Lens for shooting cars on track?
 

I like to take pics of porsche's racing on track. but, I'm a photographic noob. I am using a Canon Rebel XS SLR and a Canon EF 75-300 1:4-5.6. It works, but there are tracks like Daytona and Homestead where I could use a much better lens. Also, when the light begins to fade the pics begin to get grainy... could be the user ;)

What lens do you guys/gals use? I know some of you out there are photographic geniuses ;) I'm not looking to break the bank either and will probably look for a good used version of what ever is suggested. Lens may also do double duty at soccer games and gymnastics. :D :D :D

Here is an example:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302236746.jpg

-Michael

Well your first problem is that you should be using a Nikon. ;)

The usuals apply - YMMV, I'm not a pro but I did sleep at a holiday inn express last night...

If I were you, I'd seriously consider taking a digital photography course at your local community college. That'll ensure you have the basics down first if you're experienced with film SLRs, but not digital SLRs. They'll probably also convince you to shoot in RAW if you're not already doing so.

Now on to your results. The graininess is mostly due to the fact that under lower light, if you still want to run faster shutter speeds, the camera is likely (you're shooting in auto mode?) stepping up your ISO, making the image sensor more sensitive. This is what introduces the grain. The only way I know of to combat it is to use the lowest f-stop (aperature) on your lense and/or manually control your ISO, taking the camera off auto mode. If you're zoomed in to 300mm, that is a 5.6 f-top on your lense. Even when zoomed all the way out to 75mm, it is still a relatively high 4.

So purely from an equipment perspective, look for a lense that has a lower f-stop (lets in more light) at the zoom levels you need. These get expensive pretty quickly...

2569A004 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM AutoFocus Telephoto Zoom Lens with Case & Hood - USA

Well said - At the track, or other sporting events, you'll always see the pros shooting Canon using those white lenses which are the top of the line.

Wise choice on you selection of shooting with Canon's ;)

I'm damn happy with my Canon 100-400L, it wasn't cheap and it isn't the best in low light but I love the reach it gives me on a crop sensor body. (50D)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/...bb999b59_z.jpg
Florida Cardinal by willtel, on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/...3684dfb7_z.jpg
996 by willtel, on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2678/...a528b93d_z.jpg
Tail Out by willtel, on Flickr

Very nice - to the OP, what you see in these pics are what really makes racing shots IMO - the ability to use a slower shutter and panning to get a blurred back-round and wheels yet a sharp car.
Takes a lot of practice.

try Sigma lenses.
 

So purely from an equipment perspective, look for a lens that has a lower f-stop (lets in more light) at the zoom levels you need. These get expensive pretty quickly...
Exactly

Try RAW format images, get a higher capacity card.
Check you have a full frame sensor in that camera. Better / larger area sensor = better pics
Not so cheap but for T2.8 its really not bad.
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM AF Lens 136101 B&H Photo

I don't have an L lens - one of these days:)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302270191.jpg

A fast lens is a good idea - and a Nikon :D - but they can get fairly spendy. This won't likely be that big of deal in the soccer field, but gymnastics and other indoor activities usually take place in an environment where light is at a premium. Your eyes may tell you that it's pretty bright, but really, it's not all that much so.

Another thing with fast moving sports like auto racing a monopod is a good idea. This is even more important as you try out some slow shutter speeds and panning effects. And the photo course is not a bad idea, either.

For your camera body, like others have said the best lenses out there are the "L" series, but they are pretty pricey.

I've now decided to rent one for my next trip to Laguna Seca. If I'm getting the results I want this way, I'll just keep renting for the time I require a superior lens.

If I visit Laguna Seca maybe 3 times a year, it rental costs would allow for about 15 years of use before I had spent the same as buying the lens. Just seems to me like a sensible route to take.

Something to consider, even a great way of trying out a lens before purchase too.

http://www.borrowlenses.com/

Cheers
Matt

One more
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302272978.jpg

Carry 2 lenses with 2 camera bodies. DX Nikon is better than full frame for sports.

D200 with 70-200VR F2.8 lens for when the car gets close to you.
D7000 with 300F2.8 lens for when the car is a little further out.

you can also carry a 1.7X converter for when you really have to have the reach.

Crank up the ISO to about 400 to 800 (on the D7000), shoot in Aperture priority mode and set the lens at its maximum F-stop.

Have fun. Learn how to pan. Shoot from funny angles. Shoot with a fish-eye lens. Shoot in the pit lane as well as the track. Show the driver with their helmets off, with their emotion at lower key. Capture the details of the car in the pit lane.

That Canon 75-300 is a prettygood lens - I've got one myself, complete with image stablization, as well as a number of other Canon zooms. Keep in mind that with your camera and its sensor, which is smaller than the usual 35mm film size, at full extension your zoom actually is something like 480mm. You multiply the lens length by 1.6 to get that figure - that's how much smaller the sensor is.

If I wanted more length than that, I think I'd get a doubler from Canon - probably order it from Amazon. To go longer with a stand-alone lens, you're talking a significant investment. Perhaps your wallet is up for that. If so, more power to you.

But now you're opening a can of worms. You know that the rule of thumb is to use a shutter speed that corresponds to the lens length, right? So a 500 mm lens would want a 500th of a second for shutter speed to help insure a crisp image with no (or scant) evidence of camera movement? Obviously for pan shots and such that doesn't work, so you need a good tripod or monopod, along with a ball head, if you've not already got one. Huge pains in the a**s, they are, unless and until you get yourself a quick-release that allows you to snap the camera body and/or lens onto and off of the tripod or monopod. These things completely transform the tripod/monopod experience. No photographer should be without one.

