Good Lens For Photographing Skiing?

Posts: 3937 - Karma: 678

Karma: 678

Posts: 3937

Addict

A pretty good lens quiver for shooting skiing, as far as I'm concerned, would be the following:
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.4
70-200mm f/2.8

and a 1.4x or 2x extension tube.

Now you have all your bases covered—wider stuff for sick urban and unconventional angles, a long lens for big mountain and being further away from stuff, like perhaps being on the opposite ridge or up the side of a valley above a jump, and everything in between.

But if your pockets aren't quite that deep (that quiver will set you back a couple grand) then you could just get a 50mm f/1.8 for a hundred bucks as a good start—it's a good [image]quality lens (both Canon and Nikon), and though the build quality is sheisty (almost all plastic) it lets in a lot of light and is pretty sharp.

And don't bitch about it not zooming, because you have legs.

Dec 21 2011 1:05PM

0 0

Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696

Karma: 696

Posts: 2811

Addict

I hate when people say that. Moving closer isn't nearly the same thing as zooming.

But yea a 50mm would be a good start. If you want something a little longer and have a little (ok a significant amount) more money, look at an 85/1.8. You could also look at the Rokinon, Bower, Samyang, etc. 8mm fisheye (all the same lens). Great lens if you're into that kind of thing.

Dec 21 2011 1:47PM

0 0

Balto

Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404

Karma: 4,404

Posts: 25985

@th1337

um......yes it is

If I could afford it, I would shoot primes exclusively, the IQ is generally better enough that having move your legs a small amount is completely worth it. Now of course there are times when you can't really walk around much, but thats when a longer lens or cropping comes into play.

As far as the 50mm rec above, I would agree with the focal length but not the lens. For $100 you can find an old pentax super-t 50 1.4 that can be adapted and is far sharper and faster

Dec 21 2011 1:53PM

0 0

Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,234

Karma: 29,234

Posts: 31054

Basement Dweller

im surprised you'd say this thomas. Taking a few steps in =/= zooming. Zooming changes your FOV, and keeping the same lens on with a change in distance between you and the subject doesn't.

Dec 21 2011 1:57PM

0 0

Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,234

Karma: 29,234

Posts: 31054

Basement Dweller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view

interesting article on the subject.

But OP, what do you like shooting better? Long lens shots, or wide angle stuff? I'd use what you have to figure out what you like, then invest in a better lens!

Dec 21 2011 2:01PM

0 0

Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696

Karma: 696

Posts: 2811

Addict

No, it's not. When you zoom, your field of view gets smaller, and when you walk, it doesn't. Moving closer just makes your subject closer and therefor larger. If you find an angle you like but you can't zoom in enough to get the shot, say, standing on the knuckle of a jump, you're fucked. If you walk in, you lose your angle, and don't have the same shot. There's nothing wrong with primes, I love them, but you need a lot more lenses to cover the same focal lengths as one zoom. To illustrate my point:

1. Put zoom lens on camera

2. Look at a subject and zoom in

3. Then, walk towards the subject while zooming out so it remains the same size in the frame

You'll see that the perspective changes. Sometimes, its ok, but other times it ruins a shot. I know some filmers use the walking in while zooming out technique to get a certain effect on the perspective while still maintaining the same subject presence in the shot.

Dec 21 2011 2:18PM

0 0

Posts: 3937 - Karma: 678

Karma: 678

Posts: 3937

Addict

I know that zooming in and walking in are different, I just threw that in there because it pains me to see people get an 18-55 instead of a 50 because they think zoom is the most important feature of a lens.

Dec 21 2011 6:26PM

0 0

Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,082

Karma: 123,082

Posts: 61603

Play Ball

I agree with wide to normal shots that shooting with a prime and moving is the best way to go but for any tele work zooms a nice.

Dec 21 2011 6:54PM

0 0

Posts: 4079 - Karma: 2,122

Karma: 2,122

Posts: 4079

No Life

70-200 hands down.

