# Best lenses to shoot cars with?



## Apollo1 (May 24, 2015)

Hello! I have the Nikon D7100 SLR camera and I'm using a 18-105mm lens that I bought as a package deal with the camera. I'm looking to upgrade to a nice lens but not sure what to get. I'm not really famillar with lenses but it seems a lot of people that shoot cars prefer wide angle lenses. I recently talked to one of my friends who is a professional photographer that shoots horses and she recommended the 70-200mm lens as she uses it and loves it. Just would like to know from anyone who shoots cars what lens/lenses you use and recommend? Thanks! 

Here is a photo I took of my car below with the 18-105 lens. The picture is also edited. Sorry if the picture is small I'm not home at the moment and just saved the picture off Facebook to my phone.


----------



## PaulWog (May 24, 2015)

I think this really depends on what type of image you want.

An ultra wide angle lens is going to distort the perspective of the shot. You'll elongate your scene, emphasizing what is closer to you, and drawing out things further away from you. Just look up ultra wide angle car photos, and see if those are something you want to do. If yes, then an ultra wide angle lens is going to be the way to go.

The 70-200 will be good for taking shots that do not distort the car. You will compress the background the more you reach 200mm, which is going to be good for certain scenes (this can allow you to be more selective about what you show in the shot, besides the car or a part of the car). It's going to be good for any race/action shots, as well as stationary shots. Again, just look up car shots with the 70-200 f2.8.

You might want to consider picking up a polarizing filter as well. A polarizing filter can help you eliminate unwanted reflections from the windows and body of the car, for certain shots. Polarizing filters can also help with eliminating unwanted reflections from the pavement, which can help enhance the look you're going for (depending on the type of day it is / how the sun is shining on things).


----------



## Apollo1 (May 25, 2015)

I haven't been able to find any shots of cars with the 70-200 unfortunately. 




PaulWog said:


> I think this really depends on what type of image you want.
> 
> An ultra wide angle lens is going to distort the perspective of the shot. You'll elongate your scene, emphasizing what is closer to you, and drawing out things further away from you. Just look up ultra wide angle car photos, and see if those are something you want to do. If yes, then an ultra wide angle lens is going to be the way to go.
> 
> ...


----------



## nerwin (May 25, 2015)

I've been shooting car shows for years and tend to use a ultra wide lens because sometimes cars are parked closely together and ultra wide lens allows to me get the whole car in frame more easily. I also don't recommend polarizing filters as they remove reflections from the cars and I personally prefer the reflections. But some might disagree. 

But if you are doing photoshoots, then honestly you can use any lens. I've used all sorts of lenses. Sometimes you want a wide angle to capture the entire environment, sometimes you want a normal lens where there is no distortion, sometimes you want a fast telephoto to blur the background. Just depends what you trying to go for. 

I do know a friend that shoots cars with a 70-200 2.8, it would be worth asking him some questions as well. His name is Brian Stalter and you can see his pictures on Flickr. 

Hope this helps dude!


----------



## goodguy (May 25, 2015)

Not an expert in these matters but I can tell you in the last Toronto car show I used my Nikon 24-70mm for shooting the cars and the 70-200mm for getting people shots.
24mm on FX is close to 18mm on DX, for me it was plenty wide and I didn't find I needed to go wider.
So I think your kit lens is good from a focal range but might be limiting in lower light situation.


----------



## ratssass (May 25, 2015)

...is the 18-105 limiting you?How/why?


----------



## nerwin (May 25, 2015)

goodguy said:


> Not an expert in these matters but I can tell you in the last Toronto car show I used my Nikon 24-70mm for shooting the cars and the 70-200mm for getting people shots.
> 24mm on FX is close to 18mm on DX, for me it was plenty wide and I didn't find I needed to go wider.
> So I think your kit lens is good from a focal range but might be limiting in lower light situation.



I believe 24mm on FX is equivalent to 16mm on DX, so 28mm on FX is equivalent to 18mm on DX. Big enough difference for me! haha.


----------



## nerwin (May 25, 2015)

ratssass said:


> ...is the 18-105 limiting you?How/why?



He means it's limited because of the variable aperture, f/3.5-5.6.


----------



## astroNikon (May 25, 2015)

Your 18-105 actually is a Wide Angle lens .. at 18mm it's pretty wide.
Yes, there are wider lenses out there that go down to 10mm for crop and 14 for fullframe but I think if you want wide angle you may be after some of the perspective distortion that was previously mentioned.

Perspective distortion, to me, can be pretty neat if you do it right.  As an example, it usually involved going to one corner of the car and taking a shot which elongates the parts up close.  Here's one car show I did with my 18-35mm lens on a FF Nikon d600 camera => Packard Car Show 20140608 Flickr - Photo Sharing 
I have other car shows too, such as ==> 20140803 Troy CarShow Flickr - Photo Sharing 

Doing a bunch of car shows last year I can't see how I could have gotten many shots with a 70-200.  It puts too much space between you and the car and allows people to get between you and the car.  With the WA lens I was able to get close enough, then people know I was photographing and didn't get in my way.  A few of my shots I tried from further back were futile as crowds came and moved around.


