# Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS for motorsports ??????????



## Harv (Feb 25, 2012)

Last year I began photographing motorsports. I shot some super bike and GP car races on road courses and shot a lot of motocross and atv races. The gear I used was a 1D Mark IV along with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and 300 f/2.8L IS with great results.

I am fortunate to have full access to the motocross and atv tracks and end up strolling all over the track for extended periods of time. After a while, the gear package I mentioned above starts to take it's toll on me due to the weight. I am looking at possibly utilizing the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS to reduce the weight while retaining the focal length range. I have no concerns regarding the image quality of that lens. I know it's excellent.

What does concern me is that given it's slower speed, will it AF fast enough and accurately enough? I have no concerns on the road races as there is usually a lot of time to lock on and track the vehicles. However, on the motocross and atv tracks, the first glimpse I often have of the bikes and quads is when they suddenly appear over the top of a jump. Immediate and accurate AF is an absolute must in these circumstances. My f/2.8 lenses perform beautifully in that regard, but will the slower 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS be up to the task?

Has anyone out there had any experience they can share using this lens in a similar environment? Your input would be appreciated.


----------



## Jerrad245 (Feb 25, 2012)

I haven't been in those situations with my 70-300L but I have to say the AF speed is extremely fast, and has no problems for me tracking birds in flight. i would say you will have no problem whatsoever with it's AF speed in those environments.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 25, 2012)

Harv said:


> What does concern me is that given it's slower speed, will it AF fast enough and accurately enough? I have no concerns on the road races as there is usually a lot of time to lock on and track the vehicles. However, on the motocross and atv tracks, the first glimpse I often have of the bikes and quads is when they suddenly appear over the top of a jump. Immediate and accurate AF is an absolute must in these circumstances. My f/2.8 lenses perform beautifully in that regard, but will the slower 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS be up to the task?



Not only has it got fast AF but the light weight of the lens means you can twist and turn quickly


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 25, 2012)

Harv said:


> Last year I began photographing motorsports. I shot some super bike and GP car races on road courses and shot a lot of motocross and atv races. The gear I used was a 1D Mark IV along with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and 300 f/2.8L IS with great results.
> 
> I am fortunate to have full access to the motocross and atv tracks and end up strolling all over the track for extended periods of time. After a while, the gear package I mentioned above starts to take it's toll on me due to the weight. I am looking at possibly utilizing the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS to reduce the weight while retaining the focal length range. I have no concerns regarding the image quality of that lens. I know it's excellent.
> 
> ...



Everything about the lens is a step down, one other thing I'd be careful of, is shutter speed. Can you get the shutter speeds you want at f/5.6 compared with your 300mm f/2.8?

Certainly, the IQ is not nearly up to that 300mm lens, nor the 70-200 either. 

This is a case where I'd rent one first before making such a huge downgrade.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 25, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Everything about the lens is a step down, one other thing I'd be careful of, is shutter speed. Can you get the shutter speeds you want at f/5.6 compared with your 300mm f/2.8?
> 
> Certainly, the IQ is not nearly up to that 300mm lens, nor the 70-200 either.
> 
> This is a case where I'd rent one first before making such a huge downgrade.



DOF is an issue - however it is a variable apperture lens. Downgrade? mmm it has different strengths and weaknesses from the 300 f/2.8 of which the OP is trying to get away from towards a lens such as the 70-300L

IQ of the 70-300 is very,very close to that of the 70-200II in the 70-200 range - and it is a pound lighter as well which the OP sees as a benefit


----------



## Harv (Feb 25, 2012)

Jerrad245 said:


> I haven't been in those situations with my 70-300L but I have to say the AF speed is extremely fast, and has no problems for me tracking birds in flight. i would say you will have no problem whatsoever with it's AF speed in those environments.



Thanks for the input. I regularly shoot birds in flight also but usually there is more warning and more time to get the bird in the viewfinder than many situations with MX and ATV racing.


----------



## Harv (Feb 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Harv said:
> 
> 
> > What does concern me is that given it's slower speed, will it AF fast enough and accurately enough? I have no concerns on the road races as there is usually a lot of time to lock on and track the vehicles. However, on the motocross and atv tracks, the first glimpse I often have of the bikes and quads is when they suddenly appear over the top of a jump. Immediate and accurate AF is an absolute must in these circumstances. My f/2.8 lenses perform beautifully in that regard, but will the slower 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS be up to the task?
> ...



