Telephoto Lens Recommendation

I'm not trying to discourage you in any way, but the tele's, even 70-200 have only so much use. If you want to spend the money I would suggest a decent body and short zoom lens.. I prefer Canon and a good system for advanced anateur can be had for a little over $1000. Check on net for B&H photo in new york. Very reputable. Most working pros get some of their equipment there. One example
EOS 20D, 8.2 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera with Canon 18-55mm Lens and Sandisk 2GB Ultra II CompactFlash Card around 1300 bucks with shipping. It;s a very good camera and lens can be used for most things you would want. Any people shots-friends and family- if you went to a track event it would be great for shooting single cars-lines of cars-detail of cars-infield events-scenics-fans-etc. The only thing you would be missing is cars far away on track. At most tracks you are kept quite far from actual racing due to danger. Especially city or road courses. Telephotos are big and heavy, I know I carry up to three bodies and 6 or 7 lenses. If you can wander the tracks and get many unobstructed views(no fence) by all means take a telephoto and shoot away, but remember you have to carry all this stuff all the time or risk it being stolen. A body and short lens can be slung over your shoulder easily. If you take a telephoto you will also need a short zoom and then either a bag , vest ot lens bag to hold the other lens when you switch from one to the other. If you really need telephoto too you can buy lenses that let in less light (slower) smaller maximum apeture like a 28-200, but size and weight are still a problem. Hanging onto the camera without damaging it or having it stolen can frankley ruin the experience of the event, Good race pictures can be downloaded for personal use from the internet later shot by pros with great access.
I have covered hundreds of autoracing events and sometimes wish I wasn't shooting at all so I could relax more and enjoy the moment.Photography is a great hobby and for me it is all I ever wanted to do for a vocation and I consider myself lucky to get paid for it, but to do it well is very time consuming and expensive.
Please don't stop taking photos, but think about what you really want and need before investing heavily.

 

Just had a thought. When I say to download pix off the net for personal use I mean to make prints or car collages or wallpapers for your computer. The working pros I know that post on the net don't care if someone uses the image for those purposes. There are lots of sites where these images can be used as long as you don't try to sell them or something. That is a given for anyone in the business for long when your pix go on the web. The images are copyrighted and any profit should go to the shooter or publication they work for.

 

I don't mind if anyone uses 'some' of my stuff, on 3 conditions: They ask me first, they don't sell anything, and I get photo credit on the byline.

 

Thanks!

Cheers.

I was probably about 20-30m away, using Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS lens with 1.4x Extender.

It was taken at Abbey at Silverstone. Schumacher was pushing hard and lost control a bit, then had to apply a good opposite lock.

BTW, I forgot to say the lighting is also important when shooting through the fencing. If the sun was behind you and hitting the fencing, you might see some highlights on the pics. It was a problem when I was shooting LeMans Endurance Series as well, as the car's headlights hitting the fencing also cause some highlights. But some post processing can make it less obvious.

 

I wouldn't recommend getting a $2000 from the start either. I was just recommending the best one based on the fact Dale was renting one.

Telephoto lenses are very useful for tracks. If you can't avoid the fencing, then go to the back row of the grandstand. You are often above the fencing (not sure how it is in the USA though) so it is possible to take fence-less images. For this use, 300mm may be a better choice. 70-300 range zooms are perfect for this and they aren't very expensive (unless you want to go for 300mm f2.8 lens! )

 

That's exactly the reason I added the extra about copyright. As far as asking most of my work is published where people can't get in contact with the photogs very easy- magazines-newspapers etc. I am not talking about a repost somewhere, I think no one should do that. I speak only of making a print for their room or something ( the image will be low-res so will only be so big). I personally keep others photos of interesting F-cars purely as a reference for myself. Never to be used for anything other than storing on my harddrive and looking at occasionally.

 

Adobe Photoshop cs2

 

My reference was others using my stuff on their websites. I gave up on the rag trade eons ago.

 

Picasa from Google. It covers enough basics to get you by and it's FREE. Adobe will just confuse you as you've already stated you don't have time to mess with this kind of stuff.

IMO, you should buy the Nikon D50 kit with the 18-55 and 55-200/4-5.6 lenses http://www.adorama.com/INKD50K2.html?searchinfo=d50&item_no=4.

Costco has the D50 with a 28-80 and 80-300 zoom lens for $795 with a camera bag. It's not online only at the store on 249.

While the 80-200 or 70-200/f2.8 lenses are in fact great lenses, they are 10x what you want or need. I just purchsed a used Nikkor 80-200/f2.8 and it's very heavy compared to the smaller zooms and really a pain if you're looking for something convient. Trying to deal with it, and driving a car, etc. would be a big PITA.

The F number, or apature is how "open" the lens is (to keep it simple). The lower the number, the more light the lens allows in and the lower the depth of field will be. Depth of field is how much is in focus. Low depth of field means just a small area will be in focus (like just the car), large depth of field means EVERYTHING will be in focus (the car, street, wall signs, people in background, etc.).

the less expensve lenses in those kits do not allow as much light in so you need a flash in low light to make up for it or lots of light (outside during a sunny day is good).

In a nutshell, get the Nikon kit from Costco and use Picasa to manage your images. Shoot in JPEG and your life will be much easier.

 

Try dealing with a 400 2.8 or a 600/4, if you want to discuss a PITA.

 

I wasn't trying to put you down, just set your expectations on what the equipment will do versus what you could do with it.