Dec 21 2011 8:18PM

0 0

BigBadWolf

Posts: 2000 - Karma: 432

Karma: 432

Posts: 2000

Addict

Im glad they finally made you an orange name

Dec 21 2011 9:04PM

0 0

michael_bc

Posts: 1386 - Karma: 720

Karma: 720

Posts: 1386

Insane

For skiing, I would either replace that 55-250 with a better tele lens, or get a fish eye / ultra wide angle. And then it really depends on your budget and which look you prefer.

Dec 22 2011 6:19AM

0 0

Shza.

Posts: 425 - Karma: 92

Karma: 92

Posts: 425

Ridiculous

Why not just buy a Canon 1200mm f5.6L? Most reasonable idea to me.

Dec 22 2011 9:14AM

0 0

Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696

Karma: 696

Posts: 2811

Addict

Yea fuck a 50. Move right to the big guns.

Dec 22 2011 2:08PM

0 0

alexneil

Posts: 19 - Karma: 10

Karma: 10

Posts: 19

Newb

Why would anyone buy that when you can get this? http://www.petapixel.com/2010/01/06/ginormous-5200mm-canon-lens-on-ebay/

Dec 22 2011 2:46PM

0 0

RawrRawrRob

Posts: 1841 - Karma: 685

Karma: 685

Posts: 1841

Insane

I prefer long lens, and a 50mm is looking pretty good right now.

Dec 22 2011 8:26PM

0 0

Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,234

Karma: 29,234

Posts: 31054

Basement Dweller

50 is a fantastic choice, especially if you have a crop camera. what is your budget?

Dec 22 2011 8:34PM

0 0

RawrRawrRob

Posts: 1841 - Karma: 685

Karma: 685

Posts: 1841

Insane

Yeah, exactly my thoughts. Budget is $600-500 and under :P

Dec 22 2011 8:48PM

0 0

Posts: 3937 - Karma: 678

Karma: 678

Posts: 3937

Addict

With that budget, I'd get either a 50mm f/1.4 ($400 on Canon's website) or a 50mm f/1.8 ($100) and a 35mm f/2 ($320).

Either way, you'll be on a great start.

Dec 22 2011 9:03PM

0 0

Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,234

Karma: 29,234

Posts: 31054

Basement Dweller

i'd suggest an old MF 50, and the canon 85 1.8. Both are amazing lenses, and the 85 is sooooooo sick

Dec 22 2011 9:11PM

0 0

Shza.

Posts: 425 - Karma: 92

Karma: 92

Posts: 425

Ridiculous

Holy shit... f14...

Dec 22 2011 10:11PM

0 0

Posts: 3937 - Karma: 678

Karma: 678

Posts: 3937

Addict

Only thing with very fast MF lenses on lower-end bodies for photography is that it can be really hard to nail the focus wide open. Lower-end viewfinder prisms have a minimum DOF that narrower is wider than the minimum of the lens. That is, that if your lens opens to f/1.4, the depth of field you see in the viewfinder will stop getting smaller around f/2.8, which effectively means you'll be shooting in the dark for focus below f/2.8.

On bodies with higher-end viewfinder prisms, it isn't consequential, but for XXXD bodies, it's probably an issue.

Dec 22 2011 11:07PM

0 0

Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,234

Karma: 29,234

Posts: 31054

Basement Dweller

thats a good point, i usually have a hard time focusing with them even on my 5d without using the liveview function. Maybe he could get an AF-Confirm adapter?

Dec 22 2011 11:09PM

0 0

Posts: 3937 - Karma: 678

Karma: 678

Posts: 3937

Addict

Hmmm, maybe. I'm not sure an AF-confirm adapter would do anything with a lens that doesn't AF-confirm on it's original body, but it's worth a try (or more research).

Dec 22 2011 11:26PM

0 0

Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696

Karma: 696

Posts: 2811

Addict

Even with a confirm light nailing focus on a small viewfinder is still a bitch. It can be difficult at 2.8.

Dec 22 2011 11:48PM

0 0

Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,082

Karma: 123,082

Posts: 61603

Play Ball

who the fuck shoots wide open?

