Glass for aspiring ski photog

[Rubicon]

Otherwise the 70-200 f/4L is fantastic, the 2.8 is an amazing lens but it is several pounds heavier which is something to take into account if you're lugging this around the hill every day

Nikon really, really needs to make a 70-200 f/4L. I have considered switching to Canon just for this lens and the reason you mention, as well as extended hiking trips and travel. [/thread hijack]

And that's relevant to this thread how?




Fuck this place pisses me off.

Not sure what you are so butthurt about. I like the random thread drift, and am always grateful when people are willing to share their knowledge and thoughts. I have learned things that I never would have though to look into otherwise.

[RagDoll]

In regards to my photo-JONGiness, yes I should have known it was a 1.6 crop, but alas most of the research I did was for things like speed, fps rate, megapixel count, 1080 vs. 720 vid, etc...I guess I just assumed it was a full frame because I've never been even looking at cameras this nice, and assumed for the price tag that most cameras in this range would be full frame.

So to move on with the thread, I assume the 10-22 is useless and I should really be looking at something in the 14? 16?ish a for the wide end of the glass spectrum.

Regardless I won't be buying a wide angle right away anyway. It seems like the general consensus is to start with a 70-200mm? I guess my initial instinct is to go with a mid range before a long lens for a bit more versatility, but feel free to weigh in--my thoughts are with the megapixel count on this bad boy I can always crop images if I ccan't get close enough (for now).

In regards to non AF prime lenses--they're out, at least for now. There will be a lot of video shot on this thing, but not so much that I'm willing to get rid of the photo-relevant features of a lens, i.e. zoom and autofocus. Plus even on the video side of things, true I won't be doing any mid-shot zooms but still nice to have the option to change focal lengths on the fly if I have to. I get the suggestion and appreciate it but for current purposes the cash for an arsenal of primes is not worth it for me.

[wren]

Buy the 7D kit that comes with the 15-85 (cheapest way to buy this lens) and buy a used 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). Based on your experience with the 15-85 you can decide if you need something faster or if you like having that wide range. If you don't like the 15-85 you can sell it for at least as much as you paid for it.

[LeeLau]

This thread has convinced me to buy a 70 200 f4 lens.

It's also reminded me that my 10 - 22 lens is so damn good that the Sigma 17- 70 is shit in comparison and that I wish I had bought an equivalent lens with reach as the 17 - 70 that had as good AF as my 10 -22. But that's another thread. Damn why is photography so expensive?

[wren]

There's a new Sigma 17-70 that was just released. Now has IS (or OS) and is a 1/3 stop faster on the long end (2.8-4.0 instead of 2.8-4.0). No idea on IQ though.

[Rubicon]

With a limited budget, if you are going to go wide then go wide 10-22, 3rd party 12-24, something like that. If you are going to go long then you can't go wrong with the 70-200 f/4.


I started out with a 24-70L on a Canon crop body when I made the jump to DSLRs. It was never quite wide enough and never quit long enough. But I learned what I was missing and the value of each end of the spectrum and knew which direction I wanted to go when I began to fill out my lens quiver, which turned out to be the opposite direction I thought it was before I spent some time shooting with the mid range zoom.

[LeeLau]

argh - why are you torturing me? Available at Amazon pre-order for 449

[Rubicon]

argh - why are you torturing me? Available at Amazon pre-order for 449

They do that on purpose to get exactly this reaction^^^


Christmas is coming up. Sure would be a nice Christmas present to yourself.[/]

[Hugh Conway]

Why on Earth would you buy old Nikon primes? That makes no sense at all.

Because they are awesome lenses?

I guess you wouldn't want them if you want the same shitty shots as everyone else. Oh look - it's faggots walking down the street! Yay!

[truth]

Because they are awesome lenses?

I guess you wouldn't want them if you want the same shitty shots as everyone else. Oh look - it's faggots walking down the street! Yay!

Wow. Just wow.

[warthog]

In all honesty though, if you're spending close to $2k on a body alone, you should know whether is a 1.6x, 1.3x, or full frame camera.

No shit huh? Maybe you should have started with a used 30d and spent the $$ on lenses and practice.

[smmokan]

So to move on with the thread, I assume the 10-22 is useless

Regardless I won't be buying a wide angle right away anyway. It seems like the general consensus is to start with a 70-200mm?

Not true, to both. The Canon 10-22 (or Sigma 10-20) is an awesome lens and can be used to take great pictures. Its a little pricey, but you'll have a ton of fun using it.

If you read the replies, your second assumption isn't exactly true either. I think you'll be disappointed if you ONLY have a 70-200 and nothing on the wide end. Most of the suggestions were to combine the 70-200 with something wider like the 17-55 or 15-85. The suggestion to buy the kit with the 15-85 and combine it with a 70-200 F4 is probably your best bet.

