Best lens for action ski shots?

**Bdog325** · 12-03-2018, 02:35 PM

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?

**reckless toboggan** · 12-03-2018, 02:49 PM

**grskier** · 12-03-2018, 02:56 PM

What type of shot are you trying to get?
Where?

**smmokan** · 12-03-2018, 03:55 PM

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.

**nickwm21** · 12-03-2018, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by smmokan

Or for Sony, one of the A6000 series cameras along with their 18-135mm lens.

I’m not a good Photographer but I use this....

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**adrenalated** · 12-03-2018, 04:26 PM

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)

**ACH** · 12-03-2018, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by reckless toboggan

Well FKNA!

**Supermoon** · 12-03-2018, 05:09 PM

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.

**ridinshockgun** · 12-03-2018, 09:35 PM

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.

**Bdog325** · 12-03-2018, 09:45 PM

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

**MakersTeleMark** · 12-03-2018, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by ridinshockgun

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.

**2nd mate** · 12-19-2018, 03:24 PM

Are you using a EF-M adapter for your M50?

Thanks

**smmokan** · 12-19-2018, 06:46 PM

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.

**2nd mate** · 12-19-2018, 06:56 PM

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

**smmokan** · 12-19-2018, 09:09 PM

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.

**GoldenBC** · 01-03-2019, 11:03 AM

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?

**smmokan** · 01-03-2019, 11:25 AM

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.

**GoldenBC** · 01-03-2019, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by smmokan

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

**smmokan** · 01-03-2019, 01:47 PM

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.

**Norseman** · 01-03-2019, 02:12 PM

That 16-70 f4 Zeiss looks nice.

Should've added it to my Christmas list. Maybe I'll just go buy it!

**GoldenBC** · 01-03-2019, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by smmokan

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.

**smmokan** · 01-03-2019, 04:55 PM

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.

**snapt** · 01-03-2019, 05:23 PM

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.

**zion zig zag** · 01-03-2019, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Norseman

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

**adrenalated** · 01-03-2019, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by adrenalated

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.