Glass for aspiring ski photog

[kalisto]

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.

Basically.

I always pick a lens for the day and stick with it. Switching lenses when I'm out there seems like a pain... and I don't really want to carry a spare lens while touring.

[ex-powderbroker]

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.

Thanks for the photo lesson, i just don't want to assume that i'll always want to shoot at 2.8 just because it's there... and sometimes it's nicer to get scenics with a large f-stop....even late in the day if possible. I guess it's really just a question of price though, all the glass is good and would serve its purpose.


Anyway, I always used to make do with my 50mm 1.2 on the 35, 90mm on the 4x5 .... just kinda bending my mind around the possibilities of zoom really right now....

[arild]

Thanks for the photo lesson, i just don't want to assume that i'll always want to shoot at 2.8 just because it's there... and sometimes it's nicer to get scenics with a large f-stop....even late in the day if possible. I guess it's really just a question of price though, all the glass is good and would serve its purpose.


Anyway, I always used to make do with my 50mm 1.2 on the 35, 90mm on the 4x5 .... just kinda bending my mind around the possibilities of zoom really right now....

It sounds like you want the 70-200 f/4 IS. Sharpest zoom Canon has ever made, and a lot lighter than either of the f/2.8 versions. About as "cheap" as the f/2.8 without IS. I don´t think I´ve ever shot at daytime with snow at apertures much wider than f/5.6 anyway.

For what it´s worth, I love Sigma´s version of the 70-200/2.8. Fast AF and very sharp from f/3.5 and narrower. I think it´s slightly lighter than Canon´s equivalent. No weather seals or IS, but can be gotten very cheap.

The only lens I really use these days is a 50/1.4 Sigma (on a first gen 1D). Sickeningly sharp and fast. I don´t shoot much skiing, though.

[Tippster]

Once again: the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is one stop. Most skiing is done in bright conditions. A one stop difference can be made up by doubling the ISO - if you're shooting in sunlight at ISO 100 just shoot those settings at ISO 200. You'll get the exact same shutter speed, which is the first key of stopping motion. The second is panning with your subject to reduce subjective motion.

[t.odd]

just want to say thanks for this thread, in the market for a new body and this is helping, a lot.....

[JoeStrummer]

If you're buying it to shoot video get fixed-focal length (AKA "prime") lenses since you won't be doing any on-air zooms anyway unless it's with your feet. The added speed (f-stops) will help you tremendously. If you're mainly shooting stills get good (UD glass) zooms that are as fast as you can afford. Fuck the aftermarket - there is very little glass on this planet better than a Canon "L" lens and you'll still be using them when you show your grandchildren how to shoot.

My $40-$60 beater ebay Zuiko lenses take better video and stills than a lot of my L glass on my 5D Mk II.

So many choices out there!

[ex-powderbroker]

i kind of wish i had the dough for the IS after shooting with the lens for a month now. it is sharp as fuck when you have the light though.

[Viva]

My $40-$60 beater ebay Zuiko lenses take better video and stills than a lot of my L glass on my 5D Mk II.

Well, he did say "fuck the aftermarket", did he not?

I'm with truth on this one; the better lenses from Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Canon, Minolta are markedly superior to those offered by Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, et al.

That said, one of my favorite lenses ever was my little Tokina SMC 35mm-105mm. None of my best images were created using it, but many of my favorite shots were.

[smmokan]

I'm with truth on this one; the better lenses from Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Canon, Minolta are markedly superior to those offered by Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, et al.

That's where the trade-off for price comes in. Some of the Sigma and Tamron lenses are amazing for what they cost.... but if you want top quality lenses, then you're going to have to pony up for the expensive Canon/Nikon/etc glass.

Personally, I have two Sigma lenses- the 10-20 and the 18-125 OS. The competitor for the 10-20 is the Canon 10-22, which is about $250-300 more... so it was a no-brainer. The competitor for the 18-125 OS is probably the 28-135 or the 18-135, and I'll gladly take my 18-125 over either of those. It all depends on what you're looking for... once I get into higher-priced glass, then its Canon brand all the way.

[JoeStrummer]

Well, he did say "fuck the aftermarket", did he not?

I'm with truth on this one; the better lenses from Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Canon, Minolta are markedly superior to those offered by Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, et al.

That said, one of my favorite lenses ever was my little Tokina SMC 35mm-105mm. None of my best images were created using it, but many of my favorite shots were.

You are right, my mistake. I was lumping in el cheapo used manual focus lenses with the aftermarket. I love shooting with $50 Pentax ebay specials on my $2500 bodies but that isn't the same as Tamron or Siggy.

I have a Tammy I carry for climbing because I don't give a shit about it and it's good enough for my old age scrapbook. It's captured a lot of my favorite memories. But none of that reverse engineered stuff is as good as the stuff from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Oly, etc. I am not someone who blindly fellates "L" series glass but most of those lenses are well worth the price increase over aftermarket.

ml242 - Do you have any images and exif you can post for stuff you aren't satisfied with?

[Wiilbert]

That's where the trade-off for price comes in. Some of the Sigma and Tamron lenses are amazing for what they cost.... but if you want top quality lenses, then you're going to have to pony up for the expensive Canon/Nikon/etc glass.

Personally, I have two Sigma lenses- the 10-20 and the 18-125 OS. The competitor for the 10-20 is the Canon 10-22, which is about $250-300 more... so it was a no-brainer. The competitor for the 18-125 OS is probably the 28-135 or the 18-135, and I'll gladly take my 18-125 over either of those. It all depends on what you're looking for... once I get into higher-priced glass, then its Canon brand all the way.

What do you think of the 10-20? I've been looking at one for my Sony A200 mainly for skiing use.

[smmokan]

I love it. I haven't used it for skiing yet, but for everything else its a lot of fun.

I bought it before my honeymoon back in May with the expectation of using it for two weeks and then selling it when I got back... but it was on my camera 60% of the time and its way too much fun to get rid of.