Hi All,

well i have been in the market to purchase a new lens.

i take quite a bit of sporting shots and car racing/events shots.

i have been looking into the higher end canon lenses and have had my eye on this one: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Just wondering if anyone has used this lens and if so what are you thoughts on it? i have read some really good reviews on the lens so just wondering what others thought of it.

I was looking at the: EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM however at the moment that is just totally out of the range.

Just wondering if the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens will be ok for sporting shots and action shots of cars and static shots of cars?

i have heard its a heavy lens however not too heavy to carry around with you in a small pack.

or should i be saving my money and go for the 300mm.

Any thoughts?

its the shit

but if money is an option there is a 100 300 or 70 300 IS that is pretty tidy too

70-200 with a 1.4x tele converter

cheers thanks guys for the comments.

So dave this lens is a lens that you could be using in every day shooting that requires a bit more zoom? like when you are at the track this lens would be good enough to catch the cars off the line?

Well i only said the money part since the 2nd one i was looking at was around $5k, and this one was only around $2k online.
But i think the 300mm lens is just a bit too heavy to carry around for every day use.

Have you used this lens dave?

300 mm is fixed lense ... not a fan clear but u have to be 300mm away at all times and thats a fair bit

the 70 300 is fine skidman use to use one and so did a heap of other guys for drift etc

I agree with dave too. 300mm is alot of zoom for shooting cars, and being what canon call a super telephoto is probably not suitable. I am looking at the 300 f/2.8 or 400 f2.8 in the coming future for my surf photography.

excellent. thanks guys for all your comments. i will be purchasing this lens over the next few weeks. will post up a few shots when i take some.

Thanks again for your help and suggestions.

300mm primes you most likely will never need. Actually make that you will never need.

If you were going to look at the F/2.8 300mm, why not look at the 300mm F/4L IS? It's about $1500, takes a 1.4x converter pretty well (but not as good as a 400mm prime or the 100-400)

But the 70-200 would do pretty well for your use. If you want to take static shots of cars in a car park or something, I would recommend a wider lens. For motorsport shots most of the photographers on forums would suggest the 300 F/2.8 because it's like a god of a lens, but it is priced to suit.

I think if you are shooting motorsports why not get a prime. You pick your spot and shoot there, and if you want to move somewhere else, then move. Do you seriously think you have enough time to zoom, frame and shoot something that's happening at the 200mm end if there was action there while you shot cars going through a corner at 70mm?

I'm sure there will be people here to disagree, but what if you shot night Archerfield drift? What lens do you use then? I bet a fast prime

85mm for archy yewww. you even get a rebate

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1218..._Autofocus.html

Firstly if you can't frame a car, pan with it and zoom at the same time maybe you should be doing something else motorsports might not be for you, i do understand what you are saying Dale and picking your spot but you just don't have the flexability as you do with a zoom and unless you wanna run around with two bodies with two different lenses or change lenses at the track i would stick with a zoom or unless your uber pro or just have lots of cash to throw around because you wanna look pro

I'm comlpetely agree with primes i love my 50mm 1.8 for archy but it's 50mm not 300mm!!!!! and even with that a 24-70 2.8 would far better suit that as you can get mega close at parts and i like to fill the frame as much as possible and having to work back just to get the whole car in frame zoom would be way easier.

I use a Sigma DC 18-200mm 1:3.5-6.3, and it does the job fine as i didn't want to be constantly switching lenses.

I don't think you understood what I was getting at. The only time I needed to have mega super duper zoom was when I was at one corner shooting the cars going through then all of a sudden at the other end of the track something cool is happening in which I fully zoomed to the max and took some photos but they came out shit because you and your camera arrive at the scene the millisecond after it happened, the moment is gone and the photographer that was standing on the corner where the action was got some "nice piks" and you didn't.

I would rather be shooting with zoom lens, prime lenses are NOT suitable for car photography imo. they are awesome a shooting models thou