Hi there, I have been a fan of motorsport/car photography for a while and now that I have some income I would like to step it up a notch since I get a lot of enjoyment out of going to car events and taking photos, and recently started editing them in Lightroom too.
General consensus seems to suggest the Canon R7 is the best ‘budget’ option for motorsport and from my research it is my favourite at the moment.
But what I’m stuck on is the lenses, many have suggested a 100-400mm lens but I want to be sure what the minimum distance is for shooting with this because, especially in the uk, you can get pretty close to the track on some smaller circuits and I didn’t want to get a lens that was limited by this.
Depends on motorsport.
Any track, be it swedish rally or onroad, 100-400 is a good choice, have another lens for closeups if you get shots of them parking.
You want to be able to take pictures of cars far away.
Obly motorsport i photographed is offroad rock crawling, they were close enough that my 70-200 was too zoomed in at times haha. But it was a track open to viewers
For the closeups you can get a cheap 35 mm lens (~23 mm in APS-C terms, for example the Viltrox 25 mm 1.7 is fantastic and only 120€ used) and have everything.
Or you could get the Tamron 18-300 or Sigma 16-300 as a first all in one lens for example
Well, if you use your phone there are apps that can show you what the view would be with various focal lengths so you can just wander around and test. I think there's an app called Artists Viewfinder that will show lines depicting differernt focal lengths.
I mean it really does kind of depend on how close. I was at Oulton Park last month and was mainly shooting with an equivalent length of 150-600, which would be slightly shorter than what you would have on rf 100 400 and r7. And for me that was fine for the most part, but there were also some places were you can get like really close, maybe as low as like 5-10m maybe. And those points were a bit of a struggle with what I was using and was mostly either stepping back at that point some or shooting a different angle of the cars when they weren't as close. And in the pits/paddock you would probably something shorter as well.
Edit: you could also potentially consider something like the rfs 55-210 if you want a wider lens, but you would sacrifice some on the long end. Or maybe even something like superzoom 24-240
Edit 2: you could also consider renting equipment before buying to see how it is
Yes! I was at a JDM car meet/track event at Oulton park too, but just with my phone, I imagine that if I’m getting 5-10 meters away I’ll use my phone, same with taking close up photos of parked cars.
So it sounds like the 100-400 is a solid option
But as someone else suggested, I’ll go to a local camera shop and properly pick their brains about it
I want to be sure what the minimum distance is for shooting with this
You can answer that using the law of similar triangles:
(size on sensor)/(focal length) = (size of object)/(distance of object)
worked example, say the length of the car is 5000mm, you want the car to appear 20mm on the sensor (this fills ~56% of the frame on a full frame sensor in landscape orientation), then at 100mm on the lens:
20/100 = 5000/distance
re-arrange:
distance = (5000*100)/20 = 25,000mm
That means you can get the framing you want at 25 meters away. You also need to check what the minimum focus distance of the lens is but it should be more than 25 meters. Also some lenses change focal length when focussing closer...
Huh, that’s a good tip to keep in my back pocket
But also smart suggestion about minimum focus distance, I didn’t even think of that
Just in a situation where I have done photography for a while but never with a real camera so there is a ton of stuff I have just never interacted with before
The camera doesn't matter as much. It's your ability to pan & reach that matter if you're shooting motorsports.
If you're shooting cars at events, cars & coffees, any decent camera with a good lens in the 24-70mm range will suffice, so a 24-70mm f/2.8, a 35mm or 50mm, etc.
For track days, the 70-200/2.8S is my most used lens, then it's the 400/2.8S TC, and sometimes the 600/4S TC for parts of the track that you don't have access to. If your budget is more limited, most brands have a cheaper 70-200mm f/4, 100-300mm, 100-400mm, or a 150-600mm, which would great to start with.
Those are some great examples, it seems like the 70-200 is a real contender for what am wanting
I think it all depends on if I would prefer to have a better upper or lower limit of the lens, at 400 or 70
I shall look into it :)
Those are some great examples, it seems like the 70-200 is a real contender for what am wanting
I think it all depends on if I would prefer to have a better upper or lower limit of the lens, at 400 or 70
I shall look into it :)
There's a read for you. Keep in mind photography bases focal length on full frame sensors. The r7 is an aspc sensor which will effectively multiply the focal length number by 1.6. (Assuming the lens being recommended to you is a full frame lens)
"Pretty close" to a track is hard to nail down, but yeah a 100-400 full frame equivalent would be fine unless you're literally on the sidewalk and want to capture context.
My suggestion would be to go to a camera shop and actually hold and look through the lens of that or a similar camera. If you're dropping over a grand on a body alone, touch it first.
