Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS for motorsports ??????????

[Marsu42]

Would the 70-200 have enough reach?

For me? I recently opened a long thread "Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L" and the conclusion for me was that for my outdoor activity, I want the 200-300 reach (i.e. less extender switching) and the lower weight - not to mention the much smaller price tag than 70-200/2.8+extender.

The only reason I am still thinking about the 70-200/2.8 because I might try to earn some $$$ in the future with photography. I am living in Berlin after all, so there's much competition but no end of good shooting occasions, too.

If people say I could start off with the 70-300 and my aps-c body, too, I'm fine - I can still sell the stuff and get full frame + 2.8 lenses for 5000€+ if it works out. On the other hand, If my starting combination would be so crappy that I couldn't do anything with it at all except amateur recreation shots, I might think again.

 

[briansquibb]

But the 70-200 f/2.8 is still a more versatile lens, as it can be used without an extender in closer-distance situations with its increased f/2.8 focus ability, with the reduced DOF also being suitable for portraits and whatnot.

If you're considering the 70-300 vs 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4x extenter, I really wouldn't know which is better AF-wise.

I use the 70-300L on the 1Ds3 for head and shoulders personal portraits where I find the clients prefer f/4 or f/5.6.

 

[Marsu42]

considering the 70-300 vs 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4x extenter, I really wouldn't know which is better AF-wise.

I can try to answer that for the 60D: Since the 70-200/2.8is2 is not the latest generation of Canon lenses - time moves fast - the af speed is lowered when using an extender. Other than the said 1D, on the 60D all 9 af points are cross up to f5.6 (except for a few legacy lenses, see link below). Thus, the faster af speed of the 70-300 should outweigh the difference to a slower f4 because the "high precision" center af is only available at f2.8 and better.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=657

I use the 70-300L on the 1Ds3 for head and shoulders personal portraits where I find the clients prefer f/4 or f/5.6.

That's my personal experience, too - the reason is that a too bokehish background looks like the subject was standing in front of a green screen when shooting and then the background was replaced with a blur. Maybe this somehow seems to focus the eye too much on the portrait and the person's "shortcomings"? Or is it because you cannot get the tip of the nose into the dof at the same time as the ears with 2.8?

 

[briansquibb]

I find that for portraits they everythinng from the tip of the nose to behind the ear in focus. How much the bg is blurred is a function of the distance from the person to the bg.

I was shooting on Friday with the 400 f/2.8 + 2x II and didn't spot any slow down - was getting birds in flight without problem - so I suspect the slowdown is more apparent ih the lab than in the field

 

[Harv]

Lot's of great input. Thanks, guys.

Brian, I checked this out with a friend. For the record, when shooting in AV priority or manual mode, and the lens is set wide open at f/4 on the 70mm setting, it shows in the viewfinder as increasing as the focal length is increased, ending up at f/5.6 for 300mm. When racked back, it starts to open up again, finally at f/4 on the 70mm setting.

As such, I'm guessing the available precision focus points will change as the focal length changes.

I'm now thinking the only way to find out if it will work well enough in a racing environment is to go with it and use it for a couple of races. If it doesn't work out, I can always sell it to one of you guys here.

Now I just have to wait a couple of months for the racing season to start.

 

[Cardad]

I am really happy with this lens for motorsports. I rented one last year for a race and it was so much faster focusing than my 70-300 non-L, I bought one. I am shooting a 7D, so I cannot compare my setup to yours. Also, I am just a hobbyist. I have pictures posted in Flickr if you are interested in seeing how some of mine came out.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7475427@N06/sets/72157627769392597/

 

[Marsu42]

I am really happy with this lens for motorsports

Good pictures, I'm looking forward even more to next week when I'll get it myself ... and to me it proves one of the few advantages of a smaller max. aperture lenses (apart from being cheaper and less heavy): You can just dial in 1/1000s in Tv mode like you did and shoot away w/o wondering if you end up with a too shallow depth of field of 2.8.

 

[briansquibb]

I am really happy with this lens for motorsports

Good pictures, I'm looking forward even more to next week when I'll get it myself ... and to me it proves one of the few advantages of a smaller max. aperture lenses (apart from being cheaper and less heavy): You can just dial in 1/1000s in Tv mode like you did and shoot away w/o wondering if you end up with a too shallow depth of field of 2.8.

.... on series 1 and 7d you can have it in M - dial in aperture and shutter speed and set iso to auto ....

 

[Marsu42]

.... on series 1 and 7d you can have it in M - dial in aperture and shutter speed and set iso to auto ....

*doh* never thought of that, of course it works on my 60d, too. I guess I'm still stuck in the analog days and this auto-iso thingy just hasn't reached my brain yet ... thanks!

