Good lens glass for skiing

Wondering what you guys who are shooting DSLR's are using for lenses for skiing action shots. I'm currently in the market. Don't have the camera yet, but am leaning Canon. Have my eye on the 70-200mm f/4L IS
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm...772505&sr=1-19

Canon is definitely the way to go. I have a Canon 40D..fantastic bang for the buck! I have two lenses that I use regularly a 28-70mm 2.8 L (the new model is now 24-70) for all of my wide angle stuff. Amazing lens! And I also have a 70-200 f/4.0 NON IS. The IS version for me was too much money for something I would never use. And here is my reasoning behind it.

Image Stabilization is only used for low light indoor shooting when you're NOT shooting action. Think about it, the only time you need image stabilization is when your shutter speed needs to be slow to let in enough light and you need the lens to be more stable. So in reality it's only good in indoor situations such as museums and maybe theatrical. Because if you're shooting action...you can't have the shutter speed slow because the image will blur anyways.

My advice is to get the 70-200 f/4L NON IS if you can find one. They're substantially cheaper, lighter, and drain a lot less battery. I have one and it's superb! It struggles while shooting things like football under the lights at night (need the 2.8 for that) but that's way out of my budget right now. And if you're looking for a good outdoor day ski lens, there's no way in hell you'd need a 2.8 glass.

Let me know if you have any more questions about the lens or about the 40D. Let me know if you want me to post some pics.

That'd no doubt be why all the IS & VR lenses I know of, from Canon & Nikon respectively, have a pan mode...

Also, depending on the ISO, aperture and shutter, IMO the difference can be pretty clear if you are hand holding a decent sized tele...

of course I shoot with a P&S...

This is a topic worth reading up on. Just for starters & fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

Also, there are some serious photogs over in the photo corner of TGR. As in a significant proportion of ski mag shots this fall came from those guys. Probably worth a look.

Rick, that looks like a pretty solid lens to me. I especially like the fact that the lens retains its length and f-Stop while changing the Zoom due to internal elements moving instead of end elements. I like the water/dust-proofing also - big plus on a long lens with more elements to fog up.

I like the comments by Salvuccim about IS and telephoto action shots. In the past I never needed 'image stabilization' even up to 300mm since I tended to use higher film speeds.

Shooting Hydros with a Sony DSLR this summer I found that the shots taken with IS were just as much a gamble on blur as those taken without it. The clearest shots came simply from high speeds (set manually) where I'd allowed the f-stop to be automatic and manually set the focus at infinity (using duct tape because the very-loose focus mechanism could easily go beyond infinity). With a sufficiently high f-Stop and a lens locked at (or just under) infinity it's easy to take shots at a variety of distances with no worry over focus. Still, auto-focus when shooting the typical skier drawing gradually closer will probably be fast enough to make a difference.

For skiing I'd agree that even in night skiing (with enough lights) 4.0 is probably an OK f-Stop to work from if the ISO is set high enough.

Be sure to get a UV or clear 'filter' for the front of the lens as this is a great way to protect the end glass from scratches. If the filter gets scratched up, you can just replace it.

.ma

Excellent comments so far.
I use the IS facility a lot, in position 2 it allows you to pan and yet keep the image stable.
In position 1, I can take shots hand held at 1/30 or slower at 200mm and they come fine.
(if you're using a tripod, make sure you switch IS off)

IS is awesome for shooting 1/30 or even around 1/125 at 200mm. However, if you're looking for a ski lens you're going to be using this outside near snow! You will have plenty of light even when cloudy. You wouldn't be shooting at anything less than 1/500. Save the money

But, what of night skiing? And what of tree skiing?

Also, there are considerations for the combination of speed, f-Stop & focal length as well as ISO settings that all combine for potential graininess/contrast issues in low light.

I also just happened to think about Polarization Filters. I really like my polarized sunglasses as they really do improve vision in the fog and clouds as well as improving visibility in the rain and cut glare nicely. I think a polarized filter would be ideal for a camera used in snowsports shooting.

