Best Lens for Moving Action

[TexasRed]

OK .. I'll admit up front I'm strictly a novice wanting ya'lls general opinions on what my next lens should be for how I use one.

I shoot a LOT from the back of our Harley. For the last 4yrs I've been using a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 DG APO & being a total novice its been just fine for the primary purpose I'm using it for.

I really want to make the jump to the L-series Canon glass & am curious for the action/sports photographers here as to whether the 100-400 F4.5 IS USM would provide me the sharper images I believe Canon glass will under the same shooting scenarios - off the back of the bike? As a side note: I shoot with a Canon 40D.

All opinions are welcome. I love the clarity of shots here that folks have provided in that 100-400 thread, and I noted that many of those pix were hand-held which moves this lens on up my scale of "gotta haves" because all mine from the back of the bike are hand held. I do occasionally shoot birds & wildlife also -- but rarely ever do I use a mono/tripod.

I'm also quite interested in the push/pull zoom technology. Is that a PITA to use hand held. I've read about a thousand too many love/hate review on it but I've found no photos that demonstrate what the heck it really is..?

Thanks in advance!!
Kelli

[SecretAgent]

why aren't you interested in the 70-200 f/2.8L IS? i can't see you needing a 400mm (640mm on ur 40d) on the back of a bike. the 70-200 f/2.8 is widely considered one of, if not THE best action lens there is. a much better performer than your sigma version.

[TexasRed]

Well .. thats kinda why I was asking, but I've seen so many great action shots from the 100-400mm that I kept going back to it. And being a total novice just wanting to capture the great riding pix our group does all year long .. with the best lens I can afford.

I was only thinking of the 400mm because our normal riding group for multiple rides each year .. we run sweep {at the back of the pack} and I need to capture, on average, 25 or more bikes :)

Appreciate the tip! I'll definitely check into that one as well.

[toverman]

Sounds like you'd get more compelling shots of riders from the front of the pack (just an opinion). Bigger lenses are heavier, and the movement from the bike you're on would benefit from IS. If the 70-200 focal length was working for you, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS would be a stellar upgrade.

[TexasRed]

Thanks toverman .. we do run up to the front from time to time .. especially in the Hill Country, Colorado or New Mexico for the uphill climb shots ;) But we're old .. so we generally let the younguns run wide open up front so we can mosey behind. We're also generally the only one with a GPS & maps on us in the event any stragglers get lost. LOL

[bht-kevin]

I have the 100-400 and the thing gets so long I am not sure how usable it would be from the back of a bike without making helmet to lens contact with the front rider :) Seriously, its over 16inches long with the lens hood attached to my 40D at 400mm.

I would say look at the 70-200 F2.8 IS, even though I LOVE my 100-400L (but I use it mostly for wildlife)

When making a purchase that is sizable, I would just recommend renting your top 2 choices and then try them out. A weekend rental is less than $35 for either lens from Dallas Camera.

[RightAngle]

I would go with the 70-200 2.8L IS. I had the 100-400 in the push/pull thing kicked my butt and I ended up getting rid of it. Beyond that I also feel that the 70-200 w/ 1.4x is close enough in sharpness to the 100-400 that for most anything you will use it for you wont be hurt too bad by it. Plus even with the TC on there you have an f4 lens all the way through instead of one that starts at 4.5.

[BEphoto]

IMO, if you already have the 70-200 sigma, id go with something wider to give a really cool perspective on the back of the bike that you havent already explored. Maybe the 24-105L IS, if you think you really want to stay with the stabilizer. If you feel comfortable without it (wider angle lenses can take far slower shutter speeds without noticeable camera shake) id even say something like the 16-35L or 17-40L.

Basically i dont see, personally, the reason to buy a $1700 lens with the exact same specs as one you already own. Maybe buy a 1.4x or 2.0 if you want to use it for wildlife. I think you would benefit more by having a completely new angle of view to shoot with. With a wide angle on the back of the bike you could probably even get the driver and some of the bike in view along with all the open road and the landscape on each side.

Also, wide angles are lighter, smaller, and easier to handhold.

BTW, im not saying dont ever upgrade the Sigma 70-200 to the Canon 70-200, I just wouldnt put it at the top of my priority list since you already have that focal range covered, and as you said it has served its purpose just fine for the last four years. I own the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS and it stays on my camera 95% of the time it seems like. Its definitely a great lens and worth every penny. I would just explore other focal lengths first, then come back and do your upgrading.

Just something to keep in mind.

[TexasRed]

Totally understand where your coming from BE .. but my biggest concern is I guess, at this point, I probably need to have the Sigma serviced and/or replaced. Its seen over 92,000mi on the back of that bike in every weather condition you could think of over the last 4yrs ;) I dont even know {or never kept track} of how many shots have been taken with it -- but its in the tens of thousands at this point.

One of the few things I can see, even with a novice eye, is that the images are starting to get a little soft when I load & view on my PC. The PC is news & my eyes get checked annually .. so it does appear to be losing its original luster. I can say after its last service/major cleaning after a 4100mi trip through the Southwest 2yrs ago .. it did sharpen up a bit.

I will do some homework on that 24-105L IS. Seems like a nice range to own as well. I do want to have the IS because I shoot handheld more than anything & from all reviews of Canon glass in general it appears that the speed of their AF over - certainly Sigma - is unchallenged.

Thanks for everyone's help!