Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

New Camera. New lense?

profile picture
kKid-Genius
Posts: 42 - Karma: 10

I am planning on soon purchasing the canon rebel xsi for photographing park skiing.

It will not be used strictly for this.  But majority of my timne will be spent photographing in the snow. At least until spring comes around.

So my question is which lense would be good for a beginner photographer for snow, action sports, and general photography.

And i remind you i am on a budget. but who the hell isn't these days

Dec 4 2009 3:22PM
0 0
profile picture
thegoat
Posts: 518 - Karma: 11
50mm 1.8

cheapest too.
Dec 4 2009 3:30PM
0 0
profile picture
kKid-Genius
Posts: 42 - Karma: 10

what mm lenses would be good for snow, and action sports.

and what is good for all around basic photography

Dec 4 2009 5:00PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
hahah shut up.

what exactly about this lens would be good for park skiing?
Dec 4 2009 5:22PM
0 0
profile picture
thegoat
Posts: 518 - Karma: 11
the 50mm 1.8 part

for referance I own:
17-40mm 4L,
50mm 1.8
70-200 4L

I use the 50 more then the other too combined.


If you don't know enough to make a good photo with the 50 1.8, how will you be able to do so with a more complicated lens.

Learn the basics first.
and the best telephoto lens is 2 steps forward and the best wide angle is 2 steps back.


Dec 4 2009 9:24PM
0 0
profile picture
Octopus
Posts: 1175 - Karma: 55
.
Dec 4 2009 9:44PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Sports photos are different than your standard Im artsy as fuck beginner shots. I would never want a prime lens nor need a fast lens for skiing. Its bright as fuck, you could get away with a 70-200 f/16 lens if they existed.

I would suggest getting a 70-200 if you want to get tight action shots, but like someone said a nice lazy lens like 18-135 should be alright.
Dec 4 2009 11:28PM
0 0
profile picture
dergblerp
Posts: 1303 - Karma: 77
I'm going to have to disagree with the 50mm 1.8 suggestion.  Really would be a terrible choice for skiing, especially with an APS-C sensor camera.  I love my 50 1.4, but I would never take it on the mountain.  Check out these lenses, they're good all around lenses that will be practical for learning with.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=19085
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/18200_diII.asp
Dec 5 2009 12:06AM
0 0
profile picture
thegoat
Posts: 518 - Karma: 11
I am talking about skiing dumbfuck.


get the 50 and work on your composition.

you get a some zoom lense and every single shot you take will be the same boring ass photo as the one before.
Dec 5 2009 12:27AM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
So do you actually think about what you type, or is it just spur the moment rambling?

Lets think about this one, your on the side of the job, trying to get that sick gnar gnar shot of your broha doing the straight air to daffy, and you have two lenses a 50 prime, and an 18-135. Now with the 50, you get a standard mid zoomed shot, but with an 18-135 you can get a really wide shot with maybe the lip and the deck (18) or you can get a super tight shot of your bro rocking that new jiberish. Now which lens do you REALLY think will give you the exact same shot every time?

Now, everyone in this thread that knows anything is disagreeing with you. A prime lens is very limiting, so it forces you to improve your shots in other sectors of photography. But they do have benefits of typically being very sharp and very fast. Now unless you are total fucking idiot, you will almost never be shooting skiing at 1.8/1.4, and more along the lines of f/8 or f/11, so having a fast lens is pointless.

Please, stop repeating what everyone else has told you and consider why you are saying these things.
Dec 5 2009 3:15AM
0 0
profile picture
thegoat
Posts: 518 - Karma: 11
the problem with zoom lenses is that in practice they just let people compensate for their poor choice of angle. Almost everyone who starts out using a zoom lens, especially one that can go 18-135mm is that they will just go to one location and then zoom in and out untill they get something they like. They won't walk around.

I can get a supper tight shot with the 50, by moving closer to the action. Just like I can get a wider shot by stepping back.

The 50 will make you move around and look for a better angle to frame the action.