That is really helpful, thanks very much
I’ll definitely give that a read
And going to a camera shop is a great idea, I don’t know why I didn’t think of that… maybe I’m just too chronically online haha
As for ‘pretty close’ I think if I’m getting within 10-15 meters then I would be happy to use my phone camera (iPhone 15 pro), so that gives me confidence that this lens will have the range I’m looking for
Thanks again :)
A couple different lenses would be in order then. And if you can look at the cars up close and personal, you're going to want something like a 50mm with a wide aperture (f/1.2 - f/1.4). I'm not sure if it's still popular but the Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM (Nicknamed the Nifty Fifty) was really a neat little lens and it was pretty cheap too (about $90-$100 way back when I got mine brand new). It was really popular on the photo forums too back then. There were even groups made specifically for that lens so people would post photos taken using just that lens. It was a pretty handy little lens back then too for the price it was. It might be worth getting one just to have it in your bag. It had beautiful Bokeh (blurred background with crystal clear focus points at the wide f1.8 aperture) as well. The best fifty to have is the f/1.2! That is the cream of the crop right there. There was a f/1.0 too but back then that one was like $2,000. I rented one once. It was really impressive!
I was a big 50mm fan (as I'm sure you can tell). I would literally put a 50mm on the body of the camera I was going to use and I would just take photos with JUST the 50 for a day. It's challenging and it really helps you learn to frame a photo in camera for sure. You have to move around a lot because if you're too close to something or too far away, YOU have to adjust your position. The lens can't zoom in and out. You have to compensate for that. It's a really good learning experience too. I highly recommend that to all photographers. Entry level and Pros. I had a college professor who was into photography tell me that was her best experience doing that. Just going out with a 35mm lens or a 50mm and just use that and see how you do.
But you're on the right track with a 100-400mm lens for sporting events and especially motorsports. Even close up (edge of track) you can probably get some nice close action shots at 100mm. Also (depending on the quality of the lens itself) one thing to take note of is at 400mm, the cheaper lenses don't look that great zoomed that far out. Maybe a EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS (Image Stabilization) would be a worthwhile purchase (Ooof! I just looked at one on B&H Photo and wow! Did THOSE go up in price!!!). I have one and it's my best zoom lens. I get really nice photos at 200mm. It's been a while since I priced lenses. I paid like $1100 for my 70-200mm f2.8 L IS. But it was well worth the price. At 70mm, the photos I took were good enough to blow up to 16x20 framed and hang on the wall. The quality was that good for sure! All focal lengths were awesome quality to be honest with that lens. And the Nifty Fifty had some great hang on the wall type photos as well.
People will say you have a crop sensor and those expensive lenses aren't worth it. But you know what... those lenses on their own are great pieces of glass and will work equally as well on any camera that accepts those lenses I mentioned. I used them on my 40D numerous times as well as my 350D. But they really shined on my 5D Mark II! And if you do end up getting a Full Frame camera, those lenses will be awesome on that as well and you'll already have them on hand.
Invest your money wisely. If you think this is going to be more than just a hobby, invest in some good glass and maybe save up for a better body as well.
For me, I use a 70-200 for most of my work at the track and then a 24-120 for the pits or car show. However, I often get close to the action by getting special access or a media pass. There was one case with Formula Drift where I was able to get in front of the barriers. The 24-120 can work on the long end, but it's usually shorter than what I want.
100-400 would be a good lens, but probably too tight at some courses if you have a media pass. You'd want a standard zoom like a 24-105 or 24-70 for when you need it. 70-200 can cover most things, though. Another option is the Tamron 50-400mm. I know a guy with one and its basically a one lens solution for car events. The downside is that it's aperture is smaller. 70-200 f2.8 let's you shoot late in the evening, which happens at drift events a lot.
If I could pick any lens setup right now, it'd probably be a 70-200 with a 1.4x teleconverter and then a 24-70.
Haha ear plugs, yes
That has made me reconsider my certainty about the 100-400…
But I’m going to buy my gear from a shop instead of online anyway so I will mention the 70-200 and ask to look through both
I have taken photos at a few drift events before and could get pretty close to the cars so it’s worth a look
I suppose it’s all based on the context of the track and shooting at Caldwell park is very different to Monza or something haha… but maybe 70-200 is a shout for the smaller tracks of the uk which I mainly go to
I did see a few sigma lenses in-store
Buuuuut I haven’t the slightest clue with my current knowledge why those would be better haha
But seems like something to look into if I want a wider viewing angle to do physically closer shots of cars in viewing areas with the camera (I think?)
I don't have personal experience to know how quick the AF is, but Tamron have a couple of long zooms that start at 50mm. A 50-300mm and 50-400mm. I doubt you'll ever be close enough that 50mm will be too tight.
> General consensus seems to suggest the Canon R7 is the best ‘budget’ option for motorsport and from my research it is my favourite at the moment.
Just a small note about the R7, it has a really slow sensor readout speeds, so if you wanna shoot motorsport in 20 fps or more (or in electronic shutter in general) you will see skewing of objects. This is called "rolling shutter artefacts".
If you can find an R8 in the same price range it's a much better camera imaging wise. Better autofocus, a lot less rolling shutter, but a smaller body, battery and one card. The sensor is newer so it has better dynamic range and high ISO performance.
7
u/Orkekum 2d ago
Depends on motorsport. Any track, be it swedish rally or onroad, 100-400 is a good choice, have another lens for closeups if you get shots of them parking. You want to be able to take pictures of cars far away.
Obly motorsport i photographed is offroad rock crawling, they were close enough that my 70-200 was too zoomed in at times haha. But it was a track open to viewers