Dec 22 2011 11:57PM

0 0

blatt

Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097

Karma: 3,097

Posts: 5584

No Life

If you're a boss (implying you have a couple grand, which you dont), get some primes and the tokina 11-16. The sigma 30mm, canon 85mm and canon 100mm make me cream myself. idk much about what's good @50mm, but people seem to like OG vintage glass.

If you wanna look into zooms, peep the 70-200 or the new 24-70 canon should be releasing soon...

Or if you're really boss, get the new canon cine lenses. I have no idea how quality they are but they look baller

Dec 23 2011 12:01AM

0 0

Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,082

Karma: 123,082

Posts: 61603

Play Ball

this is a joke right?

Dec 23 2011 12:05AM

0 0

Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696

Karma: 696

Posts: 2811

Addict

A lot of people. It's all about balancing the pros and cons. If there's not much light and I can get a better looking shot by shooting wide open than I can bumping my ISO or lowering my shutter speed, I'm gonna do it. If bokeh is more important than corner sharpness in a given situation, I'm gonna shoot wide open. Some lenses are designed to be shot wide open. A lot of really high end portrait lenses, for example. I respect you, but you say some damn stupid shit sometimes eheath.

Dec 23 2011 12:27AM

0 0

blatt

Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097

Karma: 3,097

Posts: 5584

No Life

No, I seriously mean they look badass. Of course the CP.2's are better, but it's all about looks.

Dec 23 2011 12:36AM

0 0

Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,082

Karma: 123,082

Posts: 61603

Play Ball

Obviously if you need more light you'd shoot open but other than in low light, i dont get why anyone would ever shoot wide open.

And mike, he wants a lens for photography... and a cine zoom is $47k while the primes are $8k... thats why i asked if you were joking.

Dec 23 2011 12:39AM

0 0

Posts: 3937 - Karma: 678

Karma: 678

Posts: 3937

Addict

.

Thanks for your input, Evan, but not every single shot is taken on a sunny day in snow. Or with a camera that shoots a completely clean image at ISO 3 bazillion.

Dec 23 2011 12:41AM

0 0

Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,082

Karma: 123,082

Posts: 61603

Play Ball

Ugh...

Unless its after sunset or inside a very poorly lit room, any camera can shoot at f2, f2.8 or f4. Every lens, even $2k primes will be softer wide open and way shaper one stop down and the sharpest 2-3 stops down. I never shoot below f4 unless I have to, DOF at f4 on a 50mm looks the same as 1.4 (except everything at 1.4 is soft). You guys can tell me all you want how you HAVE to shoot at 1.4 but if you're shooting 1.4 you're either shooting in the dark or you're being lazy. Have i shot wide open? yes, but it was my only option, outside at night or in a dark club or dark room. If you shoot open in the day time, outside, you really just have no idea what you're doing.

Dec 23 2011 12:46AM

0 0

Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696

Karma: 696

Posts: 2811

Addict

Ok, then don't say "who the fuck shoots wide open".

It's sometimes necessary.

And honestly, some softness isn't a bad thing some of the time. Taking a portrait, seeing every single blemish in someone's skin, seeing all the threads in their clothes, can be unflattering.

Dec 23 2011 12:52AM

0 0

Posts: 3937 - Karma: 678

Karma: 678

Posts: 3937

Addict

I agree with every word you just wrote there. I don't shoot wide open unless I absolutely have to, either, but the fact is that there are rare occasions on which you do. What I posted was about those rare occasions.

I know that you know your shit, but sometimes I think you assume you're the only one who does.

Dec 23 2011 1:05AM

0 0

Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,082

Karma: 123,082

Posts: 61603

Play Ball

A lot of kids on NS (and other website like dvxuser) don't know what they're talking about. There are so many DOF whores out there its wild man, I SHOOT WIDE OPEN ONLY its so fucking bad.

Dec 23 2011 1:16AM

0 0

Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696

Karma: 696

Posts: 2811

Addict

Haha yep. You just can't forget that a lot of us know what we're talking about too.

Dec 23 2011 1:19AM

0 0

Posts: 4079 - Karma: 2,122

Karma: 2,122

Posts: 4079

No Life

I shoot wide open all the time...