I can certainly use all the help I can get to twist and turn quickly. In less than two months I will be 70 years of age with lots of arthritis.


----------



## Harv (Feb 25, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Harv said:
> 
> 
> > Last year I began photographing motorsports. I shot some super bike and GP car races on road courses and shot a lot of motocross and atv races. The gear I used was a 1D Mark IV along with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and 300 f/2.8L IS with great results.
> ...



From what I can see in the online reviews, the IQ should be more than good enough. It looks like it's not far behind my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

Shutter speed should not be a problem. Usually there is a lot of light, shooting outdoors. Besides, I can crank the ISO on the Mark IV pretty high with excellent results.


----------



## Harv (Feb 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Everything about the lens is a step down, one other thing I'd be careful of, is shutter speed. Can you get the shutter speeds you want at f/5.6 compared with your 300mm f/2.8?
> ...



Exactly. Plus the benefit of leaving the 300/2.8 in the bag.


----------



## Halfrack (Feb 26, 2012)

You're thinking about this too hard - find a young assistant who will pack around the 300 2.8 in exchange for track access and advice.

Either that or find a rolling tool chest that you can store & lock your lenses but also use as a place to brace and sit comfortably.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 26, 2012)

Here is a sample with the 1D4 and 70-300L. 

Here is the full sized, unsharpened with exif

http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/B09G0782.JPG

Camera Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Image Date: 2012-01-27 14:47:24 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 70.0mm
Aperture: f/4.0
Exposure Time: 0.0050 s (1/200)
ISO equiv: 500


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Here is a sample with the 1D4 and 70-300L.



Thanks for the sample! Good exposure in spite of opposite lighting and not using a flash. Using raw would have reduced the blown highlights a bit I guess. Since I don't know full frame or the 1D, I am wondering...

* the squirrel is a little blurred at 100%. I guess it is because IS tricked into believing because the background doesn't move you can use 1/200s+low iso and the little critter will freeze, too  ? In this case, I don't think the lens lacks sharpness because the for on the leg farthest away is sharper. 

* you're saying that the jpeg is plain out-of-camera but the fur looks somewhat over-sharpened to me - is this because of the jpeg compression (which resembles sharpness sometimes) or some setting on the 1D4?


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 26, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a sample with the 1D4 and 70-300L.
> ...



- the little thing is moving so it is motion blur

- the fur on these squirrels always looks over sharpened with the grey flecks - with the back lighting from the sun this gives to much contrast - and too much contrast also gives the same effect as too much sharpening

The image is cropped down to about 7mps

This picture looks much better printed than on the screen.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 26, 2012)

I dont have many action samples with the 1d4 + 70-300L - here is perhaps a better one from the 1ds3 + 70-300L

This was being displayed - flying from the shade into sunlight

http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/IMG_1971.JPG


----------



## Tijn (Feb 26, 2012)

As your question is really about AF:

Keep in mind that the 70-300 f/4-5.6 _will not make use of the increased sensitivity f/2.8 center AF point_. That means that the 70-300 f/4-5.6 will probably be a slight *downgrade* from a 70-200 f/2.8 mk2 AF-wise (and also from the prime, if its AF is as good as the 70-200 f/2.8's - I've not read much about it, it's way out of my reach). However, the 70-300 f/4-5.6 AF is still said to be quite good.

For the level of performance that you require from the AF, I would think that the only way to check if it is really up to YOUR needs, is to rent one and test it in your kind of situations. Users showing single easy-AF or even difficult-AF shots that ended up great on a forum like this, is no way to answer your question. You want the first image bang on with AF, preferably all the time, and I'm not sure if the lens will do that _as well as the 70-200 f/2.8 II does_.

As said, IQ-wise it's theoretically a very slight downgrade, but probably not noticable unless you know beforehand which is which. The thing you will notice is the DOF if you were shooting wide-open.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 26, 2012)

Tijn said:


> As your question is really about AF:
> 
> Keep in mind that the 70-300 f/4-5.6 _will not make use of the increased sensitivity f/2.8 center AF point_. That means that the 70-300 f/4-5.6 will probably be a slight *downgrade* from a 70-200 f/2.8 mk2 AF-wise (and also from the prime, if its AF is as good as the 70-200 f/2.8's - I've not read much about it, it's way out of my reach). However, the 70-300 f/4-5.6 AF is still said to be quite good.
> 
> For the level of performance that you require from the AF, I would think that the only way to check if it is really up to YOUR needs, is to rent one and test it in your kind of situations. Users showing single easy-AF or even difficult-AF shots that ended up great on a forum like this, is no way to answer your question. You want the first image bang on with AF, preferably all the time, and I'm not sure if the lens will do that _as well as the 70-200 f/2.8 II does_.



