Lens for Motorsport

crocc

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi again,

Further to my eariler thread here:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128115

I have been looking at the lens for my motorsport pics (formula 1). I have decided on the camera (Canon EOS 40D). I now have a few questions on the lens. I was advised to buy a Canon 70.300 IS but I dont know which one:

The choices are:
Canon EF 70-300 F/4 5.6 IS USM
http://www.jessops.com/Store/s30795...ortBy=UndefinedASC&IsInStockOnly=False&comp=y
for 379 pounds

or

CANON EF 70-300MM F4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
http://www.wilkinson.co.uk/store/product.php?productid=16297&cat=304&page=2
for 805 pounds.

My question is does the extra 400 pound+ make 'much' differance. As the differance I can see between the two is the 'DO' element.

Please can anyone help

Thanks

Crocc
 
Canon EF 70-200 F/4L USM
If you dont need the extra 200-300mm focal length, i say get thise lens. ;)

$560 USD
or
284 british pounds

I honestly dont know about the DO quality, I know it does make for a shorter/smaller lens, but quality wise I dont know on the comparison. I do know the 70-200 is tack sharp :)
 
I second prodigy2k7, I have used the EF 70-200 f4L IS USM this far at motorsport events and it's doing the job brilliantly. IS is good when shooting events in the pit or other places at the track but when I shoot cars or bikes in speed it's turned off for most of the time. You can still get tack sharp photos of the action without IS.

Besides, the build quality of the lens is great and it is weather sealed just like the 40D body. The EF 70-200 f4L is definitely the first lens i would recommend.

And regarding the 200 vs 300mm issue, I can reveal a secret. Good preparations and a professional behaviour will take you far closer to the action than any monster lens on the planet.
 
Out of those two, I'd probably get the cheaper 70-300 non-DO. If you can lug the larger lens around, it's generally a better deal; you can get a 70-200L f/2.8 (non-IS) lens for only £50 more than the compact lens! And if its Nikon counterpart is anything to go by, that is a STUNNING lens.

So I would say that if you were nudging towards the compact lens, either get the other lens or get a much cheaper 70-200 f/4 lens. The extra 100mm is helpful, but so long as you can afford to crop your photos a bit, it really won't matter. If you play your cards right, you can get pretty close to the action of a motorsport, so you won't need to crop much, if at all.

And to Prodigy, nice comparison of USD to GBP, but I'm afraid it isn't that simple :(, we have to pay A LOT more than you lucky Yanks. That 70-200 f/4 you were talking about? £284 in America, a massive £469 in the UK. Oh, well.

Just remember that it's not all about the lens; the soft squidgy bit behind the viewfinder plays a big part as well! :D

And most of all... HAVE FUN!
 
And to Prodigy, nice comparison of USD to GBP, but I'm afraid it isn't that simple :(, we have to pay A LOT more than you lucky Yanks. That 70-200 f/4 you were talking about? £284 in America, a massive £469 in the UK. Oh, well.

Indeed. I was just about to mention that :(

It's £449 at WarehouseExpress, which equates to $890, not that IF-F'ING-ONLY $560.

We have to pay through our noses for gear here, unfortunately. It's the same with most electronics; they usually have a close to like-for-like currency exchange.

What a world :(
 
Yep, every day I'm on this forum I turn green with envy to the people who can pay HALF as much for all their gear as we have to do ours. Who invented British taxes? I think I want to put him in a life-sized blender now. :D

Gordon Brown might have to do, though.
 
Yep, every day I'm on this forum I turn green with envy to the people who can pay HALF as much for all their gear as we have to do ours. Who invented British taxes? I think I want to put him in a life-sized blender now. :D

Gordon Brown might have to do, though.

Ha, Thats why us Yanks, left you in the first place. :lmao::lmao:
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top