I know what you said is theoretically true, but in practice it will just result in same shot.
when your close you will zoom out, and when you are far away you will zoom in.
with the 50 you don't have that ability. instead it will force you to either use what you can to frame the shot, or move around, during which you will discover different perspectives.


The more limiting you start out, the more creative you will become. The more creative you become the better your photographs will be.
It really is that creativity that sets the greats (in any type of photography) apart from the amateurs.

In Skiing for example. Grant Gunderson is arguably the best ski photographer shooting these days. The reason is his creativity. There are thousands of other photographers who can expose a photo as well if not better then Grant, there are ones who know more about synthetic lighting. What sets Grant apart is his ability to see a better way compose the shot, and frame the action.


Dec 5 2009 12:28PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
yeahhh nope.

If you give noob a prime you will get the same shot over and over again. I would never walk into a sporting event with a 50 prime, everyone would laugh at my stupidity.
Dec 5 2009 2:08PM
0 0
profile picture
thegoat
Posts: 518 - Karma: 11
only an noob would judge another photographer by what equipment they judge.
Dec 5 2009 2:12PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
clearly you have never been around a photographer that shoots for anything more than facebook.
Dec 5 2009 5:14PM
0 0
profile picture
Jordan
Posts: 4079 - Karma: 2,122
Despite and the goat -

You're both right to a certain extent. With a prime lens, you are forced to find different angles, you have to work with the camera to get what you're looking for. I shoot with a 50mm prime sometimes, but I am going to have to say, my 70-200mm f/ 2.8 is my most used lens. I use the 2.8 - 4 f stop all the time, DOF is key.

Also, for the longest time I was a gear whore believer, if you had a pro set up, you'd be beyond good. That's not the case. You could give a kid a D3x or Mark III with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a person who comprehends photography and knows composition etc... with a Rebel and a 50mm f/1.8 and the images from the rebel will be better...


So you can use whatever the fuck you want. I wouldn't recommend a super slow focusing lens, that's a pain in the ass. While I think you have more versatility with a lens like the 70-200mm doesn't mean a prime is bad for skiing/snowboarding photography.

Just my two cents.
Dec 5 2009 5:31PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
You have two lenses, a 70-200 & and 50 prime. You can only take one to your photo shoot on Chads gap.. you choose..?

Yes gear doesnt define the skill of the photographer, but in 90% of photographers will judge you on your gear whether they admit to it or not.

If I showed up to your shoot with a Rebel XT with kit 18-55, or I showed up with a Mark IV and 70-200 2.8, which version would you take more seriously?
Dec 5 2009 6:35PM
0 0
profile picture
Blandct
Posts: 1858 - Karma: 37
Well it's a good thing that at most shoots the clients aren't photographers. and generally speaking don't know much about photography. Put a battery grip on a rebel and all of a sudden it looks even better.
Dec 5 2009 6:45PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
All of those statements were directed at Jordan as a photographer. I never said anything about client.

Stop avoiding the truth, you know its true. Continuing to deny it is like saying it doesnt matter how you dress for an interview because the interviewers probably aren't fashion designers. You could be the laziest shittiest worker ever, but if you show up looking sharp, their first impression is going to be much higher than if you show up looking like a hood rat.

For reference, I have a Nikon D70s  /  Sigma 10-20  /  Tamron 17-50 f/2.8  /  Nikon 70-200 f/4-5.6, Sooo Im showing up with my tall tee tucked in.
Dec 5 2009 8:48PM
0 0
profile picture
thegoat
Posts: 518 - Karma: 11
you can go jerk off to that?
Dec 5 2009 9:01PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Its sad that many people have to resort to name calling when in a disagreement.
Dec 5 2009 9:03PM
0 0
profile picture
dergblerp
Posts: 1303 - Karma: 77
On a body with a crop sensor, I think i'd go for a 35mm f/2 if I were only buying one prime, just because that's much closer to the 50mm equivalent on an APS-C sensor.  When I shoot 35mm, my 50mm prime is my main lens, but on my 40D, it's just a little bit too long of a lens (approx 80mm equivalent with 1.6x crop factor) for casual shooting. 

