Motorsports Equipment Suggestions

CNCO · Sep 6, 2010

Hello,

On Friday I went to Limerock Park in CT and did a workshop with Nikon. Basically Nikon was there and allowed photographers to experiment with their equipment. Yeah Im the man, I walked around with a D3x and a 600mm lenses, on the side I had a 70-200 f 2.8. Now, I do not have the funds to drop 20k on equipment. My question is what are you guys using when you go to car races, or motorcycle races that is affordable. I want to get into motorsports photography but I want to spend my money wiseley. Basically I am looking at

70-200 f2.8
80-400 f4.5

Any reccomendations would be helpful. I currently have a D80 but I am going to upgrade to a D300 or a D90 at the least. Thanks.

jeph · Sep 7, 2010

I have a D 300s and a 70-200 VRII that I love. I have been thinking about a teleconverter but just haven't made up my mind yet.

edouble · Sep 7, 2010

You are going to need longer focal lengths than 200mm. Unless you have a special vest and badge that gets you inside the fence. I would stay away from teleconvertors. You are going to lose at least 1.5 stops and slow your autofocus down.

If you can not afford a fast zoom (above 200mm) do what I do- rent $5000 lens for the weekend. I have been looking at Nikon's 300 f4 (less than$ 1500 new) but I really don't want a prime and it lakes VR which can be helpful.

CNCO · Sep 7, 2010

to go out and spend that kind of money for a 300+ prime lense is ridiculous. the 70-200 f2.8 is a great lense. The teleconverter is going to decrease your f stop but does it really matter if you are panning?

Rekd · Sep 7, 2010

CNCO said:
The teleconverter is going to decrease your f stop but does it really matter if you are panning?

That won't really matter until you start working in low-light situations (night time or indoors). The 70-200mm 2.8 will be a great starter lens. You can get a 2x converter and cover 80-400mm without much difference except for price.

Phranquey · Sep 7, 2010

Rekd said:
The 70-200mm 2.8 will be a great starter lens. You can get a 2x converter and cover 80-400mm without much difference except for price.

Ehhhh.... I've tried a 1.4, 1.7, & 2.0 TC on my 70-200. The 1.4 is very minimal IQ loss, the 1.7 is noticable but usable in the right conditions, but the 2.0 is not even an option. The IQ and f-stop loss is beyond acceptable to me.

Heck · Sep 7, 2010

I went to lime rock a few years ago and it is a special track. That said I have a D300 with the 70-200mm version one. With the crop factor of the D300 sensor its a bit more than 200mm. A tele is on my list of things to get but its not at the top at the price they want for a Nikon one. I would not get a 2x as I heard it degrades too much. A 1.7 tele I would get.

I seen a video the other night about the 70-200 version II lens and the guy was saying it dont have the same reach as a 200 version I. But he said its close and is tac sharp so he felt it was a even trade off. This is the guys site. He has some good info on Nikon gear. Photography, Lightroom & Digital Camera How To — FroKnowsPhoto Archive

Here is some of the shots I took with my D300 and 70-200. Some parts of the track I did not even need the full 200mm http://heck.zenfolio.com/p1014582102

CNCO · Sep 7, 2010

im looking around for a good deal on a 70-200 f2.8. i am going to sell all of my equipment to help fund this. i am going to keep the 50mm and the 18-135mm because they are both very good lenses. i know i wont get much for the other 3 lenses but its a start.

Heck · Sep 7, 2010

I worked on getting good glass before a good body. I shot a year of autocross with a D40x and the monster 70-200 before I got the D300. You can also save and get a sigma. I seen some great shots from the sigma version.

CNCO · Sep 7, 2010

i have seen the sigma 120-300 f2.8 and thats suppose to be a great lense. the cost is at least 2500$.

WHY CAN'T THIS STUFF BE AFFORDABLE!

Heck · Sep 7, 2010

It's not affordable and that may be a good thing. Cuz if it were cheap then everyone would have it and we would not be so special :lol:

. Think of a great lens this way. It will hold it's value more than most things. In a few years you can get about 60 to 70% of the cost of the Nikon 70-200 back if you sell it. So think of it as long term cheap rental.

gary sempler · Sep 8, 2010

I shoot with a d300s, nikkor 70-200 vr2, nikkor 300 f4 and a 1.4 nikon converter. That covers from 105 to 630mm. That gives me a lot of focal length options. All are extreamly sharp. I also have the d700 and a nikkor 24-70. It gives me evan more high IQ options with the 70-200 and the 300 with the converter. The bigest bang for your buck that I could find. Good luck

Rekd · Sep 8, 2010

gary sempler said:
I shoot with a d300s, nikkor 70-200 vr2, nikkor 300 f4 and a 1.4 nikon converter. That covers from 105 to 630mm. That gives me a lot of focal length options. All are extreamly sharp. I also have the d700 and a nikkor 24-70. It gives me evan more high IQ options with the 70-200 and the 300 with the converter. The bigest bang for your buck that I could find. Good luck

Gary, did you go to school in California?

Oh, wait, I know! You taped the 70 and the 200 to the 300 and used the 1.4 to get to 630mm, right? :lmao:

edouble · Sep 9, 2010

Does anybody dare to post up pics of thier "teleconverted" motorsports shots????

CNCO · Sep 9, 2010

very good idea. id love to see a shot with a 70-200 f2.8 and a teleconverter compared with the same shot to a 400 prime lenses. of course this requires the same body and two of the same people shooting the same thing.