Need a Nikon lens recommendation for race photography

I am not a Nikon user (prefer Canon).

BUT

For action photography you need three things

1) HIGH shutter speeds (fast (low f) glass)
2) Fast focusing (if you use auto-focus)
3) decent quality glass.

There is no such thing as a fast-focusing, fast (low 'f'), cheap, decent quality lens.

The faster the lens, the more expensive it is.
The faster focusing mechanisms the more expensive it is
The higher the quality, the more expensive it is.

Get the picture ?

My advice therefore is to pickup a couple of relatively inexpensive lenses, and see what works for you.

Get the 18-200 if you like - its probably the ultimate walk-about lens, but consider a getting an inexpensive lens that will give you more top end, maybe a 100-400 or similar to suplement it.

Then get out to the track, and see which lenses you use, and at what zoom (its captured in the EXIF data).

Then buy your 'real' lenses.

In my bag I have a lot of lenses, but for motorsport I tend to use either the 70-200 F2.8L, an old Tamron 70-300mm F3.5 (cheap but lovely glass) or the 300mm F2.8L. In the pits I wander around with a 10-22 and a 24-85mm.

A semi-decent 70-200 2.8 will cost you at least $1500, a 'good' one is $2K or more, the 300mm prime is around the $3500 mark.

However, you can pickup a Sigma or Tamrom 70-300 for about $400, and accept that its not quite as high a quality, and that you are going to have to shoot at a slightly higehr ISO (maybe).

Also, while you are in buying mode, get a monopod, it will really help with keeping the camera stable, they are vey portable, and they make a great weapon if someone tries to steal your expensive camera equip......

 

Don't be scared by an f/4 lens. I've got one of those 500mm parabolic lenses with a fixed f/8 aperture, and I've used it at the races no problem. Obviously it's a bright light lens, but the point is you can get a lot out of f/4. I'm actually looking at digital SLRs, and I like that the 1.5 conversion ratio gives you a longer focal length.

Agreed about the monopod suggestion.

 

I use the Nikon 70 - 300 AF G lena, gives good alround performance

Some examples at http://www.collinsclan.co.uk/Pages/Cars/silverstone020605/index.html

and many more at http://www.collinsclan.co.uk/Pages/Trackdays/trackday.html

most of the above were take with a Nikon D1 or more recently D70 and a D200

 

If you want the best lens, go with the 600mm from Nikon. Costs $ 12k and weighs 3 metric tons.

If money and portability are also decision factors, I strongly recommend the Sigma 50-500mm APO. This lens comes in a special version for the digital Nikon and it is fast as the devil. Supersharp and still portable. Costs about 1k.

Here an example I took last year under less than ideal conditions at a gloomy and overcast Canadian GP.

Montreal 2005. Hairpin turn at the far end of the track.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Most of the answers are going to be compromises between cost, weight and performance. Since you got a D50, moving up from a P&S, I'm going to assume you're probably on a budget and would prefer lighter weight. Big difference between a 18-200mm versus a 600mm. How much $ are you thinking?

 

Good point.

Regardless of where I sit at the race or what lens I have I always want to be closer. Get the biggest lens you can afford to buy and afford to haul around.

500mm is nice (especially since it becomes 750mm on a digital SLR), but boy I still wish I had twice or triple that. 200mm? That's not even a tele lens.

BTW: Why does F4+ scare you? You got a digital camera, so what's the issue? On my D70 I can switch from ASA 200 to 1600 for every single picture. So I no longer get caught out with the wrong film in the body. If the sun comes out, we lower the ASA and vice versa.

Also: Remember that the best F1 (or any car) shots are not those where you freeze frame the action, but where you follow the car to show its speed. For that you need a lens you can still hold in your hand (the Nikkor 600mm needs a monopod, unless you're Schwarzenegger) and you actually don't need all that fast a lens.

Here a shot taken with the Nikor 75-300mm. A terribly slow lens to focus, so for racing I normally set focus to manual and let the car drop into the range. Imola GP, also gloomy and overcast including rain. Braking zone to the chicane before the S/F line.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Your sharpest shots are going to come out of the F/8-F/11 range (most likely). Having an uber-fast lens is nice, but not necessary most of the time.

* non-Full Frame

 

First and foremost.....

a 1.5-1.6 is not a magnification factor, its a crop !

There are massive differences between an 800mm lens on a 35mm frame and a 500mm lens on the APS sensor of a DSLR. However because you are cropping the image, you actually have an advantage when it comes to choosing cheaper glass. Most lenses have a drop-off of clarity at the edges, especially when they are 'wide open'. So you can acually afford to buy lenses that are a little soft at the edges on a 35mm frame, knowing that you will never use that edge.....