BTW, anyone on here have a wide angle prime?  I want to buy one, but I really can't decide.  Canon's 35mm f/2 I don't think will be quite wide enough for what I'm looking for, so I was thinking about getting either the sigma 20mm F1.8 or 24mm 1.8.  Thoughts, trials, tribulations?
Dec 5 2009 9:41PM
0 0
profile picture
kKid-Genius
Posts: 42 - Karma: 10

So what i am looking at here is getting a 70-200 to start out my photgraphy venture. And eventually move on to get a 50 so i can learn  to shoot from "angles".

That and never show up to an interview with my tall tee hanging loww.

Is there any other essentials i should look into while developing my skills as a photographer.

Dec 7 2009 1:58PM
0 0
profile picture
Tbrody
Posts: 1597 - Karma: 685
35mm won't be wide unfortunately, as you already know it will come out to 50 on a smaller sensor.

I honestly can't find a lens thats wide and affordable and would love to find something that is.

My solution is a 35 1.8 DX lens for my D70 and an old Berolina 12mm with a Nikon adaptor (160$ on craigslist)

http://thesybersite.com/general/12mm-fisheye/index.htm
Dec 7 2009 2:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Tbrody
Posts: 1597 - Karma: 685
You're digging yourself into a hole bud. The prime lens is great, but if you are shooting any sort of sports photography, you never want to limit yourself with a prime lens. Why in the world would you want to hike around in snow just to change your shot. You are an idiot if you honestly think that it is worth it to take a prime lens to a snow shoot.

There is a good reason why professional photographers use zoom lenses and none shoot sports with a prime.

Because you never want to miss the shot.

Click for larger image
Dec 7 2009 2:42PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
THIS!

Holy fuck. For me I use both prime and zoom. Zoom for normal everyday (includes skiing) and prime when I want extreme DoF. Stop being little kids and get along. For skiing I wouldnt recommend a 50mm, you cant get in close. Wonderful, you can work on composition, however that wont help with skiing. I would recommend getting some sort of zoom telephoto lens. Im not going to keep writing because everyone touched on something, but seriously... grow up.
Dec 7 2009 3:16PM
0 0
profile picture
thegoat
Posts: 518 - Karma: 11
Those of you who are saying pros this and pros that, well yes your right. Professional photographers tend to use long lenses, as well as wide angles, as well as zooms. They know how to utilize them.

However this kid is not a pro, he is getting his first SLR. You give him the options of a huge zoom and he will just use it to compensate.
The 50 will give him a good lens that he can use for multiple subjects and genres of photography, while at the same time not breaking the bank.

I don't think he wants to go out and spend $600-$2000, which is what it takes to get a good zoom.
someone suggested a 70-300 4.5-5.6 or something along those lines. That is just money down the drain, he will want to replace it very soon.

The 50 is a lens that you can continue to use. It will allow him to get into photography more and decide if it is something he really likes and wants to get into, then he can go and get a nicer wide angle or zoom.

Dec 7 2009 7:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Chrris
Posts: 568 - Karma: 211
Hmm, personally, i'll just throw out an idea, 18-200 3.5-5.6
you get the best or everything. Sure you can't compare it to a 70-200 L f4 or the quickness and sharpness or high range of aperture to the 50 f1.8  BUT It's better quality then the 18-135 (or whatever) and has the ability to be a wide angle or zoom lens. It's not that bad of quality and it is a nice lens if you odn;t have the money to go out and buy a bunch. so maybe invest in that?
Don;t flame me because i'm not pro. But i know my fare share of stuff, and for someone whos just starting out, this is a good idea. You don;t have to worry about the higher aperture range because your shooting in snow (lots of glare) so other then that it's basically all you need.
Dec 7 2009 8:23PM
0 0
profile picture
RileySnyderPhoto
Posts: 688 - Karma: 1,451
He would outgrow the 50mm/ get tired of it fast... Zoom is a wonderful starter and something you can always get better with. You are very limited with a 50mm, say he wants to shoot a contest? He might not be allowed to get in close enough to get a close up of the rider. You can always work on composition with any lens you have. Zoom is the way to go for a first lens.

/thread
Dec 7 2009 8:28PM
0 0
profile picture
1080ski
Posts: 4424 - Karma: 191
Who cares what other people think. If you have a good photograph, it doesn't matter whatsoever. I hate to say it, but grow up. Nobody cares what you shoot with. I'm not trying to hate, but its sorta true.

and also, your comment about walking into a sports game with a 50mm lens, i sort of agree. I use my 50mm 1.8 for sports in a gym because the lighting sucks. i gotta keep it at 1.8 and iso 1000 to even freeze motion. I would hate to use it at 2.8 or above (which is what most nice zoom's are)

I do, however, agree on you with going for a zoom. A 50mm is great and will give great DOF but you really cant get the best angle all the time with a 50 on a mountain. On a cropped sensor, your looking at about an 80mm lens. There is no way that you'll always be able to get the shot you're looking for (depending on environment). With a zoom, you at least have some ability to get the angles you miss out on with the 50mm.

My first lens (other than the kit lens) was an 18-200 vr and i loved it. I knew about composition, how cameras work, etc... from my high school photography classes. I am replacing it with better lenses now (lower and fixed apertures, better sharpness, etc...) but i loved it to start with.
Dec 7 2009 11:08PM
0 0
profile picture
B.Snow
Posts: 1859 - Karma: 92
no way.
Dec 7 2009 11:39PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
You.
Still.
Don't.
Understand.

Skiing pictures and the 50mm dont go together. Get a telephoto lens, pick up a 50mm in the summer. HOW DO YOU KNOW HE WILL ALWAYS ZOOM IN/ZOOM OUT INSTEAD OF CHANGING POSITIONS?! Seriously... Give up....
Dec 8 2009 12:06AM
0 0
profile picture
thegoat
Posts: 518 - Karma: 11
I use my 50 more then then either my 70-200 or 17-40. just saying. Most people don't, but I do.
Dec 8 2009 1:04AM
0 0
profile picture
niels043
Posts: 814 - Karma: 184
think about an EF 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM. great beginner lens to start you ahead of the curb of rebel kit lenses, not to mention you can find it used in great shape for like $350.

50 1.8 is nice and cheap but personally i would just watch the bh used store and wait for a 50 f1.4 USM for like 300ish 200 more than the 1.8 but i think it's worth it and many people will probably disagree but that's just an opinion. i like it better because it's built a little bit better, usm for superior auto focus, and it's half a stop faster...
Dec 8 2009 1:14AM
0 0
profile picture
thegoat
Posts: 518 - Karma: 11
I know of some published photographers who have not gotten tired of it.

The idea is that you are limited.

so get creative.
I would argue that you just fell into the trap,
"he might not be allowed to get in close enough to get a close up of the rider."

So what? you can still get a great shot even if your not right up there.

I remember when no one started with a zoom, it was a 50 on a manual 35mm body. And your am sports shots were more then wide angle sequences and zoomed in no context of what is going on crap.


If you just want something to take half decent photos of you and your buds, save some money and get a g10, or 10g or what ever it is.

Maybe I am just getting old and cranky, but fuck I miss it when you actually had to put some effort in to get something that did not look like complete shit.


And to fugitive:
statistics.


I am done.
and dwhatshisface can go rub one out while he looks at his fancy 'glass'

Dec 8 2009 1:22AM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
You.
Still.
Dont.
Understand.

