Shooting motorsports ... lens recommendations?

[Keith]

I'm going to be using my D700 for photographing classic moto-x meetings over the next year or so on a fairly regular basis. I did a meeting a year ago and found it quite enjoyable and had some very positive feedback ... several competitors expressed an interest in obtaining prints from me if the price was reasonable.

At that time I used my only zoom in Nikon mount which is a 24-120 f4 G Nikkor but would like a little more reach at the long end .... maybe 200 or 250mm. Without spending a fortune there appears to be a couple of Sigmas that may do the job one of which is a 70-200 f2.8 that comes in at around $1300.00 locally. Does anyone here use a Sigma zoom for action photography and if so how does it stack up performance wise against the equivalent Nikkor ... focusing speed, image quality etc? As a matter of interest the equivalent Nikkor in this focal length is more than twice the price of the Sigma!

Thanks in advance. 🙂

 

[meso]

When I had my Canon 5D I shot a lot of motorsport and I loved the 70-200 F4 IS,
it had the 2 way IS for panning and wasnt as big & heavy as the 2.8 IS version.
But I am not that well versed in the world of Nikon but there must be a similar lens in their line-up or from 3rd party like Sigma?

 

[oftheherd]

I don't know how far you want to, or have to be from what you want to photograph, but 200mm would be good, but I would probably reccomend going ahead and getting a 300mm.

 

[Keith]

I don't know how far you want to, or have to be from what you want to photograph, but 200mm would be good, but I would probably reccomend going ahead and getting a 300mm.

I'm not convinced that 300mm is necessary. When I photographed a meeting a while ago 120mm was OK most of the time because once you sign the indemnity that allows free access to the inside of the track you can get very close to the action without too many risks ... but you do tend to get peppered with dirt etc. I feel that 200mm should give the extra breathing space required.

 

[bonatto]

Keith, is there something in particular or aesthetic that you want to achieve from a longer zoom that you can't with your 120 long end?

If you've got trackside access, it could be a matter of walking around and finding some nice, close corners. I use a 35 and 50 at the races and have only once or twice wished for a 90mm.

 

[Keith]

Keith, is there something in particular or aesthetic that you want to achieve from a longer zoom that you can't with your 120 long end?

If you've got trackside access, it could be a matter of walking around and finding some nice, close corners. I use a 35 and 50 at the races and have only once or twice wished for a 90mm.

With motocross bikes you tend to spend a fair bit of time on the down side of jumps trying to catch the bikes in the air as they come towards you. These are a very popular shot with the riders themselves and this was where I found the 120mm length a bit limiting. Generally 120mm is very good ... particularly trackside on the outside or inside of a corner where the Nikon's very good AF system will track the bikes accurately allowing you to shoot them at any point of their progress.

 

[helvetica]

It sounds like you are going to be photographing at angles at which the z-axis will be changing rapidly, so something with very quick AF will be critical. Are you going for motion blur, or are you trying to get everything frozen in mid-jump?

In motorsports, you generally try for the panning shots around a racetrack, where you are shooting very slow for the focal length. Panning IS/VR is key here. On the other hand, if you are not trying to get motion blur on the wheel spokes, and just want a very sharp "frozen in time" looking picture, then things are much cheaper! You will be shooting in daylight, so something like f/5.6 @ 1/1000+ is not unreasonable. VR/IS will not be as critical here.

I have used the Nikon 70-300 VR before (~$550 new?) and it sounds like it could fit your needs well. I was more a fan of the 80-200/2.8 AF-D lens for my purposes, but it can not do tracking (depth) autofocus as well as a good AI-S lens.

 

[nikonosguy]

Get a fisheye.

Got to work close for that

50/1.4

A good 500

 

[helvetica]

A good 500

Heh, yes - the 500mm f/4 is the lens of choice for most motorsport; great compression, great radius on the reach for panning. If you can stand close enough to the track to get dirt on you, it sounds like wide to short-tele would be more applicable.