Well this is an image that I took a few days ago at a local Auto-X event



This was taken with a Canon EOS 20D, and my old faithfull Tamron 70-300.

Camera on a monopod, me standing in the middle of a parking lot with a spotter.....

 

If your into Panning, don't let the Fstop scare you....for most racing, you could have an Fstop of 16 and still pan! It only comes into play when you want to freeze....My Sigma 100-300mm f/4 kicks some mudda truckin arse(both ways)! Get the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for a Nikon and you will love it! I shoot Canon, but know that the Sigma 70-200mm is a good lens.

 

Fast shutter speed and the maximum aperture of the lens are not really directly related. An f2.8 lens is just "faster" than an F4 lens b/c more light travels through the 2.8 aperture. An f4 or 4.5 lens would work fine. You'll probably be shooting at smaller apertures anyway to get larger depth of field and nice crisp images.

I'm a Nikon user. The VR lenses work really well. The 70-200mm ED F2.8G lens is awesome, but I it's in the $1600 range. The ED glass lenses are expensive, but worth it in my opinion if you've got the cash. They also have an f4.5 80-400mm lens with ED glass that's about $1200 or so. I would get one of these 2 if budget allows. I have an f2.8 AF-S ED 80-200 non-VR that's nice when I go to the track or to races. I can get pretty close with it, especially with the 1.5X mag factor, but I use a monopod with it to get nice steady shots. I'm thinking about getting a VR lens too.

 

A fast lens usually means faster shutter speeds for motion-freezing, but VR can add 1-2 stops, a monopod can add 1-2 stops and there are 2-3 stops available with the ISO setting increase (which costs a small amount of image noise) from 200 to 1600.

A fast lens can also be used for subject isolation (depth of field), but this tends to work better when the subject is relatively nearer. Also for panning shots (which can be great for capturing the sense of speed), you want a slower shutter speed so your aperture settings will be smaller. All factors to consider, depending on what kind of pics you're looking to shoot.

An 80-400 VR would give a reasonable telephoto range, it's a slower lens, but the VR on a monopod will help a lot. I'd be a little concerned about autofocus speed as it's a non-AFS lens.

An 80-200 f2.8 AFS with a TC-14E could be an interesting combo for well under $1500 (you can pick up 80-200's on ebay for less than $1K) as it gives you an 80-200 f2.8 or 110-280 f4 at AFS focussing speeds, as well as a teleconverter to use with other lenses. The high mag TC-20E will give you 2x rather than 1.4x, but will degrade the image more.

A 70-210 f2.8 VR AFS + TC-14E would be even better, but breaks your budget.

 

Ok, let me be clear that I still shoot film, not digital, but what I suggest still applies:

1) 'High shutter speed' is a relative term: it depends on how fast the car is going, how far you are away, and the angle at which you are at.
You don't want to go too high on the shutter speed or you will stop the wheels on the car, in other words the car will look like it is parked on the track. When I shot Detroit, a relatively slow circuit, I shot most everything at 250th of a second, NEVER did I go over 500th. Shoot some test images, and be sure to look to see if the car looks like it's moving: slightly blurred background, wheels moving. If you see the 'spokes' of the wheels or can easily read the writing on the tire (if any), then go down a click on the shutter speed.

2) NOTE where the cars are on the track when they go by you, for the most part they enter and exit turns in damned near the same spot every time: PRACTICE by focusing on that spot, then twist with your hips back to where they enter (your zone), then twist with your entire body (hips) to follow them, when they hit your spot - SHOOT IT.

3) practice practice practice on all the supporting events to get the hang of it.

4) Keep an eye on your depth of field - too much of it and your background becomes in focus, part of the picture, and it takes your eyes away from what you want to see - the car (or the driver).

Nobody can suggest a lense because we don't know how far away you are, but when I was shooting, I used a 400 2.8, 300 2.8 and a 200 /2, and it made me sore (and stronger !), and all I ever shot was PKR 64 and Fuji 50. Subsequent years I just used a 300 2.8,180 2.8 and an 85 1.4

Keep an eye on where the sun is relative to you and your target, and also be sure the sun doesn't cast a bad shadow on your subject. I have several nice pics that are useless because the sun cast a chain-link-fence shadow on some of the cars, but I didn't see it until I got home. I never saw it when I was there because it was so minute, but I noticed it after some blowups.