.ma

If you want to use polarising filters, it's best to:
1. Get a lens where the front element does not rotate (i.e. when focusing) - this is also true if you're using gradient filters
2. Use manual focus.

I use a linear polarising filter, which I can then rotate to the desired angle to get the best effect.
A lot of people use circular polarising filters, which gets round the need for a fixed front element, but I prefer to have control of the direction of polarisation.

My understanding is that linear polarizers defeat or inhibit the correct functioning of autofocus on DSLRs (specifically). Hence the major dominance of CPs on DSLRs.

You've got it mixed up... Circular filters are the one where you can rotate to get the best polarization angle. I think?

LP's also make DSLR focusing systems confused as heck, so that's why it's not recommended at all.

Thanks for the feedback, Salvuccim. You're reasoning on the IS makes good sense. I think I'm going to go for the IS though, based on the idea of adding versatility to the lens. The more I research this topic, the more I've decided to approach this photography thing on a hobby basis, beyond just the business use on the ski slope. Don't tell my tax accountant.

Linear polarising is straight lines, circular works slightly differently (they have a quarter wave plate behind the first part of the filter.)
You can rotate a circular one, but certainly the linear one has to be rotatable, or it's useless.

Yup, that's why I'd recommend using manual focus (also manual metering)

I see... oops!
Possibly for landscapes... but for action shots? Another reason I use a CPL is to act as a 1-stop or 2-stop ND for my lens, which it does quite well.

For action shots, I'll either try to pan with the subject, or, if there's enough light, I'll set a small aperature and use hyperfocal distance.
(e.g. 50mm at f22, set your focus at 3.8m (10ft), and everything from 2m to infinity will be sharp)


Another good reason to get one (shall put it on my shopping list!)

Rick: Oh by far the 70-200 2.8 IS is probably the best telephoto lens in the digital world...let alone Canon. Our school's sutdent newspaper owns one as well as the 400mm prime lens, both with IS and I love them to death! I wish I had the money for the 400mm haha, what a piece of glass!

Let me know how you like it. Also I suggest the 24mm-70 2.8 for your every day wide lens.

Fanboy here again

To answer your specific question, as opposed to espousing who may make the best camera/lens combo for shooting an NFL game for Sports Illustrated, I suggest you consider my (apparently unique perspective) which I just posted HERE (POST #34) and which I think goes directly to your question.

Olympus fanboy now ducking in anticipation of being declared a witch.

One admission/omission to add here: I will admit that if moving targets and very high sequential action shots are your bread and butter above all other factors, then the Olympus E-3 is probably not going to compete with high end Canon and Nikon. I think their AF systems work better overall for very serious action shooting.

But I am more than satisfied with the E-3 for my particular needs (mostly action skiing) and I think the Oly lenses (although the choices are far fewer) are the equal or better than much of the comparable lenses in the C & N lines. Almost all lens reviews will confirm this.

One thing to be careful with in the E-3 though is there could be some blown highlights at times if you're not careful. Shooting Raw however, this is almost never an issue for me. But I do see some noticeably more Dynamic range in looking at photos on say the glorious Nikon D3. OK I want the D3, but I can't have it.

Still, I'm very happy. That ok, Canon fanboys?

Oh, one final word, if I may.

This thread asks: "Good lens glass for skiing"

Then read THIS.

EOS 1Ds Mark III baby!! No but seriously, that lens you suggested Carvemeister does look like a pretty sweet lens. I use this for my wider shots http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...odeli d=12955. Great for sitting right under a ramp and getting sweet air shots looking up. Also a great lens to mount behind the backboard and shoot remotely at basketball games.

OK, update. I purchased a Canon 40D. The price has dropped to $864, plus a got a $300 rebate off a nice $380 photo printer that I purchased at the same time. How could I turn it down. The Oly looked like a super camera too, but the price difference just didn't make sense for me. Nikon didn't have a camera that could match the features, price and burst speed.

Also purchased the 70-200 f4L IS. Debated long and hard over that and the 2.8 IS. Decided in the end to save $600 and having to haul around the extra weight all the time. I think with the iS f4 will serve me fine most of the time. I can always fill need later on if I notice glaring sign of it.

