I was thinking of getting the above lens, to go with my 350D, which I would like to use for motorsport pics, but I now have reservations in getting one due to this portrait problem/issue with the pics being "soft".

It looks like Canon are now doing something about this because hardly anyone currently has stock of this lens and haven't had any for some weeks.

I am now considering spending a few more £'s to get the 70-200mm F4 L, but I don't know if I will have enough reach with this lens, bearing in mind I would like to use it at motorsport events!?!?!

These lenses are about all I can afford so I cannot go any higher on the budget front, so.......... should I wait and see what happens with the 70-300mm IS, get a 70-200mm F4 L or is there another lens that someone can recommend??

Thanks for any info :)

On a 350D the 70-200 f4 L is 112-320mm equiv so reach should not be a problem. I have the older 75-300mm IS and it's definitely not as good as the 70-200mm when it comes to motorsport etc.

Just have a look a BOB.T's excellent work, that should convince you :thumb: or get flat4 to try and buy you the f/2.8 IS for a ridicullously low price ;)

Thanks for your reply.

Oh so it would seem I would have reasonable reach with the 70-200mm, I will look up some of bobs pics, although I have seen some of his rally pics which look great.

So what’s this with Flat4 and this "try and buy" all about then? Isn't the 2.8 a fair old beast to lug about and I think that is going to be way over my budget??

Kev was just lucky to get a £1300 lens for less than half what it was worth :eek: but then he always has been a tight jammie barsteward ;)

One of my next purchases is a telephoto lens and I'm thinking of the either the Sigma or Canon 70-200mm lenses, not sure which yet.

Remember, you can always buy the 1.4x tele convertor to give you a little more reach without too much loss in quality, this should give you around 450mm of reach taking into account the camera.s 1.6x crop. :)

If it's mainly for motorsport go for one with the best (fastest) AF system. I have (for my D70) the Nikon 70-300 F4-5.6 & 70-200 F2.8 VR AFS. Panning & accuracy is much better with the AFS equipped lens. Not sure if there is any difference with AF on the lenses you mention though.

Also remember that the crop factor is field of view and not magnification.

I am a newbie to all this photo lark :) ........... so whats this crop factor all about? could someone please explain it, in simple terms :D

So taking into account how close you can get to the track at most of our circuits in the UK do you think a 200mm lens would be too short??

Does anyone have an example of a pic which would give me an idea of "how close" I would get with either a 200mm or 300mm lens with a rough distance as to how far away you were when taking the pic, be it motorsport or something else???

There must be someone on here that uses one of these lenses for motorsport pics???

Was a borrowed one, but took this witha 70-200F4L and a 1.4TC

http://www.cookster.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/downhill1.jpg

Luffield corner at Silverstone, cant say exactly how far away sorry :( think its cropped a little, just trying to find the original picture !

Just checked, no its not cropped ! trying to find some pics i took with my 75-300 and this lens and will post them together uncropped etc

Right ! :)

Heres 2 pictures taken at almost exactly the same spot on track and from the same location, first shot with 75-300 second with 70-200 with 1.4TC on it.

http://www.apsq91.dsl.pipex.com/images/mclaren75300.jpg

http://www.apsq91.dsl.pipex.com/images/redbull70200.jpg

Ah thanks very much Ian. That gives me a better idea :) Were both lenses at their maximum reach when you took those, if you can remember???

Hmmm....... now I have got to decide if I should get the 70-200mm F4 L or wait and see what happens with the 300mm IS, dam I hate it when you have to make such decisions!!! :D

Yes both lenses at full zoom, the 1.4 TC was a Kenko one as well, not a Canon one ! If you want i can get the EXIF info for you ? The white balance looks a bit screwy on the second one, but this was one of my first outings with the 20D ! lol

Yes if you wouldn't mind sending me the EXIF data when you get a spare minute, thanks.

Oh so you weren’t using the canon 70-200mm, so I wonder how that would compare to yours? From what I have seen on DPreview etc the Canon seems to produce very sharp pics.

I think this will come down to how inpatient I get waiting to see what happens with the 300mm IS :D

He was using the Canon 70-200, the 1.4TC was a Kenko. Have a look for my pics on here from the F1 test.. all taken with a 70-300IS - let me know if you want the EXIF and I'll get it for you..

Sod it.. my pix are here... www.bigpphotos.co.uk

:cool:

If it's mainly for motorsport go for one with the best (fastest) AF system. I have (for my D70) the Nikon 70-300 F4-5.6 & 70-200 F2.8 VR AFS. Panning & accuracy is much better with the AFS equipped lens. Not sure if there is any difference with AF on the lenses you mention though.

Also remember that the crop factor is field of view and not magnification.

For what it's worth, I'd actually disagree with this - I've played with an older 70-210 /f2.8, which can't be accused of having a fast a/f system, yet the af was much more accurate than that of my 70-300 f/4-5.6... main reason being that at f/5.6 the autofocus is right on the limit of having enough light to 'see' to focus with. Standard panning type shots don't really place that many demands on the a/f speed.

Just checked, no its not cropped ! trying to find some pics i took with my 75-300 and this lens and will post them together uncropped etc

Ian, your first shot is must be cropped. If you look at the aspect ratio of your first shot to your second and third they are completely different. Or do you mean you have just cut some off the top and left the sides original?

For what it's worth, I'd actually disagree with this - I've played with an older 70-210 /f2.8, which can't be accused of having a fast a/f system, yet the af was much more accurate than that of my 70-300 f/4-5.6... main reason being that at f/5.6 the autofocus is right on the limit of having enough light to 'see' to focus with. Standard panning type shots don't really place that many demands on the a/f speed.

I'm not saying there won't be differences between 2 non AFS type focusing systems and yes a 2.8 willl be better than a 5.6 exactly as you say, but the difference between an AFS and non AFS lens is huge, focusing is just about instant with much less hunting. I do agree that with panning it is not "as" important but not all motorsport shots are panned of course.

I am comparing my 2 AFS equiped lenses with my 1 non AFS one of course, different systems will of course vary in there speed and accuracy, as will a different body.

Kev was just lucky to get a £1300 lens for less than half what it was worth :eek: but then he always has been a tight jammie barsteward ;)
:p

Ian, your first shot is must be cropped. If you look at the aspect ratio of your first shot to your second and third they are completely different. Or do you mean you have just cut some off the top and left the sides original?

Erm let me get back to you on that one ! ;)

Well theres always Sigma to consider at considerably less money.

Either 70-200mm F2.8 or 100-300mm F4

Theses were taken with the 100-300mm http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511280

They were taken on a Nikon though :rolleyes: :D

Cheers

Mark

And this was taken on a Sigma 70 - 200 F2.8

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b122/dragonsmc/F1%20testing/DSC_1229.jpg

but is cropped (was only shooting on 135mm then) and teh price diff means you could have the 1.4 and 2x converter too :D

Again, taken on a Nikon.

To give you some Idea of distance, thats taken from the top bank of seats in Bridge at Silverstone and if your worried about it being soft, go take a look at my first entry in this months comp :D

My brother just bought a Sigma 70-200 2.8 ! Havent seen it yet but should do tomorrow ! :)

Its a corker of a lens, I'm waiting for its next reencarnation with IS :D, then I'll px mine for its new version. I'm well happy with mine with the way it performed at Koko's.

I've been using a Canon 70-300 IS on my 300D for 18 months now and have no complaints. Got mine from "7 Day Shop" I think I paid about £300.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a50/Neils_wrx/SilverstoneMGF/185_8598_JFRcopy.jpg

(Something different than a F1 car at Silverstone...)

The 70-200 F4 lense is lovely - I've had some very good results with it (motorsport is my main thing too). These were taken with a 350D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/cleppard/Bedford/IMG_0140.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/cleppard/Bedford/IMG_0114.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/cleppard/WRGB05/IMG_0203a1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/cleppard/WRGB05/IMG_00241.jpg

Thanks for all the info here guys.

Simon C – That pic looks great!! Did you do anything with it in PS at all??

The only Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 Lens I can seem to find is the 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG which is a tad under £600 which is a fair bit more than the Canon 70-200mm F4 L, is there another model??

Some people on the DPreview site have said the Sigma lenses are a bit slow for motorsport, is the case??

I don’t know what it is but when looking around on different sites there does seem to be something about the Canon 70-200mm F4 L lens pics that, to me, looks better than the 70-300mm IS, but I could be imagining it of course??? :D

Nope completely untouched except for a crop.

Yes the Sigma is about 600, sorry all my lenses are 2.8 rated or lower cos I need them (gigs). I didn't realise that canon did 2 70 -200's, I'm not a conon user.

Thats the Sigma F2.8 lens ~£600

Didn't realise the Canon F4 was so well priced - I'm a Nikon user ;)

Cheers

Mark

Nope completely untouched except for a crop.

Yes the Sigma is about 600, sorry all my lenses are 2.8 rated or lower cos I need them (gigs). I didn't realise that canon did 2 70 -200's, I'm not a conon user.

CAnon ;) actually do 3 70-200 lenses ! ;)

70-200 F4 L
70-200 F2.8 L
70-200 F2.8 L IS

Ian, it wasn't a typo :p