Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 63
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    247

    Best lens for action ski shots?

    What kind of lens do you guys prefer to take ski pics? Are you guys shooting in the 18 to 55mm range or going telephoto?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,871
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    the situation strikes me as WAY too much drama at this point

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Carbondale
    Posts
    10,375
    What type of shot are you trying to get?
    Where?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    13,909
    I'm not sure there's one single "best" lens. Like grskier said above, it depends on the photographer. I think you've got a lot of guys who prefer to use a longer zoom like the 70-200mm f/4 (or 2.8), and then you've got tons of options for a wider-angle perspective.

    Of course, it also depends on which camera you're using, as there are different choices for different brands. Personally, I shoot Canon and my go-to lenses are either the 15-85mm or 18-135mm plus the 70-200 f/4L. If you're shooting full-frame, I'd go with the 24-105 f/4L to replace either of the first two I previously listed.

    And... if you want a light setup, I'd look into mirrorless options from Sony, Canon or Fuji. I have the Canon M50 and the 18-150mm EF-M lens and it's awesome for mountain biking action shots (haven't used it for skiing yet). Or for Sony, one of the A6000 series cameras along with their 18-135mm lens.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    livin the dream
    Posts
    3,491
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    Or for Sony, one of the A6000 series cameras along with their 18-135mm lens.
    Iím not a good Photographer but I use this....



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Best Skier on the Mountain
    Self-Certified
    1992 - 2012
    Squaw Valley, USA

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,342
    I am also not a good photographer, but I also use an a6000 and if I had the money I'd buy the 18-200mm lens for it.
    I mostly backcountry ski and find that safe travel practices regularly dictate that I'm not close to the action, so I appreciate having a long telephoto.
    (I currently alternate between the 16-50mm and 55-210mm kit lenses)
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Summit North
    Posts
    4,349
    Quote Originally Posted by reckless toboggan View Post
    Well FKNA!
    Alpental Indigenous
    Member PNWFSC

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stumptown
    Posts
    5,751
    Pretty much everything smmokan said.

    Also make sure whatever lenses you pick up have fast and accurate AF. A lot of that is in-camera, but some lenses just focus better than others. It sucks to miss that perfect moment because of a slow focusing lens.

    Another thing to think about is lens flare. I shoot Nikon, and I love my 24-120 most of the time, but the lens flare is so bad on it I have stopped taking it out on really sunny days when I can't take my time to mitigate it. Some lenses give you nice, small, fairly pleasing flare and others give you totally shitty distracting flare. I've found skiing and water sports are the worst for that sort of thing.

    Edit: and another vote for an 18-200 on a crop sensor. When I was shooting my D90 that's the only lens I ever had on my camera.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    590
    Really like the a6000 and 18-200. But for most days the 16-50 kit lens is really good and then I can fit the camera in the waist belt pocket of my backpack. You sacrifice some performance but I find I use the camera much more when its easily accessible and carry it with me more often if it isn't going to weight me down. Because I suck enough already and dont need a camera making me slower.

    The Sony 35mm 1.8 prime is great for low light forest shots and you can get some really quality shots in a lightweight package with a compact prime lens and a mirrorless setup.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    247
    Thanks for your guys's input. I've been shooting for a while and have wanted to start doing some more action stuff. I have the Nikon d5300 (crop) with a 18-55 and a 70-300 af-p which I love.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,469
    Quote Originally Posted by ridinshockgun View Post
    The Sony 35mm 1.8 prime is great for low light forest shots and you can get some really quality shots in a lightweight package with a compact prime lens and a mirrorless setup.
    Been meaning to start a prime lens thread. I'll do that now.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,074
    Are you using a EF-M adapter for your M50?

    Thanks
    A woman reported to police at 6:30 p.m. that she was being "smart-mouthed."

