Long lens for motorsport?

Post by **Big Kev** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:47 pm

So before I splash the cash on a long lens I just wanted to be sure I'm getting the right one for the job.

As I'm going to Silverstone for the GP this year I wanted something with a lot of zoomage! The lens I borrowed when I went 2 years ago was apparently a 300mm.

I have my eye on a
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

With my 18-55 kit lens that should cover me for most ranges of zoom that I need.

Does it sound like a sensible buy?

DexterPunk · Post by **DexterPunk** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:57 pm

It should do the job. Unfortunately for a good long lens, you will pay a mint. Whether you notice the difference, or care enough to spend that money is another thing. If you have used that lens before and were happy with its performance then it seems reasonable to grab it.

bengatta · Post by **bengatta** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:20 pm

Also confirm what the maximum they will allow you to take into the circuit without a media accreditation pass... I beleive F1 will be more stringent than our superstars in supercar series, so I suspect anything that is above the hobby photographer norm they will not let you take in anyway...

Post by **Big Kev** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:32 am

Silverstone tend to be ok. I saw some people with lenses that would need a trolley last time. I'll probably have the lens in my bag and put it on when I get through the gate.

bengatta · Post by **bengatta** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:27 am

Big Kev wrote:Silverstone tend to be ok. I saw some people with lenses that would need a trolley last time. I'll probably have the lens in my bag and put it on when I get through the gate.

that's cool, just thought I better mention it in case it was a deal, I have seen people in heated debates at gates in Aus... especially Bathurst. I have never actually found it (because I don't carry a camera myself), but I beleive it is hidden well within the terms and conditions of entry by the ticketing people... I did overhear one argument point once where the guy on the gate told the arguer it was on the ticketek website...

Exar Kun · Post by **Exar Kun** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:31 am

300mm is max length at the Oz GP and they do enforce it.

Post by **Big Kev** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:51 am

My ticket says you're not allowed to take video equipment in. cameras are allowed (no mention of sizes) and, interestingly, that ALL pictures taken are granted copyright of the FOM and may only be used for personal pleasure.

DexterPunk · Post by **DexterPunk** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:52 am

Would love to watch them freak out if you took along a 300mm f/2.8.

bengatta · Post by **bengatta** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:00 am

Big Kev wrote:My ticket says you're not allowed to take video equipment in. cameras are allowed (no mention of sizes) and, interestingly, that ALL pictures taken are granted copyright of the FOM and may only be used for personal pleasure.

it may well be an Australian thing... we are pretty odd like that... True, I could never imagine a German being told he could not take his camera into Hockenhiem..

Post by **Big Kev** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:00 am

One more thing, if I'm honest, I don't really understand very much about the mm things and f numbers

Some lenses seem to have big numbers but are physically small and vice versa. Some have a big diameter lens too but vary in length. I don't really know what it all means and what makes a difference on what you choose to do what job. A bloke at Prescott had a lens about 20cm long. He said it was a 10-28mm (I asked) but it had a really bulbous lens on the end that was about 10cm in diameter. Said it worked well in the paddock for fitting everything in the picture.

DexterPunk · Post by **DexterPunk** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:23 am

10mm is super wide angle... Quite often they have a large diameter and a very convex shaped front lens element.

A 300mm gets you closer in to the action. It's a measurement taken from the rear nodal point of a lens to the film/sensor plane.

Lenses of equal focal length can very in size and diameter depending on the aperture. That determines how much light can be let into the lens. Smaller f numbers let in more light, so that 300mm I posted before with a f/2.8 aperture is a larger aperture for that focal lenth and hence bigger.

The lens your after has a varying maximum aperture depending on what focal lenth you use, at 300mm it will be f/5.6 and at 70 it will be f/4. If it were f/4 all the way through it would also be a bigger lens.

Post by **norbs** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:26 am

Big Kev wrote:One more thing, if I'm honest, I don't really understand very much about the mm things and f numbers

Some lenses seem to have big numbers but are physically small and vice versa. Some have a big diameter lens too but vary in length. I don't really know what it all means and what makes a difference on what you choose to do what job. A bloke at Prescott had a lens about 20cm long. He said it was a 10-28mm (I asked) but it had a really bulbous lens on the end that was about 10cm in diameter. Said it worked well in the paddock for fitting everything in the picture.

The mm thing is just the zoom of the lens. 10mm is really wide angle. The 10-28 will be a short stocky looking lens. The bulbous lens is to get the wide angle. A 200mm lens will look longer and will give you less of an angle of view. But it will magnify things quite a bit.

The f numbers are just aperture (hole) ratings. The bigger the f number, the smaller the aperture. That is why the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM you are looking at isn't all that huge a lens in comparo the the 200mm f/2.8 that Dex linked to. A large zoom, 200mm or more and a large aperture, f/2.8 equals a large mother fucking lens.

Some good reading here...

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... lenses.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit : Beaten by Dex.

Post by **Big Kev** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:15 pm

So I got my 70-300mm lens last week.

My first real attempt at using it will be 8.45am on Friday July 8th when the GP3 cars hit the track for first praccy at Silverstone

I'm there all 3 days for the GP so hopefully by race day I will have worked out how to take some decent pictures! I've been doing some reading on motorsport photography and they seem to recommend starting around 1/500th sec so I'll try that first and see what the pics are like. I've got an 8Gb card which is good for 1000 pics. I think that should be enough. I can easily take the pics off and reformat it each night.

On Friday I'm going to walk around the whole lap so I should be able to get some decent shots at various places. Saturday and Sunday I have a seat at Club corner, which is the new last corner as they've moved the pits/SF line. It's a slow corner and a possible passing place so fingers crossed for a bit of action on race day!

DexterPunk · Post by **DexterPunk** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:39 pm

If you just want to freeze the action, thats easy... stick it on aperture priority ('Av' on the dial) and use the smallest f/number... the camera will select the fastest shutter speed for you.

Post by **Big Kev** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:53 pm

A bit of blur would be nice.
Am I right in thinking also you shouldn't set the shutter lower than the lens length
eg 1/300th if you have it on 300mm

DexterPunk · Post by **DexterPunk** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:34 pm

Depends really. It's only a rule of thumb. I was shooting at about 1/80th at phillip island while panning the other week. But you have to throw away a lot of shots. Yeah a bit of blur can be nice, even if it's not a panned shot and just some blur on the wheels to show some movement.

Post by **norbs** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:20 am

DexterPunk wrote:If you just want to freeze the action, thats easy... stick it on aperture priority ('Av' on the dial) and use the smallest f/number... the camera will select the fastest shutter speed for you.

Smallest number, not smallest aperture.

Like Dex said, 1/80th it starts getting hard to get good clean shots.

Have a crack at 1/200th Kev. I think you'll still get a bit of motion bluir in the background.

DexterPunk · Post by **DexterPunk** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:41 am

I said smallest f/number. Was just trying to keep it simple for Kev.

Post by **norbs** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:00 pm

DexterPunk wrote:I said smallest f/number. Was just trying to keep it simple for Kev.

I know. I know. I just remember getting that exact same piece of advice when i was starting out and not being sure of what it meant. That stupid convention of little numbers means large aperture and visa versa fucked me up more than once.

DexterPunk · Post by **DexterPunk** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:02 pm

And the seemingly random value numbers is also confusing at the start.

J.D. · Post by **J.D.** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:45 pm

Really big lenses are difficult to pan with, even if they have IS or VR (Canon and Nikon designations). The longer the lens, the more the vibrations are emphasised.

Here are some examples:

Code: Select all

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 7D
Lens: EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Image Date: 2011-05-28 17:02:47 -0600
Focal Length: 70mm
Focus Distance: 14.5m
Aperture: f/9.0
Exposure Time: 0.013 s (1/80)
ISO equiv: 320
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual

At 70mm, you are already into the mild telephoto bracket and 1/80th of a second is a long time to have the shutter open for a subject travelling at high speed. I could have shot it at 1/1000 but it would look like it was parked. Not what I wanted. Even so, the picture is not optimally sharp because the subject does not track uniformly with my panning. (which is pretty rough at the moment). You will find some bits will be very clean and most will be blurred.

The longer the lens, the harder it is to do.

Code: Select all

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 7D
Lens: EF500mm f/4L IS USM +1.4x
Image Date: 2011-05-28 14:58:35 -0600
Focal Length: 700mm
Focus Distance: Infinite
Aperture: f/5.6
Exposure Time: 0.0016 s (1/640)
ISO equiv: 320
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual

This was taken with the lens Dex is holding in his avatar. I also used a 1.4x converter to give me even more reach. This sort of lens is a lot more useful for head on shots than for panning. That doesn't mean you can't do it, just that your keeper rate is likely to be a lot lower. With this sort of angle, I can use a much higher shutter speed than I could with a panning shot; in this case 1/640. Focus tracking becomes a problem.

The further away you are, the bigger the lens you need. So the first pic was shot at 70mm and the second one was shot at 700mm. I was much closer in the first pic than I was in the second. This explains it well:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLen ... ength.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **norbs** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:22 pm

I actually find the bigger lens easier to pan with JD. I think because of the weight. Seems steadier.

I had a real quick go with a 600mm lens a guy from OCAU had at Eastern Creek one day. I found it great to pan for 3 pans, then my arm was fucked from holding it. It wasn't much better on a monpod, I think because the tripod collar was on the lens, something i wasn't used to.

J.D. · Post by **J.D.** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:45 pm

norbs wrote:I actually find the bigger lens easier to pan with JD. I think because of the weight. Seems steadier.

That was my argument for my 300mm non-IS.

VTRacing · Post by **VTRacing** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:02 pm

There's an interesting thread here that has some good general motorsport info and includes a really useful tip about selecting different focus points to frame your shots nicely.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/sho ... p?t=135409" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

J.D. · Post by **J.D.** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:04 am

Yeah, interesting. Thanks for that. Unfortunately, most people don't get that sort of access and don't have lenses like that either. On the other hand, it does give good tips and they apply to other tracks as much as Oulton Park. At least it gives you something to shoot for and I agree with just about everything he says. I was even surprised at the range of shutter speeds he uses.

As for focus points, in the second one I posted I actually used an off-centre point in the viewfinder. It was probably focussing on the small antenna just below the airbox in the picture. AF is contrast based so a point like that is not always the best choice but in this case it worked. The problem is that if you are using anything other than a pro body, the off centre focus points don't generally work as effectively as the pro ones (EOS 7D excepted). That doesn't mean you can't get a good shot, just that you probably won't get as many keepers.

Whatever camera you use, you should be in focus tracking mode and most find it better to do it with a back button rather than the shutter button.

A.R.S.E.