I believe the OP has a 1D4 so:

_*Maximum f/stop: Up to f/2.8*_
With the 39 AF points indicated by , high-precision, cross-type AF (both horizontal- and vertical-line sensitive) is possible during manual AF point selection. 

During automatic AF point selection, the number of cross-type AF points will decrease from 39 points to 19 points. The remaining 26 AF points will be horizontal-line sensitive.

_*Maximum f/stop: f/4*_
High-precision, cross-type AF with the center AF point is possible. The
remaining 44 AF points will be horizontal-line sensitive only.

_*Maximum f/stop: f/5.6 or f/8
*_
With f/5.6 lenses, all the AF points will be horizontal-line sensitive only.
With f/8 lenses, AF will be possible with the center AF point being horizontal-line sensitive only. AF will not work with the other AF points.

The question is - does the 70-300 show as an F/4 or not?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I believe the OP has a 1D4 so



Where did you get the information about the af point performance, I'd like to know about the 60D? The manual  ?



briansquibb said:


> The question is - does the 70-300 show as an F/4 or not?



Are you asking if it still shows up as f4 when zoomed in and the aperture is actually f4.5-5.6?



Tijn said:


> Keep in mind that the 70-300 f/4-5.6 _will not make use of the increased sensitivity f/2.8 center AF point_.



Thanks for the information about how valuable 2.8 really is - if anyone else could join in I'd be obliged because I nearly decided I'll get the 70-300/4-5.6 and save the 1000€ premium for the 70-200/2.8+extender combination.

Concerning af and light: good point, I nearly forgot about that. On the other hand, currently I'm shooting with an older 2.8 prime, and the 60D af is quite crappy anyway so I wonder how much worse it can get 

Does anyone have any first- or second-hand comparisons how much the af performance is lowered in real world applications when switching from 2.8 to something like f4-f5.6? Tele converters like the 2x lower the af speed, but I don't know if this is the reason.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 26, 2012)

Would the 70-200 have enough reach?


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 26, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Tijn said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind that the 70-300 f/4-5.6 _will not make use of the increased sensitivity f/2.8 center AF point_.
> ...



I can only relate to series 1 AF so that rules out help for you - but not for Harv who has the 1d4


----------



## Tijn (Feb 26, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Thanks for the information about how valuable 2.8 really is - if anyone else could join in I'd be obliged because I nearly decided I'll get the 70-300/4-5.6 and save the 1000€ premium for the 70-200/2.8+extender combination.


When using a 1.4x extender on the 70-200 f/2.8, it will effectively become 98-280 *f/4* and so that combination will also not benefit from the f/2.8 focus points (but it will still benefit from _all_ the f/4 crosstype points, which the 70-300 would not).
Keep in mind though: the 70-300 AF is still "stellar", even with its relatively small apertures. When saying that the 70-300 is a downgrade AF wise, I'm primarily speaking in comparison to f/2.8 lenses (without extenders). Using an extender slows both aperture and AF, so the 70-200 would be much closer to the 70-300 in performance. But the 70-200 f/2.8 is still a more versatile lens, as it can be used without an extender in closer-distance situations with its increased f/2.8 focus ability, with the reduced DOF also being suitable for portraits and whatnot.

If you're considering the 70-300 vs 70-200 f/2.8 *+ 1.4x extenter*, I really wouldn't know which is better AF-wise.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Would the 70-200 have enough reach?



For me? I recently opened a long thread "Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L" and the conclusion for me was that for my outdoor activity, I want the 200-300 reach (i.e. less extender switching) and the lower weight - not to mention the much smaller price tag than 70-200/2.8+extender.

The only reason I am still thinking about the 70-200/2.8 because I might try to earn some $$$ in the future with photography. I am living in Berlin after all, so there's much competition but no end of good shooting occasions, too.