I reiterate my advice, get an SLR with a compact wide-range zoom that you will use on a repeated basis. That package will give you more capability than you will be able to get out of it in your first sessions. Start taking pictures, lots of pictures. When pictures don't work out the way you want, try to ask yourself why or ask others (like on here) why if you can't answer it for yourself. Perhaps you'll start learning about f-stops and depth of field and shutter speed tradeoffs; perhaps you'll concentrate solely on lighting and composition. However you approach it, you will steadily improve if you do this.

At some point, if you do this, there will come a time when you yearn for a longer lens or a faster lens or a wider lens, because you're not getting shots you could get. But you will know why you want it and what it will do for you - that's the time to spend the $ to get the big guns. And you'll have an SLR so it will be easy to rent a lens or buy one and add it to your camera bag and the wide-range zoom will still be a useful lens 90% of the time.

My $0.02.

 

I hate to disagree with all the good advice you got here but I think you are making a mistake. I have the Cannon (EOS 5D) and the huge lense and all the goodies. You know what happens when you take this to a track day? You hand it to someone who has no idea how to use it (because you can't take pictures while you are driving), so you put it in point and shoot mode. The result is you get pictures that freeze the action so it looks as if the car is parked on the track. You would be much better off finding a local photographer and hiring him for a few hours. Then you'll get some pictures of yourself in the car. If you have friends going you might be able to split the cost. The track or the club you are using may even be able to point you in the right direction for a photographer. Here's the result of thousands of dollars of equipment when you have to put it in auto because you are in the car.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The cars are going over 100 MPH in that pic. Unfortunately photography is like road racing. You can't just hand someone without any experience a really fast car and expect them to turn in great laps.

 

You've gotten a lot of advice here, much of it good. Lot's of folks touting the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS lens. I have a the Canon 70-200 F4 L and have found it to be pretty much equal to the faster lens and a fraction the cost. It is also a vastly better travel lens (lighter and more compact). It will not be much good with a 1.4x converter, but at effectively 320mm on the long end on a 10D, 20D or 30D it is a nice tool at the track. For $1100 and change you can get this lens and a Digital Rebel at B&H Photo and take some great photos (although I'd opt for the 30D for this use). - George

 

I would be interested to see what decision you make ... looks like the recommendations are all over the map.
- cheap lens with short reach
- medium priced lens with longish reach
- professional fast lenses
- etc
- forget about lenses and just buy the pictures from a pro

I would be confused too.

 

Dale,
As an alternative to the SLR bodies, consider the Panasonic Lumix with 12x optical zoom. It has an image stabalizer as well as a Leica lens. I was raised on an old Leica Rangefinder in the 60's and this Panasonic rocks. I do two trips a year that need long zoom shots, The Masters, and a deer hunting trip where you really need to get out there. The quality is great, the digital zoom lets you stretch out to 36x. I avoid the digital zoom except where really necessary. When I bought it 2 years ago it was $599, but now I think it is under $400 and a great buy at that. Large enough to have a substantial feel, but small enough to hand around your neck for a few hours. For me it gives me big camera shots, with point and shoot ease.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

BTW, if you do still decide to get a camera, Here is the lense I would recommend. This is what I use for the track and longer shots.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Wow... a lot of advice! I'm no pro, but I do enjoy photography and have invested a good amount of money into my stuff.

There are pros and cons to everything. What I did was, I bought a Nikon D70 with the kit lens. It worked well enough for most things. However, I also had an older 70-300 lens from my 35mm days. That worked fine for a while as a zoom lens, but it is slow, noisy, and doesn't take great photos. I've taken tons of pictures, I took a photography class, and I now understand enough to know what lens I want/need. I am shopping for the Nikon 70-200 2.8 with VR.

If you just want to take photos at an event or two, then go with something inexpensive. If this is going to become a serious hobby, then start reading, researching, and learning. There are a lot of people here with a lot of experience, and there's no shortage of advice!

And lastly - when you do end up with a camera, don't get frustrated at the track. It's not easy. I took several hundred photos at Buttonwillow a few months back, and it took me a while to get the hang of panning. However, that experience gave me an even greater appreciation for the pro photographers.

I'll be curious to hear what you finally decide to do.

 

Save yourself $1000 and buy a used 80-200/F2.8 Ed Af-d lens like I did. The ONLY thing it lacks is the VR and it doesn't focus quite as fast.

Dale, come to think of it. Unless you really want to get into this photo thing you might be just as happy with one of these.

http://www.adorama.com/ICAS2.html?searchinfo=cannon%20S2&item_no=1

 

If you are considering a used 80-200/F2.8 then you might as well buy a new Sigma 70-200 F2.8 - they were in the same price bracket. I briefly tested these two out and found the Sigma to be significantly faster focusing on my D50 and the image was sort of comparable in quality with the Nikon perhaps a hair ahead.

 

I paid $650 for my used Nikkor. The Sigma is $890 at Adorama. The Nikkor is $869 ($50 rebate) For an amateur, $240 is a lot of cash.

I would have rather had a new lens, but trying to justify the $600 lens to my wife was hard enough (in fact, she's not seen the bill yet so that 'discussion' has not really happened yet). I can't imaging the gasket that would blow if I bought a new on for almost $300 more!

Besides, I've still not upgraded to dSLR yet! My wife said I don't use the SLR I've got now enough. Well, hahahaha[/evil laugh]....I'll show HER!!!!