Dec 23 2011 1:26AM

0 0

Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,082

Karma: 123,082

Posts: 61603

Play Ball

Any reason why? I don't get why anyone, especially a photog, would shoot wide open. Wide open shots are noticeably softer on video, even more dramatic on photos, wouldn't you want to avoid that?

Dec 23 2011 1:33AM

0 0

Posts: 4079 - Karma: 2,122

Karma: 2,122

Posts: 4079

No Life

I mean it depends, I don't notice a TON of difference shooting at f/4 vs. f/2.8 on my 70-200 especially with a minor bit of sharpening in post.

I am drawn to the look I can get out of shooting wide open. The DOF even for a simple shot of a jump really does make a big difference to me. I find shooting wide open in the pipe is most in line with what I want out of my shots.

Now, on my 14-24 f/2.8 I'll shoot at 5.6 just because there's not DOF difference, only sharpness.

Dec 23 2011 1:45AM

0 0

Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,082

Karma: 123,082

Posts: 61603

Play Ball

If you're shooting tele, wont most fstops have a shallow DOF?

Dec 23 2011 1:47AM

0 0

Posts: 4079 - Karma: 2,122

Karma: 2,122

Posts: 4079

No Life

Sure, especially if the subject is closer to you. But the difference in snow blur if you're low to the deck or ground changes with the stops.

I just am used to shooting wide open quite a bit - I mean I'm all up for whatever people wanting to do haha. It's just how I do it.

Dec 23 2011 1:57AM

0 0

Posts: 3937 - Karma: 678

Karma: 678

Posts: 3937

Addict

Now that we're not talking about ridiculously fast primes, I should concede that I do shoot wide open. For example, if I'm shooting a football game in fading light, I'll take 1/1000 at f/2.8 and ISO 400 over 1/500 at f/4 and ISO 400 or 1/1000 at f/4 and ISO 800, because I think it gives the best results. (Of course, this is assuming I've borrowed a long lens from someone... I can't wait to have my own 70-200)

In a situation where light is not an issue, though, like skiing, I probably would end up at f/4 or f/5.6. I've never shot pipe, though, and I totally see what Jordan's talking about.

Dec 23 2011 2:17AM

0 0

michael_bc

Posts: 1386 - Karma: 720

Karma: 720

Posts: 1386

Insane

I really don't see the point of getting a 50mm prime for ski photography. Skiing most definitely is not a low-light situation and 50mm is a lousy focal length for ski photography. Zooming with your feet is rarely an option on the mountain.

I rarely stop down my 50mm below f/2.8 (makes no difference in DOF and at f/2.8 the subject looks much sharper), and quite frankly my 16-50mm f/2.8 is sharper, and my 50-135mm f/2.8 is much more useful for portraits and ski photography. The only thing my 50mm lens has going for itself is its size.

Dec 23 2011 7:40AM

0 0

Posts: 2811 - Karma: 696

Karma: 696

Posts: 2811

Addict

Ok so one of the main purposes of bokeh is subject isolation. When looking at a picture, the eye is drawn to the sharpest point. The sharper the subject is compared to the background, the more the eye wants to stay on it. On some lenses, the Canon 85/1.2, for example, you don't really lose THAT much sharpness shooting at 1.2 compared to say, 2 or 2.8. At 1.2, the difference between background and subject will be a lot greater than at 2.8. That means it's better for some situations. Lenses such as the 85/1.2 or 50/1.2 are SO sharp now, that often photogs will do some SOFTENING in post to make the shot more natural. The 85/1.2 is generally a portrait lens. When we look at people, we usually don't want to see all of the flaws in their skin etc. For portraits, having a razor sharp lens isn't always better than having one a hair softer. I keep using portraits as an example because it's the best example I can find. I'm sure there are others.

There aren't really rules in photography. You can't say things like "don't shoot wide open unless you have to" or "follow the rule of thirds" because in some (a lot) of situations, breaking the rules gives the best results. It's all about the effectiveness of the final result, not the means used to achieve that effect.

Dec 23 2011 1:10PM

0 0