Now working on a decision on a lower focal lens to fill the start-out quiver. I like the 24-70 f2.8L, but I wish it had IS. I also like the 17-55 f2.8 IS, but wish it was an L. Leaning toward the 17-55. Oh, I'm also intrigued by the 100mm macro, for the hobby side.

Does Canon ever throw rebates on their glass?

Nice deal Rick. I think you'll be real happy with that. Good call getting the f4 lens too. I don't think you'll regret that. It's ideal for taking great ski shots, no need for the much bigger f2.8 unless you're looking for pro shots and not planning on skiing much with it.

Thanks for the vote of confidence on my selection, carvemeister, and the advice provided throughout the thread.

Very rarely will Canon discount their glass. Occasionally and I mean occasionally some lenses pop up on BHphoto's refurbished lens site. However, they are usually only discounted like 150 dollars, not enough to warrant not getting it new.

On the 17-55 or the 24-70 argument. I own both. The quality of shots with the 17 is almost as good as the 24. The L glass of the 24 is a little sharper and the colors seem to pop more. Don't make up your mind about the lenses on IS alone. With 2.8 glass you're going to be able to shoot with a fast shutter speed thus negating the need. Plus you can always bump up the ISO...the 40D's noise reduction is incredible. The reason I own both is because I need a wider lens. The 24 sometimes isn't wide enough for me.

I hardly ever use the IS. It kills battery and I shoot action mostly...so if my shutter speed is slow enough for my hand shake to blur the photo the subject I'm shooting would be blurry anyways if I had the IS turned on. IS is really only useful indoors shooting still things because if you're shooting anything in motion..sure the IS will stabilize the camera shake but the subject is still in motion which requires a fast shutter speed that in turn negates the need for the IS.

If I had to pick between the two I'd say go for the 24-70L. That might be my overall favorite piece of glass in my camera bag.

Rick, nice buy!
Which printer did you get? I bought a Pixima iP4500 a few months ago, does a great job.

My preference would be for the 24-70L lens Better quality, brighter, and if you upgrade to a 5D/1D in future, it will work (the 17-55 is an EF-S which isn't compatible with the full frame Canons)
You shouldn't need IS on that lens - it's not too heavy, and relatively short, and f2.8, so it won't suffer from shake as much.

If you want to go wider, ask me again in a few weeks - I picked up a Sigma 12-24mm lens at the weekend, and have started to play with it.

ooo fox, let me know how that sigma is! I'm always weary of buying the third party lenses, I have yet to pull the trigger on one. I've heard their optics aren't as superior as canon's glass (particularly the L series) but have never actually tried one. Any way you could email me a full res pic or two from that lens?

Salvuccim, Fox, thanks for the feedback on the two lenses. I think I'll take your advice. The 24-70 does look like a fabulous lens.

Fox, I got this printer: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...odeli d=12892

let me know how you like the 12-24. At some point I'll probably want to go below 24, especially with the 1.6 crop. I'm also drooling over the 100mm 2.8 macro. The images it produces are absolutely stunning. Dang, I can see this is going to turn into an expensive hobby.

Nice printer, Rick. Kinda the big broter to mine.
You can get away without needing a macro lens - the 24-70 has a minimum focus of about a foot, and if you put a +2 filter on it, you can get closer...




On the 5D flickr group, a lot of the pros rave about the 180mm f3.5L macro lens, but it's about 3x the price of the 100mm!

..and yes, it does become addictive and expensive.

are the above taken with with the 24-70 or the 12-24?

Those are 24-70.

I've only taken a couple with the 12-24 - just experimenting with it. The weather at the weekend was terrible so I didn't get out much.

This was taken at 14mm:



and this was taken about 6ft to right, but roughly the same distance from the trees at 115mm:

Heh That's what happens. It's an expensive hobby used primarily to document our other expensive hobbies.

For convenient stability, I was thinking of creating a small camera mount that could clip easily onto my ski poles. Something that would screw into the camera (or lens) and attach to both poles at an angle delivering two points of support. Has anybody else done something similar for skiing?

.ma