# Motorsports Equipment Suggestions



## CNCO (Sep 6, 2010)

Hello,

On Friday I went to Limerock Park in CT and did a workshop with Nikon. Basically Nikon was there and allowed photographers to experiment with their equipment. Yeah Im the man, I walked around with a D3x and a 600mm lenses, on the side I had a 70-200 f 2.8. Now, I do not have the funds to drop 20k on equipment. My question is what are you guys using when you go to car races, or motorcycle races that is affordable. I want to get into motorsports photography but I want to spend my money wiseley. Basically I am looking at

70-200 f2.8
80-400 f4.5

Any reccomendations would be helpful. I currently have a D80 but I am going to upgrade to a D300 or a D90 at the least. Thanks.


----------



## jeph (Sep 7, 2010)

I have a D 300s and a 70-200 VRII that I love.  I have been thinking about a teleconverter but just haven't made up my mind yet.


----------



## edouble (Sep 7, 2010)

You are going to need longer focal lengths than 200mm. Unless you have a special vest and badge that gets you inside the fence. I would stay away from teleconvertors. You are going to lose at least 1.5 stops and slow your autofocus down.

If you can not afford a fast zoom (above 200mm) do what I do-  rent $5000 lens for the weekend. I have been looking at Nikon's 300 f4 (less than$ 1500 new) but I really don't want a prime and it lakes VR which can be helpful.


----------



## CNCO (Sep 7, 2010)

to go out and spend that kind of money for a 300+ prime lense is ridiculous. the 70-200 f2.8 is a great lense. The teleconverter is going to decrease your f stop but does it really matter if you are panning?


----------



## Rekd (Sep 7, 2010)

CNCO said:


> The teleconverter is going to decrease your f stop but does it really matter if you are panning?



That won't really matter until you start working in low-light situations (night time or indoors). The 70-200mm 2.8 will be a great starter lens. You can get a 2x converter and cover 80-400mm without much difference except for price.


----------



## Phranquey (Sep 7, 2010)

Rekd said:


> The 70-200mm 2.8 will be a great starter lens. You can get a 2x converter and cover 80-400mm without much difference except for price.


 

Ehhhh.... I've tried a 1.4, 1.7, & 2.0 TC on my 70-200. The 1.4 is very minimal IQ loss, the 1.7 is noticable but usable in the right conditions, but the 2.0 is not even an option. The IQ and f-stop loss is beyond acceptable to me.


----------



## Heck (Sep 7, 2010)

I went to lime rock a few years ago and it is a special track. That said I have a D300 with the 70-200mm version one. With the crop factor of the D300 sensor its a bit more than 200mm. A tele is on my list of things to get but its not at the top at the price they want for a Nikon one. I would not get a 2x as I heard it degrades too much. A 1.7 tele I would get. 

I seen a video the other night about the 70-200 version II lens and the guy was saying it dont have the same reach as a 200 version I. But he said its close and is tac sharp so he felt it was a even trade off. This is the guys site. He has some good info on Nikon gear. Photography, Lightroom & Digital Camera How To &#8212; FroKnowsPhoto  Archive


Here is some of the shots I took with my D300 and 70-200. Some parts of the track I did not even need the full 200mm http://heck.zenfolio.com/p1014582102


----------



## CNCO (Sep 7, 2010)

im looking around for a good deal on a 70-200 f2.8. i am going to sell all of my equipment to help fund this. i am going to keep the 50mm and the 18-135mm because they are both very good lenses. i know i wont get much for the other 3 lenses but its a start.


----------



## Heck (Sep 7, 2010)

I worked on getting good glass before a good body. I shot a year of autocross with a D40x and the monster 70-200 before I got the D300. You can also save and get a sigma. I seen some great shots from the sigma version.


----------



## CNCO (Sep 7, 2010)

i have seen the sigma 120-300 f2.8 and thats suppose to be a great lense. the cost is at least 2500$. 

WHY CAN'T THIS STUFF BE AFFORDABLE!


----------



## Heck (Sep 7, 2010)

It's not affordable and that may be a good thing. Cuz if it were cheap then everyone would have it and we would not be so special . Think of a great lens this way. It will hold it's value more than most things. In a few years you can get about 60 to 70% of the cost of the Nikon 70-200 back if you sell it. So think of it as long term cheap rental.


----------



## gary sempler (Sep 8, 2010)

I shoot with a d300s, nikkor 70-200 vr2, nikkor 300 f4 and a 1.4 nikon converter. That covers from 105 to 630mm. That gives me a lot of focal length options. All are extreamly sharp. I also have the d700 and a nikkor 24-70. It gives me evan more high IQ options with the 70-200 and the 300 with the converter. The bigest bang for your buck that I could find. Good luck


----------



## Rekd (Sep 8, 2010)

gary sempler said:


> I shoot with a d300s, nikkor 70-200 vr2, nikkor 300 f4 and a 1.4 nikon converter. That covers from 105 to 630mm. That gives me a lot of focal length options. All are extreamly sharp. I also have the d700 and a nikkor 24-70. It gives me evan more high IQ options with the 70-200 and the 300 with the converter. The bigest bang for your buck that I could find. Good luck



Gary, did you go to school in California? 

Oh, wait, I know! You taped the 70 and the 200 to the 300 and used the 1.4 to get to 630mm, right? :lmao:


----------



## edouble (Sep 9, 2010)

Does anybody dare to post up pics of thier "teleconverted" motorsports shots????


----------



## CNCO (Sep 9, 2010)

very good idea. id love to see a shot with a 70-200 f2.8 and a teleconverter compared with the same shot to a 400 prime lenses. of course this requires the same body and two of the same people shooting the same thing.


----------



## gary sempler (Sep 9, 2010)

Rekd. what is the focal length on your d300s with a 70-200. On mine I'ts a105-300. The 300 Is 450 And 630mm when the 1.4 converter is used.Do the math.By the way I went to school in Horseheads N.Y.


----------



## edouble (Sep 9, 2010)

gary sempler said:


> Rekd. what is the focal length on your d300s with a 70-200. On mine I'ts a105-300. The 300 Is 450 And 630mm when the 1.4 converter is used.Do the math.By the way I went to school in Horseheads N.Y.



You should not have been so polite gary sempler. Rekd deserved otherwise from the ignorant post.


----------



## Rekd (Sep 9, 2010)

gary sempler said:


> Rekd. what is the focal length on your d300s with a 70-200. On mine I'ts a105-300. The 300 Is 450 And 630mm when the 1.4 converter is used.Do the math.By the way I went to school in Horseheads N.Y.



I don't have a d300s. Didn't like the way it looked and felt. And the picts I've seen from it are meh at best. But I'll do the math anyway... and I'm new at this so bear with me...

Lets see, a lens of thickness _d_ in air, and surfaces with radii of curvature _R1 _and _R2_...







Then you take into account the front focal distance...






And the back focal distance...






And you get... wait a minute, carry the one... no. 

Oh, here we go! 70 + 200 + 300 * 1.4 = 630mm

Duh! :lmao:

/sarcasm off/


----------



## CNCO (Sep 9, 2010)

some interesting stuff going on in here. my goal is to have a d300s and a 70-200 f2.8


----------



## gary sempler (Sep 9, 2010)

CNCO. Check out B&H photo.Yuo can get A d300s, 70-200, 300f4 and the 1.4 converter for $5369. For that kind of money you won't find anything thats any better for sports photoraphy. Don't let anyone show you any corners to cut. You get what you pay for and it will hold it's value to.


----------



## CNCO (Sep 9, 2010)

thats a smoking deal. if my motorcycle sells this weekend, ill definately do that. thanks!


----------