----------



## raventepes (May 25, 2015)

All you really need is a good ultra-wide and wide angle. Tokina 11-16 (or 11-20) and a Sigma 17-50, all at f/2.8. Keep life a bit flexible for however close you can get and make necessary adjustments in photoshop. I wouldn't want to go shoot cars at shows at 70-200mm for reasons stated above. I'd be willing to use a 70-200 on a paid shoot where I have all the room in the world or if I wanted a tight shot of something, but I like being as close to my subject as possible.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (May 25, 2015)

Nikon DX money no problem?
17-35 f2.8 AF S.

Budget? 25-50 f4 AI S manual focus (my preference)


----------



## Apollo1 (May 25, 2015)

Thanks guys! My friend was saying that there was a huge difference in quality with the 70-200. Is that true? It's a pricey lens considering I don't go shoot pictures all the time. Yeah about that low lighting. That's something I'm having issues with as well. I tried to take pictures under street lights and played with all my settings. Think I got one decent picture. Not as good as I wanted. But I had to lean against a pole to get the picture without camera shake because I had the shutter speed lower to let enough light it. Does anyone use a tripod for night shots? I would prefer not to use one just so I have more room to move around if say I'm doing a moving shot. Any ideas?


----------



## MartinCrabtree (May 25, 2015)

If you're asking questions like this you'll likely be shooting more. Honestly buy the best glass you can afford. The Professional lenses are better,no question about that. The 70-200 f2.8 is a renowned classic. But it's big,heavy and not suited to close work which is what most car shows are.

Look at used stuff from KEH for a budget. I have some Nikon professional lenses that are 30+ years old and still produce outstanding images. If you are shooting subjects that move slowly or not at all the manual focus lenses are worth a look. The D7100 will accept AI-S (1977-later) lenses and allow center weighted/spot metering w/o modification. If you want matrix a chip is needed for that as well as EXIF data. You can purchase some outstanding glass in manual focus for pennies on the dollar.


----------



## astroNikon (May 25, 2015)

^^^ what he said.
with your d7100 you have a in-body focus motor.
AF-S/G type lenses themselves have a builtin lens motor (instead of the camera).  These are required for lower bodies such as d5x00 and d3x00 bodies.

But the AF-S/G lenses cost more.

With your d7100 in-body focus motor you can also use AF and AF-D lenses which will save you hundreds per lens by comparison.  I've gone that route and have a nice lens collection because of that.   A 70-200 can cost $1400 (last time I checked used) and with that you can buy a AF-D 80-200/2.8 ($750), AFS/G 50/1.4G ($250),  AF-D 18-35 ($300) and have a couple hundred spare for the same as that modern 70-200.

And AI-S lenses are great too.  I used to have some but with my eyes getting the way they are I might be the only one to see the pics in focus, but only at certain points in time.  lol


----------



## JoeW (May 25, 2015)

Depends upon what you want to shoot.

1.  If you're shooting at race tracks or professional cars, than you won't be very close, you may need very fast glass.  200mm f2.8 would be the way to go.

2.  Almost every car shot I've taken at a show, I've needed a wide angle lens.  Yes, you get some distortion.  But cars are parked next to each other, lots of passerbys...so you need to go wide angle.  17mm should be wide enough for most of these settings.

3.  Personally, I like to play with DoF.  I've attached a shot I did from one of the Katy's Cars and Coffee events (which is a huge weekly show in the DC area, you get hundreds of vintage and classic cars, very crowded, tons of people, during the high season you'll get several hundred cars).  So for this I needed a very narrow DoF.

4.  If you're shooting a specific car outside of a show, then I'd argue that your DoF probably isn't important, your speed isn't important...I'd be mounting my camera on a tripod, probably shooting f8 or deeper, maybe doing HDR, exposing for rich color and drama in the surrounding area so it's more than just "oh, colorful car outdoors" but instead it looks like a print ad with environmental drama.  And I'd probably be using a prime lens here in order to get as sharp an image as possible.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (May 25, 2015)

I took this a few years ago on my D90 with a Nikon 28-85 f3.5-4.5 AF I got for $60. Do some homework,shop carefully and find a gem.


​


----------



## Apollo1 (May 25, 2015)

I think I'm going to get the Nikon AF-S DX 10-24mm lens. Looks like it has a lot of good reviews. Anyone have this Lens? Like it?


----------



## ratssass (May 25, 2015)

....got it,love it..........do you need it?ain't no better in low light than the 18-105.I would really explore the 18-105 further before I laid out $800-900.I still use the 18-105 quite often....especially at shows where cars are packed,but might want a longer focal length while walking around.Last Sat,shooting drags,in good light,both a friend and I chuckled when we both discovered we went to this lens over faster stuff.


----------



## BFiggy (May 26, 2015)

I pretty much only shoot cars and my favorite lens is my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS. It's almost the DX equivalent to the 70-200mm. I find it to be pretty versatile at car shows and I'm able to capture the cars arriving and leaving (I keep it at f/2.8, on AF-C, and getting a nice DOF). It's also good for detail shots and reaching cars for those few seconds when there isn't a big crowd around them.

Although it's my favorite lens, there are times when I'm short and space and need to use my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I usually never have control over the placement of the car so I need to make due with what I have. If I had to choose between the two I'd definitely choose the Sigma.


All the pics on this page and below were shot with that lens Targa Trophy Supercar Festival in Orange County - ShootingCars.net




Porsche 918 Spyder Martini Racing Edition by Axion23, on Flickr



Saleen S7 and friends by Axion23, on Flickr



Red Pagani Huayra by Axion23, on Flickr



Enzo Wheel by Axion23, on Flickr


----------