[Dromond]

argh - why are you torturing me? Available at Amazon pre-order for 449

I'm feeling a bit dumb, but where are you seeing this? I can't find it on the regular page for the lens.

It is too damned expensive, but it's hard to resist completing the two lens quiver of destruction with the 17-50.

[LeeLau]

It's a bit hard to find and i'd to do some weird search tricks. Here [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-70mm-2-8-4-Canon-Digital/dp/B002ZNJB32/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1260382103&sr=1-1"]goes[/ame] -

[Dromond]

It's a bit hard to find and i'd to do some weird search tricks. Here goes -

Hmm, I thought you were referring to the 70-200 F/4 being available for $449 preorder, but perhaps I was dreaming. (That links to the Sigma 17-70)

[smmokan]

Dromond- if you can catch Ebay's cashback deal at 20%, you could probably pick one up for around $450 there.

[Daywalker]

Hmmm, the idea of 18-200 for everything may be changing. Stupid photo geeks...

Quick question for you guys who actually know what you're doing... Is putting a 70-200 F4 on a Rebel XTi like Dynafits on Spatulas?

I'm enjoying shooting (sports mainly) with my camera and the 18-125 that I have but I've been wanting something longer. I was going to swap for an 18-200 and rock a one lens thing but if much better glass is equivalently priced... I figure somewhere down the road I'll get a decent wide.

[smmokan]

^^^ Nick, if you do that, you'll definitely want something wider too- maybe sell the 18-125 and pick up an 18-55 IS. I don't see a problem with putting the 70-200 F4 on the XTi.

[ex-powderbroker]

Is the 70-200 2.8 with IS a much better lens for skiing than the F4 without? I don't see the point of a taking either of these skiing if you get shaky zoom pictures... but I haven't tried either.

[kalisto]

Hmmm, the idea of 18-200 for everything may be changing. Stupid photo geeks...

Quick question for you guys who actually know what you're doing... Is putting a 70-200 F4 on a Rebel XTi like Dynafits on Spatulas?

I'm enjoying shooting (sports mainly) with my camera and the 18-125 that I have but I've been wanting something longer. I was going to swap for an 18-200 and rock a one lens thing but if much better glass is equivalently priced... I figure somewhere down the road I'll get a decent wide.

I have a 70-200 on an xti



Seems to do the job.

[Daywalker]

Damn, Kalisto.

Now I need to find one to fondle/weight/etc. in SLC prior to jumping in. What pack set-up do you use for skiing? The 70-200 takes up a bit more room then my current kit.

[arild]

Is the 70-200 2.8 with IS a much better lens for skiing than the F4 without? I don't see the point of a taking either of these skiing if you get shaky zoom pictures... but I haven't tried either.

IS won´t do shit for stopping subject motion, so not really. If you need the aperture, though, either f/2.8 version will be better. I think you need to read up on shutter speed and aperture. And start shooting in manual.

Think of it like this: You can shoot a perfectly sharp photo with IS at 1/10 second, but that photo will consist of still subjects and not much else, because the sensor, at that shutter speed, won´t be able to freeze any action.

[JoeStrummer]

70-200 F4 is fine for skiing. I shoot it with a 30D and can see the seams on a 96mph fastball on pictures taken from the outfield box.

[kalisto]

Damn, Kalisto.

Now I need to find one to fondle/weight/etc. in SLC prior to jumping in. What pack set-up do you use for skiing? The 70-200 takes up a bit more room then my current kit.

It's on an xti (which is stupid small), so it's not too terrible. I have a toploader I squish my camera into while skinning and such, then i just throw my camera in my jacket for the down (along with skins and various other things), no bag in that case...

As much as I love the lens, and love to bring it along, it IS a a fair bit bulkier. Also, when I'm in the alpine, I'd rather have my smaller lens (17-55)... I'm a sucker for scenic shots (with skiers+snowboarders of course).

This would be almost impossible with the 70-200 unless I was in a heli...


Still love the lens though.

[Dromond]

It's on an xti (which is stupid small), so it's not too terrible. I have a toploader I squish my camera into while skinning and such, then i just throw my camera in my jacket for the down (along with skins and various other things), no bag in that case...

As much as I love the lens, and love to bring it along, it IS a a fair bit bulkier. Also, when I'm in the alpine, I'd rather have my smaller lens (17-55)... I'm a sucker for scenic shots (with skiers+snowboarders of course).

This would be almost impossible with the 70-200 unless I was in a heli...


Still love the lens though.

Do you just throw the strap around your neck and zip up the coat and ski like that? Or perhaps there's some giant pocket action going on.

It does seem like most of the time you just want to pick your lens and stick with it for the day. I am just about sure I would end up getting snow on my sensor while switching lenses in the mountains.