Motorsport Photography

[WillListonPhotography]

Hi All,

I currently shoot Motorsport with the 7D (and hopefully soon the 7D2) Coupled with the 70-200 F4 IS.
I am looking into a second lens, which will also be mounted to a crop.

I'd like a different sort of fast aperture, different perspective. Ergo,
Canon 85 f/1.8
Canon 100 f/2.8 IS
Canon 135 f/2
Canon 40 f/2.8

Pro's, Con's, and advice in general.

Has anyone used these to shoot Motorsports?

 

[Harry Muff]

Track or pit lane? 16-35 II?

 

[Powder Portraits]

I am prepared for many different shooting situations when I pair my 24-105mm f/4 L with a 70-200 on my 7D

 

[alexanderferdinand]

If your on the side of the track, I would recommend more then 200mm. So the 300/4, the 100-400.
In your lineup I would choose the 135/2.
There are some threads on this forum about this lens and how it is appreciated.

 

[WillListonPhotography]

If your on the side of the track, I would recommend more then 200mm. So the 300/4, the 100-400.
In your lineup I would choose the 135/2.
There are some threads on this forum about this lens and how it is appreciated.

We in Australia are able to get quite close to virtually every circuit, so I've found 200mm to be as much as I need. Although I am venturing to America in the near future, and may invest in something longer for that.

I'm look for a lens that gives customers an entirely different perspective of their car.
I've look into tilt shift and some other stuff, but I think these come close to what I want.

 

[Hillsilly]

My motorsport photography is largely limited to the WRC rounds in northern NSW every couple of years. The last time I went, I had a 30D with a 70-200, 10-22 and 50mm lenses and felt well equipped. Because you can stand right on the edge of the track, most of my photos were in the 50 - 110mm range.

Therefore, from your options, I'd suggest the 40mm to give you a wider option than the 70-200. (Bearing in mind that its not the fastest focusing lens.)

Something even wider would give you a nice contrasting perspective to your 70-200 and might be what you are seeking?

FWIW, I own both the 40mm and the 135mm lenses. Haven't used them for motorsport, but they are my two favourite lenses and I find them a really good travelling kit. If I head to Coffs Harbour again this year, I'll probably take both of these, but with a FF camera. But while I love the 135mm, I'd worry it might be a little long on a 7D - but obviously depends on what you are photographing and distance from the action.

 

[WillListonPhotography]

My motorsport photography is largely limited to the WRC rounds in northern NSW every couple of years. The last time I went, I had a 30D with a 70-200, 10-22 and 50mm lenses and felt well equipped. Because you can stand right on the edge of the track, most of my photos were in the 50 - 110mm range.

Therefore, from your options, I'd suggest the 40mm to give you a wider option than the 70-200. (Bearing in mind that its not the fastest focusing lens.)

Something even wider would give you a nice contrasting perspective to your 70-200 and might be what you are seeking?

FWIW, I own both the 40mm and the 135mm lenses. Haven't used them for motorsport, but they are my two favourite lenses and I find them a really good travelling kit. If I head to Coffs Harbour again this year, I'll probably take both of these, but with a FF camera. But while I love the 135mm, I'd worry it might be a little long on a 7D - but obviously depends on what you are photographing and distance from the action.

Yeah I should be up at Coffs this year for it. Not sure what I'll do for that. 70mm may be too narrow. Heard bad things about the 40mm Fly-by-wire MF. Maybe the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 could be nice.

 

[Don Haines]

Hi All,

I currently shoot Motorsport with the 7D (and hopefully soon the 7D2) Coupled with the 70-200 F4 IS.
I am looking into a second lens, which will also be mounted to a crop.

I'd like a different sort of fast aperture, different perspective. Ergo,
Canon 85 f/1.8
Canon 100 f/2.8 IS
Canon 135 f/2
Canon 40 f/2.8

Pro's, Con's, and advice in general.

Has anyone used these to shoot Motorsports?

I have used a 70-200F4IS on a 60D at the track. I was seated high up on a berm with a decent view of part of the track, but nothing real close like pit row...

I found that it was not long enough for catching cars coming over the rise or any other far shots. It was great for the hairpin below me, but not wide enough to show the track proper. Every so often I would swap to a 17-55 for wider shots... I was lucky enough to have good light and was able to keep shutter speeds over 1/1000 of a second, but still had bluring on a number of shots as I panned (I needed to practice this and didn't) and the AF had no problems tracking the cars.

A polarizing filter helps to see the driver and not just glare off of the windshield.... I had one on the 17-55 but not on the 70-200.... the 70-200 shots did not show the drivers while most of the 17-55 shots did.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I have the 100mm f2.0 which is a very fast focusing lens. Cheaper than the macro IS as well.

But i think you are missing a trick...

Why augment, you already cover 100 with your 70-200, and at this perspective (car close to distant background) the faster aperture isn't going to do all that much to your depth of field.

Why not think expand instead? I haven't used the 40mm so cannot comment on it's speed, my M's 22 is STM and i wouldn't regard it a speed demon.

A wide or UWA might be a better option, some nice primes out there, like the 35mm f2.0 IS (or even the non Is if you can find) or Sigmas 17-50 f2.8 zoom?

You wont get a different perspective from lenses that your 70-200 already covers.