 

[oftheherd]

I'm not convinced that 300mm is necessary. When I photographed a meeting a while ago 120mm was OK most of the time because once you sign the indemnity that allows free access to the inside of the track you can get very close to the action without too many risks ... but you do tend to get peppered with dirt etc. I feel that 200mm should give the extra breathing space required.

You may well be right. Do you have teleextenders you can experiment with to find a preferred length?

 

[bsdunek]

Depends on the kind of motorsports. I've used everything from 135mm to 500mm.

 

[Godfrey]

The key is getting close. If you can get close, a 70-200 is the right range. If you can't get close, you'll need something a bit longer.

G

 

[finguanzo]

I shot motorsports for a little while, rallying to be specific.. Not the same as bikes, but sort of the same close access compared to road racing..
I usually used a 17-35, and a 70-200.. Once In a while I would want a 300 or so, but did fine with those two lenses..

 

[kxl]

There have been 4 versions of the Sigma 70-200mm. I can only assume you are talking about the latest one? If so, then it is a good lens, but still a tad slower AF than the Nikon 70-200mm v1 (which I have) or v2, and less sharp at f2.8 than either Nikon lens.

If it were me, I would go with the Nikon 70-200mm v2 (given sufficient funds) or find a lightly used copy of the first version of the Nikon. The biggest advantage of the second version, especially for you intended use, is its closer focus distance.

If you need to go longer, get a TC-14e or TC-17e. Good luck!


-Keith

 

[finguanzo]

Found a bike shot, If I remember right, I was standing at the edge of the road, not sure how far away, but not much..
I think its right under or at 200mm .... This was the Nikon 70-200, the Vr version, not sure which one though, and a Nikon D200.
Photo was for the rider, not to my liking.. 🙂

 

[Keith]

I shot motorsports for a little while, rallying to be specific.. Not the same as bikes, but sort of the same close access compared to road racing..
I usually used a 17-35, and a 70-200.. Once In a while I would want a 300 or so, but did fine with those two lenses..

Excellent information thanks ... 🙂

 

[Keith]

I just read a couple of reviews of the latest Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 G VR11 .... not cheap but it gets stellar reviews!

Thanks Keith (kxl) ... I think? 😛

 

[filmtwit]

Keith,

I used to shoot on cart tracks (200cc or less) when I was down in LA for a small magazine.
Mainly Streets of Willow and Willow Springs cart track.

For this work -
If you're inside the turn, then 24-70ish is perfect.
If you're shooting outside of the turn, then 70-200 2.8.

For bigger tracks you'll then your work horse will be that 70-200 and a tele-extender.

Also, scope out the infield and pay attention to how the sun tracks.
You'll set up in different places between races based on your lighting and where you find your racers battle the most. Singular rider shots get boring after a while. You want some mixed close together shots when you can get em.

 

[rwintle]

I shoot a *lot* of motorsports, but on DX format. Most of the pros I work alongside who shoot Nikon FX use (no surprise) the Nikkor 70-200/2.8, which as you know is a bit pricey. However the 70-200/4 is also a very capable lens and you're only giving up one stop. It's likely a bit more than the Sigma (list here in Canada is a bit more than half that of the 2.8 version).

Another option - PopPhoto reviewed the Tamron equivalent very favourably:
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2013/02/lens-test-tamron-70-200mm-f28-di-vc-usd

Another option I've heard rated fairly highly for the $ is the 70-300 4.5-5.6. Apparently has reasonably quick autofocus. It's much cheaper (about half the price of the 70-200/4 I think).

A couple of good friends use the 80-400 f/4.5-5.6. It is pricey though (about $2k here for the AF version).

FWIW I shoot 90% of my on-track shots with a plain old Nikkor 55-300 f/4.5-5.6. It is a cheap super-zoom to be sure, and it works. It gets a bit sucky under overcast at long throw though. I'd be happier with that 70-200/2.8 but, well, money. If you need to economize I'd say go for the 70-300, but I'd be definitely thinking about that Tamron too.