Supra wrote:Only own/use the Canon Lens! I find it's excellent, but that's not a 'fair' assessment because I've only tried the others at camera exhibitions.
Please allow me to make a couple of other observations,
1] You don't really want to 'freeze' F1 action, best to see wheels & background blurred for impression of speed. If you mean get the subject in focus, that's different.
2] You don't say the problem with higher ISO, but I'm guessing noise? There are numerous post-processing noise-reduction programmes available to minimise this.
3] 2.8 aperture can make depth of field critical on a three-quarter approaching shot, be it F1 car or aircraft. Particularly in the case of the overall length of say a B52, where the wing-root is in focus but the nose & tail are not! Fine for 'Sammy side-ons' but otherwise tricky, even given the quality of the edge definition on a Canon 70-200.
4]Maybe think laterally. If excellent high ISO / Low-noise qualities are required often enough to justify the cost of a 2.8 lens, try to research a second-body that has this attribute & allocate the lens cost to that instead? Great high-ISO performance Canon Bodies are out there. Allied to the 100-400 Mk II this would not disappoint.
Users browsing this forum: GreenBat and 7 guests