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    13,909
    Yep, I do use one occasionally with my 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. I used to have the Canon version, and now I have the "mmLite" (?) brand that I got off Amazon for $40. Can't tell an ounce of difference with regards to performance or quality.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,074
    Shit! I knew I should have bought that warranty M50 you were selling. I really should consider that option as I am pretty sure a M50 with a 70-200 will fit into my Miggo large DSLR holster that's "storm proof"

    Thanks for making my next purchase much harder
    A woman reported to police at 6:30 p.m. that she was being "smart-mouthed."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    13,909
    That was actually the M5.... but now I own the M50. There have been a bunch of sales recently on the M50, you can probably find one for under $500 pretty easily after Xmas.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    242
    I’m shooting on a Sony a6000. I’m debating between the 24-105 f4 and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6. I will definitely get a wide angle later and I am building out the collection with the intention of switching to full frame later.

    I can’t make up my mind between these two lenses. I love shooting telephoto compression style action shots but they aren’t the majority of shots. I feel like the 24-105 won’t give me wide angle and won’t let me shoot from another ridge or bottom of the run. It might be my go to mtn bike lens though.

    Thoughts?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    13,909
    What about the Sony 16-70 f/4? That lens is sharp, smaller, and covers a pretty nice range on the a6000. That's probably the first lens I'd buy if I had a Sony... I wish there was a Canon equivalent.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    What about the Sony 16-70 f/4? That lens is sharp, smaller, and covers a pretty nice range on the a6000. That's probably the first lens I'd buy if I had a Sony... I wish there was a Canon equivalent.
    Seems like a sweet lens, only problem is it is not for full frame

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    13,909
    Ah, I missed that part. Personally, I'd buy APS-C lenses for an APS-C camera, and then upgrade/update later. The 24-105 will be OK for skiing pictures, but like you said it's not very wide for landscapes and is too short to zoom significantly.

    That's the problem I've found with full-frame lenses... there really isn't one "do it all" lens like the Sony 18-135 or Canon 18-150. The options are much more specialized (and expensive), which for me means I'll always have a crop sensor camera for things like hiking, MTB'ing, skiing, etc. I don't want to bring along two heavy lenses to cover the same range as one smaller lens.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,520
    That 16-70 f4 Zeiss looks nice.

    Should've added it to my Christmas list. Maybe I'll just go buy it!
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    Ah, I missed that part. Personally, I'd buy APS-C lenses for an APS-C camera, and then upgrade/update later. The 24-105 will be OK for skiing pictures, but like you said it's not very wide for landscapes and is too short to zoom significantly.

    That's the problem I've found with full-frame lenses... there really isn't one "do it all" lens like the Sony 18-135 or Canon 18-150. The options are much more specialized (and expensive), which for me means I'll always have a crop sensor camera for things like hiking, MTB'ing, skiing, etc. I don't want to bring along two heavy lenses to cover the same range as one smaller lens.
    That could be a huge money pit switching everything. More importantly to this discussion, I guess people people should say what they intend to do with the photos. These long range zooms (18-135, 16-70) are reportedly not the greatest quality. Are you shooting for Instagram or to sell? I am beginning to sell stuff and want to accommodate that with my lens selection.

    I worry about the size of my kit and that I will hesitate bringing it places. I will always have my apsc and a small lens for that.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    13,909
    If you buy new lenses, then I agree- it would definitely be a money pit. That said, I can't remember the last time I bought a new lens- I buy everything off POTN and FredMiranda and have had great luck. I'd much rather pay 30-40% less and get something that's lightly used.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Behind the Potato Curtain
    Posts
    3,364
    For that D5300 look for a used Sigma 50-150 2.8. Light and Fast and gives you similar coverage to the 70-200 options for much less money. They can be found for $400 or less for the older non VR versions.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Ogden
    Posts
    5,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    That 16-70 f4 Zeiss looks nice.

    Should've added it to my Christmas list. Maybe I'll just go buy it!
    Nah, you want this: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...Z-18-105mm-f-4

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,342
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    I am also not a good photographer, but I also use an a6000 and if I had the money I'd buy the 18-200mm lens for it.
    I mostly backcountry ski and find that safe travel practices regularly dictate that I'm not close to the action, so I appreciate having a long telephoto.
    (I currently alternate between the 16-50mm and 55-210mm kit lenses)
    Update: I rented the Sony 18-200 LE and was disappointed in the sharpness of it. Possibly user error.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •