[Big Mike]

The Sigma 70-200 F2.8 gets pretty good reviews...I think it's not too far away from the Canon F4 version, in price.

 

[Christie Photo]

Ok so I am planning on getting a lens for action shots, mostly cars and motorcycles on the track.

Will you be shooting from the stands, or will you be next to the track?

 

[c_mac]

Will you be shooting from the stands, or will you be next to the track?

Next to the track/road/whatever it may be...but I will be close nontheless

 

[Christie Photo]

Next to the track/road/whatever it may be...but I will be close nontheless

oooo..... better get something shorter. I suppose I should have asked what camera you use. I have only shot one of these, but was shooting pretty wide.

Pete

 

[c_mac]

its a 30D...do you really think i will need something shorter? I was kinda figuring that I be able to do most all-around stuff with this lense. Because depending on how close I am I may need to be able to zoom in some. I just assumed that the 70 would be wide enough, but I could be wrong....

But for the money there really isn't anything on the same level as the 70-200 f/4L...the sigma is close but still more expensive, and the for the quivalent quality in lesser zooms it jumps from the sigma 24-70 2.8($430) to the canon 24-105 at about 1100 dollars. i am sure there are more but i am going by BHphoto for a reference. so again if anyone has a better suggestion feel free to say so.

I wouldn't mind to go a little wider, but I would still like to have the range too.

 

[Christie Photo]

Alright... here's the info from my camera:

Camera Model Name - Canon EOS 10D
Shooting Date/Time - 7/12/2005 1:26:16 PM
Shooting Mode - Manual
Tv( Shutter Speed ) - 1/350
Av( Aperture Value ) - 8.0
Metering Mode - Partial
ISO Speed - 400
Lens - 24.0 - 85.0 mm
Focal Length - 48.0 mm
Image Size - 3072x2048
Image Quality - RAW
Flash - Off
White Balance - Custom
AF Mode - Manual Focus
Parameters
Contrast Normal
Sharpness Normal
Color saturation Normal
Color tone Normal
Color Space - sRGB
File Size - 6090KB

This is the raw image:

And this is my final edit:

I gotta tell ya... for this shot, anything longer would have been a hindrance.

 

[Mihai]

Yeah, I was thinking that for roadside shooting a 50 or an 85 prime should do the trick. Nice edit, how did you get to blur the background? Did you carefuly select the car out and blured everything else? And what did you use for the blur?

M.

 

[c_mac]

that is a great example of why i would want something shorter!!!

I will def be rethinking things a little. Although I won't really be doing any drag shots this will mostly(all) be road racing. I will prob be about 25-30 feet from the road depending on where i am at. and at time i will prob shoot down the road/track so the nice zoom would still be a great convenience.

dang now my decision just got harder! but thank you visuals are always the best!

 

[c_mac]

i was thinking about possibly using say the sigma 24-70 2.8 ex dg with a 1.4 TC. but i was reading and it says its not recommended for lenses wider than 50 mm. but in all reality i would only need the TC when i wanted to zoom, so would it be ok? i am just trying to get the most bang for the buck possible.

i attempted to add up the numbers. the 24-70 on the 30d would actually be about 38-112. then with the 1.4 TC it would be a 55-155. is this right. if so that seems like it would handle most of what i would want and still be quite fast and be good quality.