HE NEEDS A LENS FOR SKIING. A 50mm lens for skiing is stupid. Flat out stupid. I to, use my 50mm all the time, however not for skiing. And what about statistics?
I agree and say get the Canon 17-85mm. I used that before I went full frame.
Dec 8 2009 8:53AM
0 0
profile picture
1080ski
Posts: 4424 - Karma: 191
the point is that you'll be able to get more great shots with a more versatile lens. you have almost everybody in this thread against you, debunking your point over and over, and you still have the same argument. its wrong. i love the 50mm lens, but for skiing, its not a good way to go. your argument of people only having a 50mm lens on a 35mm body makes no sense for two reasons. First, a 50mm lens is not the same on a cropped body as it is on a 35mm body, and second, people weren't shooting action sports when these cameras just came out. If you dont buy my argument, then go ahead and use a 50mm on a 35mm body with a manual focus lens when you go skiing and see how that works out for you. There is a reason technology progresses. 50mm is great, but not for skiing.
Dec 8 2009 9:33AM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
I dont get it, are you personally telling me to grow up or photographers as a whole? It doesnt matter to me one bit if Im shooting with a worse off camera or lens than the next guy. The way I look at it, until I start to feel the need for features that I dont have on my camera (FPS, ISO), then I will feel my equipment is inadequate.

What shutter speed are you at? I have a tendency to just suck the grain up, and go to 1600 and that has given me good results at 2.8.
Dec 8 2009 12:01PM
0 0
profile picture
1080ski
Posts: 4424 - Karma: 191
I'm saying it to anybody who thinks that way. I took one of your posts as you saying you did but it hink i misread. My bad!

shutter speed in the gym is about 1/160 @ f1.8 and iso 1000. I found it captured womens basketball well (taken for my school's newspaper) if i panned with the players. The reason i dont go to 1600 is that my camera doesnt have that great of high iso performance. If its going into the paper its not bad because of the grain, but because my d200 is not sharp at all above 1000 (even that isnt too great).
Dec 9 2009 12:48AM
0 0
profile picture
Blandct
Posts: 1858 - Karma: 37
I wonder if these dudes all go out for beer after the game.
Dec 9 2009 1:33AM
0 0
profile picture
dergblerp
Posts: 1303 - Karma: 77
17-85 is an awesome lens.  I got that as the kit lens with my 40D, and I probably use it more than any of my other lenses.  I really only use my 50 1.4 for night time.  My 500mm I don't really use for anything... but it was free, so who cares. 
Dec 9 2009 2:09AM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
Wait, you use f/1.8 and panning? What mm lens? 50?
Dec 9 2009 12:09PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Yeah Ino I couldnt give two fucks about what you are shooting with as long as you produce results.
I shoot at 1600 all the time and it looks like ass on the D70s, so your working with gold compared to mine. But seriously 1/160? Whats that say about womens basketball lol.
Dec 9 2009 2:23PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61602 - Karma: 123,042
i lol'd
Dec 9 2009 3:01PM
0 0
profile picture
1080ski
Posts: 4424 - Karma: 191
hahaha!

and to fujative: i meant that in order to get the player to be sharp in the gym, I have to be moving the camera to match the player so they dont blur due to a slower shutter speed. and yes, 50mm f1.8. if i keep the camera still then the a running player will be blurry
Dec 9 2009 8:51PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
That is retarded. Sorry, but it is. 50mm on a cropped is 80, which still is not that close. but f/1.8.. the sharpness gap isnt that large, so I dont understand how they can be sharp, because they have to be falling out of the focusing plane.
Dec 10 2009 12:20PM
0 0
profile picture
jason...
Posts: 9006 - Karma: 780
Based on the good things I've been hearing about the 50mm f/1.8 I'm planning on buying that. You probably should too. It is a cheap lens, but good and very multifunctional. And it has been stated many times but on the 1.6 crop that comes with the rebel series it will function more like an 80mm.
Dec 10 2009 2:37PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
Wow. Have you not read anything is this thread? Yes the 50mm 1.8 is good, however... NOT for skiing... he wants a lens for skiing....
Dec 10 2009 2:57PM
0 0
profile picture
1080ski
Posts: 4424 - Karma: 191
well, it is sharp when i get the photos so does it matter how i do it? nope. Im still shooting at 1/160 so its not like i am panning a ton: it captures that extra little bit of movement that if i kept the camera still, it wouldnt have gotten.