 

[JoeDavid]

I'm not new to Canon Rumors but have just recently joined the forums. I was hoping to find something a little more sane than the drivel over a DPReview.com. I'm beginning to wonder though. I read a couple of comments in this thread where the 70-300L IS was favorably compared to the 70-200L IS II. Only in someone's dreams do those two lenses compare in image quality for a full frame camera. The 70-300L is an EF lens but is positioned more as a step up for crop camera users. It is a great lens (optical quality-wise) for crop cameras and it is a good lens for FF; just not a great lens. It is ever so soft in the extreme corners on FF. In practice you wouldn't see it in most types of shots with shallow depth of field masking it but, if you're lens testing with something like a brick wall, it's visible in the shots...

From out of Canon's mouth:

"While it’s a great match for full-frame cameras, like the EOS 5D Mark II, this lens really comes into its own when used with an APS-C size sensor camera, like the EOS 60D or 7D, or a Rebel series digital SLR."

And, yes, I own both lenses. I personally wouldn't use the 70-300L for motorsports for a completely different reason. It is small enough that I'd want to handhold it but, if you do, the reversing of the zoom and focusing rings is a problem for me. I tend to cradle the camera/lens combination with my hand supporting the lens. With the two rings reversed, I tend to get on the focusing ring by mistake. I use the 100-400L instead...

The source of the Canon quote is the second page if the article:

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/lens_positioning_article.shtml

 

[Harv]

Thanks to all who have commented and shared their opinions on a variety of alternative suggestions.

I already know how good the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the 300 f/2.8L IS are. That's what I am currently using. Their performance is stellar. I also know that the focal length range I need is 70mm - 300mm. It would be nice to have it in a single lens. The 100-400 just won't do it for me. I have owned that lens and know this from experience.

Corner sharpness is not critical for me in this application as you can see from the examples of what I am shooting that are posted below. I know the 70-300L delivers excellent image quality as I have read and seen from images posted by others. My concern is how quickly and accurately it will lock AF on subjects appearing suddenly and disappearing just as suddenly. Often I only see the subject when clearing the top of a jump with only the sound of it coming as a warning.

I was hoping someone out there has used one in a similar situation and could comment on that aspect of the lens.

The images below should provide a sense of what I am dealing with.

 

[awinphoto]

Nothing quite like the fastest "motor sport" there is...

Canon 7D and 70-300 L

 

[Cardad]

I am really happy with this lens for motorsports

Good pictures, I'm looking forward even more to next week when I'll get it myself ... and to me it proves one of the few advantages of a smaller max. aperture lenses (apart from being cheaper and less heavy): You can just dial in 1/1000s in Tv mode like you did and shoot away w/o wondering if you end up with a too shallow depth of field of 2.8.

Thanks for the comment and hope you will enjoy your new lens. To me, 1/1000 is good for freezing the motion for the head on shots at 300mm. I agree, in these shots, you are not looking for shallow DOF. That said, I much prefer the slower shutter speed panning shots to show action. Again, with sufficient light, wide aperture is not essential.

The question for the pros and gear experts, and this also speaks to the question by the OP, is how significant (real world) is the AF speed difference between the f/2.8 and f/5.6 L lenses?

 

[Marsu42]

Only in someone's dreams do those two lenses compare in image quality for a full frame camera. The 70-300L is an EF lens but is positioned more as a step up for crop camera users.

I already know how good the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the 300 f/2.8L IS are. That's what I am currently using. Their performance is stellar. I also know that the focal length range I need is 70mm - 300mm. It would be nice to have it in a single lens. The 100-400 just won't do it for me.

Even if beating a dead horse: please be aware that comparing the 70-300L to the 70-200L+extender (ie. if you also want the 200-300 range) is like comparing it to the 70-300 non-L: It's a completely different class of lens, and that's why they don't cost the same! The white color and red ring seems to fool people to put them in the same category as 2.8 tele prime or zoom lenses, but the said lineup is just as JoeDavid said. If you want to compare it to anything, it's the 100-400L which is in the same price range.

Concerning iq: Looking at my 50k pictures I shot last year, I have to say corner sharpness seldom matters for me. Even if cropping nature pictures to a "golden cut" the sharp zone is mostly not in one of the corners, but the bokeh or "sharp noise" like grass is. And furthermore I'm using a crop body, and the sharpness falloff is only visible on full frame.

At the same time, for my ease of mind I am quite happy if carrying around not 5000€, but 2000€ when crawling through the woods - less gear that can be stolen, dropped in the river or overrun by a truck ... L build quality and weather sealing don't help in these cases, and this is a thing that's seldom thought of

Personally, I'd be happier if the 70-300L was not white and had a black ring, it's the *price-iq-weight-length-zoomfactor-is-af* combination and tradeoff that makes it attractive. And as proven here, you can pretty good shots out of it.

 

[Harv]

Thanks for all the comments and input, folks. My 70-200/2.8L IS II and 300/2.8L IS will remain among my prized possessions.

In the meantime, I have a 70-300L now sitting in my cabinet awaiting real world testing when the racing season begins here in May. I suspect it may perform just fine, but time will tell.