If people say I could start off with the 70-300 and my aps-c body, too, I'm fine - I can still sell the stuff and get full frame + 2.8 lenses for 5000€+ if it works out. On the other hand, If my starting combination would be so crappy that I couldn't do anything with it at all except amateur recreation shots, I might think again.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 26, 2012)

Tijn said:


> But the 70-200 f/2.8 is still a more versatile lens, as it can be used without an extender in closer-distance situations with its increased f/2.8 focus ability, with the reduced DOF also being suitable for portraits and whatnot.
> 
> If you're considering the 70-300 vs 70-200 f/2.8 *+ 1.4x extenter*, I really wouldn't know which is better AF-wise.



I use the 70-300L on the 1Ds3 for head and shoulders personal portraits where I find the clients prefer f/4 or f/5.6.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> considering the 70-300 vs 70-200 f/2.8 *+ 1.4x extenter*, I really wouldn't know which is better AF-wise.


I can try to answer that for the 60D: Since the 70-200/2.8is2 is not the latest generation of Canon lenses - time moves fast - the af speed is lowered when using an extender. Other than the said 1D, on the 60D all 9 af points are cross up to f5.6 (except for a few legacy lenses, see link below). Thus, the faster af speed of the 70-300 should outweigh the difference to a slower f4 because the "high precision" center af is only available at f2.8 and better.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=657



briansquibb said:


> I use the 70-300L on the 1Ds3 for head and shoulders personal portraits where I find the clients prefer f/4 or f/5.6.


That's my personal experience, too - the reason is that a too bokehish background looks like the subject was standing in front of a green screen when shooting and then the background was replaced with a blur. Maybe this somehow seems to focus the eye too much on the portrait and the person's "shortcomings"? Or is it because you cannot get the tip of the nose into the dof at the same time as the ears with 2.8?


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 26, 2012)

I find that for portraits they everythinng from the tip of the nose to behind the ear in focus. How much the bg is blurred is a function of the distance from the person to the bg.

I was shooting on Friday with the 400 f/2.8 + 2x II and didn't spot any slow down - was getting birds in flight without problem - so I suspect the slowdown is more apparent ih the lab than in the field


----------



## Harv (Feb 26, 2012)

Lot's of great input. Thanks, guys.

Brian, I checked this out with a friend. For the record, when shooting in AV priority or manual mode, and the lens is set wide open at f/4 on the 70mm setting, it shows in the viewfinder as increasing as the focal length is increased, ending up at f/5.6 for 300mm. When racked back, it starts to open up again, finally at f/4 on the 70mm setting.

As such, I'm guessing the available precision focus points will change as the focal length changes.

I'm now thinking the only way to find out if it will work well enough in a racing environment is to go with it and use it for a couple of races. If it doesn't work out, I can always sell it to one of you guys here. 

Now I just have to wait a couple of months for the racing season to start.


----------



## Cardad (Feb 26, 2012)

I am really happy with this lens for motorsports. I rented one last year for a race and it was so much faster focusing than my 70-300 non-L, I bought one. I am shooting a 7D, so I cannot compare my setup to yours. Also, I am just a hobbyist. I have pictures posted in Flickr if you are interested in seeing how some of mine came out.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157627769392597/


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 26, 2012)

Cardad said:


> I am really happy with this lens for motorsports



Good pictures, I'm looking forward even more to next week when I'll get it myself  ... and to me it proves one of the few advantages of a smaller max. aperture lenses (apart from being cheaper and less heavy): You can just dial in 1/1000s in Tv mode like you did and shoot away w/o wondering if you end up with a too shallow depth of field of 2.8.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 26, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Cardad said:
> 
> 
> > I am really happy with this lens for motorsports
> ...



.... on series 1 and 7d you can have it in M - dial in aperture and shutter speed and set iso to auto ....


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> .... on series 1 and 7d you can have it in M - dial in aperture and shutter speed and set iso to auto ....


*doh* never thought of that, of course it works on my 60d, too. I guess I'm still stuck in the analog days and this auto-iso thingy just hasn't reached my brain yet  ... thanks!


----------



## JoeDavid (Feb 26, 2012)

I'm not new to Canon Rumors but have just recently joined the forums. I was hoping to find something a little more sane than the drivel over a DPReview.com. I'm beginning to wonder though. I read a couple of comments in this thread where the 70-300L IS was favorably compared to the 70-200L IS II. Only in someone's dreams do those two lenses compare in image quality for a full frame camera. The 70-300L is an EF lens but is positioned more as a step up for crop camera users. It is a great lens (optical quality-wise) for crop cameras and it is a good lens for FF; just not a great lens. It is ever so soft in the extreme corners on FF. In practice you wouldn't see it in most types of shots with shallow depth of field masking it but, if you're lens testing with something like a brick wall, it's visible in the shots...