Further, I'll second the advice from above. This is a whole like the deal with our cars, where the first thing most of us would benefit from is some driving instruction. I'd suggest a class, if you've not already taken one, that will help you get the most out of your equipment. What I've found (and I shoot with Canons too) is that these things are less cameras and more very powerful computers that just happen to wear lenses. Did you know, for instance, that using the focus control, you can control where the strobe throws its light?

As for low light, what I do is twiddle with the ISO settings. The higher you go the more you risk getting some noise with the image, but even at the higher settings, having an image with noise trumps having no image. The other thing is that if the image is a little underexposed, so what? With digital, if there's information on the image, you can work with it, thanks to Photoshop. I usually shoot at 320, but when the situation requires, I will go all the way to 1600. And as you know, every time you double the ISO, you gain a stop of exposure.

The other thing is practice. Great shots - pan shots or whatever - don't just happen. Shoot a lot of exposures, then edit like crazy. At least that's what works for me.

Here's Gilles at Long Beach a whole bunch of years ago - wide angle, very slow shutter speed. Not a telephoto shot, obviously, but at least it shows what's possible.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302273438.jpg

I use the canon 70-200 2.8L some times I also use the 1.4x to get a little more reach.

I want to say practice and a class will get more benefit then additional equipment. I also have a Nikon as some have suggested, but it is an older D200. First weekend out to Road Atlanta with it, took close to 4000 pictures (5fps is NICE) of which 1 came out very good, 3 pretty good, and about 300 that i kept. I was using the 55-200mm VR kit lens, shutter priority, auto ISO. I have since upgraded to the 55-300mm lens, but have not gotten to the track to use it. I think the 70-300 would have been better due to the larger glass, but with my 18-55, i like being able to cover such a large range.

No editing, cropping, etc, just resized for the forums. I am sure I could improve them all with some photoshop time.

My personal best from my own viewpoint.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302281779.jpg

My favorite in action, though through the fence takes away some.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302281883.jpg

On friday during monring practice, I got lucky (the driver got unlucky) and I was just beginning to take pictures. I had a very high shutter speed set in order to just try and get some things in focus. I have a series of 48 pictures (that I kept) that show this from the back end starting to step out, until it was hauled away on the wrecker. I was lucky to have such a high shutter speed set, and right place, right time. The impact was about 50 feet in front of me and 20 feet below.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302282039.jpg

From my research before buying a camera, i looked a lot at both Nikon and Canon. Nikon was the top dog, until i think the 90's, when Canon came out with some new technology in autofocus lenses that was superior to what everyone else had. Many photo jounralists switched to Canon at that time, and with such a sizable investment in lenses, tend to stay with a brand once they make the decision. Nikon has since caught up in technology, and can take just as good of pictures (better in some cases), but the difference is not enough to cause a professional to want to repurchase tens of thousands of dollars in lenses.

Not to be too long winded, but I would say on the picture you posted, it looks a little over exposed. THe lack of definition in the white wall is why i say that, but being so new to this, i could very well be wrong. There are some absolutely beautiful pictures in this thread. Keep them coming!

Grant

I would look into a a faster lens, f2.8, which will help with low light situations and to some degree moving subjects. The motors in the L series lens are much faster to focus and quieter than what you have now. You're looking at about a grand to get into a 70-200 f2.8L. You could extend the reach with an extender but will sacrifice a bit on the speed and light situation as previously discussed.

I would also suggest upgrading your camera body. Maybe look at the Canon 40d, 50d, 60d, 70d, or 5d. You will benefit from increased shutter speeds, ISO, and frame rates. All of these will work with the benefits of a faster lens to much improve overall performance in the sports shots you want to take. I think you would also get a great improvement utilizing your current lens and just upgrading your camera body only.

What is your budget?

You can say that again. Unfortunately there is a lot more to it than just pointing good equipment at something interesting. It takes a lot of experimenting to get satisfying shots that convey motion like the pros. Lens choice also often comes down to where you are shooting from. At a PCA Autocross event my 100-400L was almost too long but it would be ideal somewhere like Road Atlanta where you can use the zoom to step back from the fences and still fill the frame with the subject.

I took these with a Canon EF 28-135 IS.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4083/...4c3c22cd_z.jpg
Early 911 by willtel, on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4069/...5a26309e_z.jpg
Mangusta in Motion by willtel, on Flickr

Beautiful pictures Willtel. I can only hope to get ones like that after a lot more practice.

Grant

Remember— The car isn't always the star, and don't be afraid to experiment.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302299648.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302299684.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1302299719.jpg

also, there is a glut of used equipment on the market. I have the following for sale, all cameras I used for weddings since 2005. I'm out of that business now, 20 years was enough, and don't use these 'tools' at all. I use a Nikon P80 for snaps, and a GoPro for inside the car video.

2005 Nikon D2x, maybe 100 weddings tops, very good condition.
2007 Nikon 70-200mm Zoom DX, used maybe 5 weddings, new condition.
Nikon D200 great shape bought used.
2005 Nikon 17-55 zoom lense, on-camera workhouse for most of my wedding shots.

If yer interested in upgrading from Canon, insert joke here, I'd entertain any offers. dave.

Luckily, when I quit the wedding business, I was still shooting 6x6 and sold the gear at a decent price:)

The problem with the new age is that something comes out every year that's more expensive and better at much higher cost that it's hard to keep up.
The lens's always stay current for the most part.
Again, you've made a good choice with Canon :D