and im confused at how you take sports photos: i am under the assumption that it is natural to follow the player through the viewfinder (otherwise, it would make no sense). how can you take a sports photo (not golf, but something like soccer or basketball) WITHOUT panning with the player to keep them on your focus points?
Dec 10 2009 6:26PM
0 0
profile picture
thegoat
Posts: 518 - Karma: 11
Fugitive's total lack of imagination limits his abilty to take photos,

he needs a wide angle or tele to take skiing photos, and is totally unable to shoot sports under 1/1000.
why? because other people don't.


Don't worry, if your able to your able to. Just because some one else lacks the creativity to find a solution does not mean your not going to be able to.
Dec 10 2009 6:30PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
nick.iodice- "well, it is sharp when i get the photos so does it matter how i do it? nope. Im still shooting at 1/160 so its not like i am panning a ton: it captures that extra little bit of movement that if i kept the camera still, it wouldnt have gotten.

and im confused at how you take sports photos: i am under the assumption that it is natural to follow the player through the viewfinder (otherwise, it would make no sense). how can you take a sports photo (not golf, but something like soccer or basketball) WITHOUT panning with the player to keep them on your focus points?"

@nick.iodice- I'm not taking about blur from motion or shutter speeds. I never said you couldn't do it. I said it cant be sharp. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion Circles of Confusion.f/1.8, as you know is a very shallow depth of field. Circles of Confusion is saying that something appears to be in focus, might really not be in focus. However if it is next to something that is out of focus, it appears sharp because it is the sharpest subject, however may not be in focus. So, with f/1.8 having very shallow focus, as someone is running with a basket ball or whatever, they might appear to be in focus, not not completely sharp. Now, I'm NOT saying your photos are not sharp, because I have never seen them. And I am not talking about motion blur at all, simply DoF. I don't know how you got that impression, but I follow my subjects with the auto focus points too. The only reason I wouldn't pan is for skiing or something. If I framed in my composition and wanted the skier to be within the composition. I'm not hating what so ever, I just want to figure out what going on.

thegoat- "Fugitive's total lack of imagination limits his abilty to take photos,

he needs a wide angle or tele to take skiing photos, and is totally unable to shoot sports under 1/1000.
why? because other people don't.


Don'tworry, if your able to your able to. Just because some one else lacksthe creativity to find a solution does not mean your not going to beable to."

@thegoat- 1. I never, ever said ANYTHING about using a wide or tele lens for skiing. kKid-Genius, the thread creator is buying a new camera, and wants a new lens for skiing. Ok, cool. Well I recommend a tele lens because (I believe) it would be very easy to take skiing photo because he wouldn't be to be right next to what he is taking pictures of. Since in skiing, he would rarely use f/1.8-f/3.5, when what not tape in zoom ring at 50mm on the kit lens? Sure f/1.8 is go for a lot of stuff, but remember what he said when he started the thread " But majority of my timne will be spent photographing in the snow." Therefore f/1.8 wouldn't be helpful.

Now back to the f/1.8 and creativity. Lets say, sure, he wants to use f/1.8 and take some awesome creative picture. Well I'm assuming he won't. I don't know, because I'm not kK-Genius. I know for me, when I first started learning on a film camera, about 7 years ago, I used a 70-200 and I absolutely love it. Now, I rarely use my 50mm f/1.8 when I ski. For the most part I use either my 28-135mm or 70-300mm. Therefore from my personal experience, I would recommend a telely lens.

Now, the address my "creativeness," fuck off. I go to one of the best fine art photography schools in the country. I know I'm creative, I don't give a fuck what you think.



There is my rant. I simplify want to get my point across.
Dec 10 2009 10:41PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)