The Alboreto pic below I shot at 1/500 (too fast) with a 400 2.8 at 2.8, the image below doesn't do it justice because on the transparency you can count Michele's eyelashes - it's that sharp.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Sorry, so many 70-210's I automatically typed it, but the Nikkor I meant is 70-200.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

Note the review site has some interesting reviews of Nikkor lenses. Ken Rockwell is pretty candid and often on target, though not 100%.

 

I am a "professional" photographer now, who only shoots digital(during work anyway) My dad shot some slide film at a race last year and they were just amazing! If film was as easy to use, I would love to use it more..... He hooked up the slide projector and we could look at them at like 60"...There is a certain something that still looks so good about film!

 

The problem I have is I have too much $$$ in film stuff, and I simply cannot justify the digital expense - they way *I* would need to do it. Some folks can run out and get a digital Rebel - I can't, I need 'more'.

That, and I can throw a can of film in, look at the sky, look at what I'm shooting, and be within a half-stop of what I should be (and with Chrome, a half-stop is too much - it's not very forgiving).

Hell, I still have film in the freezer from the 1984 Olympics I need to shoot....

On the other hand, I am on 'Pro Service', I can get (borrow) whatever I want for free, I just haven't tried stuff out yet. Back to the justification issue.

That pic of Alboreto - I have an identical one of Senna in the Toleman - and it's sharper. Some day I will get all my stuff scanned in, that image of Alboreto is scanned in from an 8x12, it lost some sharpness in the transition.
I need to find a decent cheap slide scanner.

 

You don't need fast shutter speed for motorsport photography but fast aperture can help in some situations. For example, if you are shooting a head-on shot through the fencing, large aperture (f2.8 or f4 depending on the situations, how close you are to the fencing) can throw the fence totally out of focus.

I think 70-200 f2.8 (plus 1.4x converter ideally) would be a great choice, but I've seen excellent shots taken with standard 70-300mm zooms, so it is up to how you use the camera/lens in the end. I believe the technique plays far more parts than the equipment.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I have never used vibration reduction (simply because I never had it), but I could imagine it'd be helpful since at 750mm magnification (I know it is not a 750mm lens) any tremble magnifies big time. So if that is an option, go for it.

I cheated on the Canada shot (not on the Imola shot, which was actually digitized from slide, hence the black side markers): The actual picture was bigger, I had the full car in the frame at max zoom. But because FChat only accepts 640x480 I cropped the shot without really loosing quality. For me it is never close enough.
BTW: The reason e.g. MS' helmet sponsors aren't clearly readable is not a statement about the lens, but the "foggy" weather (lots of humidity, no sunshine) and me not doing the best job. The lens is better than that.

Of course it is your choice, but honestly I wouldn't even consider a lens of 200mm. That is still so far away. If I don't see the white in the drivers' eyes, I'm not happy.

At any rate I think one part has been missing in the discussion here (where IMHO you focused too much on aperture): Speed of the autofocus. Often I don't use it and let the car drive into range, but more often I do need and use it. Most lenses are simply to friggin slow. The 50-500mm Sigma I suggested (and many other lenses) are built with a very fast focus in mind and with an special interface to your digital Nikon. That is so important. Believe me. The Nikkor zoom I have has a slow autofocus and was made for the analog Nikon. It is a great quality lens, but boy is it slow. I only kept it because I don't get any money for it and so it is my backup. Still good for architectural photography.

Anyway: Autofocus speed, something to think about.

 

Nice work, GEMM, sharp, depth-of-field perfect, great movement, good job.

Yes Andreas, 'auto-focus' never worked for me, in any of the sports I have done, and I don't know anyone today that uses it.

 

Thanks!

AF works for me but this really depends on the camera and lens that you use (also the lighting, direction of the car's movement, and even the colour of the cars!). Some cameras/lenses are just not capable of tracking the speeding cars. And D50 is possibly one of them (I'm not sure as I've never used one.) But pre-focusing works very well for motor sport photography, so you can practise that to improve your technique, then you should get great results with any camera/lens combination.

 

Works for me depending on the direction of travel. The D70 and my Sigma lens are fast enough. The Sigma talks directly to the camera and has a superfast mechanism for focusing.

The Nikkor lens drove me nuts: It never found the focus spot on a moving object and then slowly moved from one end to the other of the focus range. Meanwhile the car did another lap...

A place where AF nicely works is the hairpin on the USGP infield. Slow moving cars, coming at you then going by sideways. Without AF hard to master as the focus range changes a lot.