From out of Canon's mouth:

"While it’s a great match for full-frame cameras, like the EOS 5D Mark II, this lens really comes into its own when used with an APS-C size sensor camera, like the EOS 60D or 7D, or a Rebel series digital SLR."

And, yes, I own both lenses. I personally wouldn't use the 70-300L for motorsports for a completely different reason. It is small enough that I'd want to handhold it but, if you do, the reversing of the zoom and focusing rings is a problem for me. I tend to cradle the camera/lens combination with my hand supporting the lens. With the two rings reversed, I tend to get on the focusing ring by mistake. I use the 100-400L instead...

The source of the Canon quote is the second page if the article:

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/lens_positioning_article.shtml


----------



## Harv (Feb 27, 2012)

Thanks to all who have commented and shared their opinions on a variety of alternative suggestions.

I already know how good the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the 300 f/2.8L IS are. That's what I am currently using. Their performance is stellar. I also know that the focal length range I need is 70mm - 300mm. It would be nice to have it in a single lens. The 100-400 just won't do it for me. I have owned that lens and know this from experience.

Corner sharpness is not critical for me in this application as you can see from the examples of what I am shooting that are posted below. I know the 70-300L delivers excellent image quality as I have read and seen from images posted by others. My concern is how quickly and accurately it will lock AF on subjects appearing suddenly and disappearing just as suddenly. Often I only see the subject when clearing the top of a jump with only the sound of it coming as a warning.

I was hoping someone out there has used one in a similar situation and could comment on that aspect of the lens.

The images below should provide a sense of what I am dealing with.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 27, 2012)

Nothing quite like the fastest "motor sport" there is...

Canon 7D and 70-300 L


----------



## Cardad (Feb 27, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Cardad said:
> 
> 
> > I am really happy with this lens for motorsports
> ...



Thanks for the comment and hope you will enjoy your new lens. To me, 1/1000 is good for freezing the motion for the head on shots at 300mm. I agree, in these shots, you are not looking for shallow DOF. That said, I much prefer the slower shutter speed panning shots to show action. Again, with sufficient light, wide aperture is not essential. 

The question for the pros and gear experts, and this also speaks to the question by the OP, is how significant (real world) is the AF speed difference between the f/2.8 and f/5.6 L lenses?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 27, 2012)

JoeDavid said:


> Only in someone's dreams do those two lenses compare in image quality for a full frame camera. The 70-300L is an EF lens but is positioned more as a step up for crop camera users.





Harv said:


> I already know how good the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the 300 f/2.8L IS are. That's what I am currently using. Their performance is stellar. I also know that the focal length range I need is 70mm - 300mm. It would be nice to have it in a single lens. The 100-400 just won't do it for me.



Even if beating a dead horse: please be aware that comparing the 70-300L to the 70-200L+extender (ie. if you also want the 200-300 range) is like comparing it to the 70-300 non-L: It's a completely different class of lens, and that's why they don't cost the same! The white color and red ring seems to fool people to put them in the same category as 2.8 tele prime or zoom lenses, but the said lineup is just as JoeDavid said. If you want to compare it to anything, it's the 100-400L which is in the same price range.

Concerning iq: Looking at my 50k pictures I shot last year, I have to say corner sharpness seldom matters for me. Even if cropping nature pictures to a "golden cut" the sharp zone is mostly not in one of the corners, but the bokeh or "sharp noise" like grass is. And furthermore I'm using a crop body, and the sharpness falloff is only visible on full frame.

At the same time, for my ease of mind I am quite happy if carrying around not 5000€, but 2000€ when crawling through the woods - less gear that can be stolen, dropped in the river or overrun by a truck ... L build quality and weather sealing don't help in these cases, and this is a thing that's seldom thought of 

Personally, I'd be happier if the 70-300L was not white and had a black ring, it's the *price-iq-weight-length-zoomfactor-is-af* combination and tradeoff that makes it attractive. And as proven here, you can pretty good shots out of it.


----------



## Harv (Feb 29, 2012)

Thanks for all the comments and input, folks. My 70-200/2.8L IS II and 300/2.8L IS will remain among my prized possessions.

In the meantime, I have a 70-300L now sitting in my cabinet awaiting real world testing when the racing season begins here in May. I suspect it may perform just fine, but time will tell.


----------

