New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Good lens glass for skiing - Page 2

post #31 of 54
You could probably make a monopod out of one ski pole - that would be easier to setup, and more versatile.

Replace the screw in the pole grip with a double ended bolt - the top needs to be 3/8", and then attach something like one of these:
http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/...d=80|81&idx=83
http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/...d=80|81&idx=82
post #32 of 54
What in the wide wide world of sports would you be doing with one of those on a monopod?
post #33 of 54
ya I suppose you could do that. However, I just strap a lightweight tripod to my pack that I wear when skiing.
post #34 of 54
OK, perhaps the answer is to get a new ski pole.
Do you think a basket would fit on this...

http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/pid/13408
post #35 of 54
OK, so I did a little experiment yesterday with lenses, both as a test of quality, but also to show the differences.
I went to this pond, sat at the table, and switched lenses.



First up is the Sigma 12-24mm at 12mm:


Next, the Canon 24-70 f2.8L at 24mm:


Now, the Canon 70-200 f2.8L at 70mm:


Now the Canon 70-200 f2.8L at 200mm:



And finally the Canon 70-200 f2.8L with the Canon 2x Extender II on it:


================================================== ==

As an aside, I also had my G9 with me, which has the equivalent of a 35-210mm lens on it.
This is it at 35mm:


And at 210mm:
post #36 of 54
The photos are undoctored and were taken in fully automatic mode. I've got the full size originals as well. Both cameras are around 12Mp,

My "results":
If I was only allowed one lens, it would be the 24-70 f2.8L.
My second lens has to be the 70-200 f2.8L - apart from the weight, it is spectacular.
There's a very obvious difference in quality between the Sigma at 24mm and the Canon at the same. (I didn't post the Sigma photo, cause I really didn't like it)
And finally, a 2x Extender should be used with caution - a small aperature and low ISO, or it shows up its flaws. (either that, or mine is faulty!)
post #37 of 54
Thread Starter 
Thanks, Fox. What a difference from 12 to 24. That was on your full body, right?

My research indicates that the 1.4 extender shows less image quality loss, and with my f4 lens I'd still have my auto focus. Thinking of getting that one. Also my eye on the 100-400. The extender would work on that too, and although I'd lose the AF, I'd have a nice long lens for shooting Colorado critters.

I holding off on the 24-70 for a bit. Just bought a canon 50mm 1.8 as a training lens (I'm just learnin). Only $79. Wow. Yet gets decent reviews on the image quality. So cheap, I debated even bothering to buy a UV filter to protect it. In the end, I did. Hoping by the time I've done the training I want to do on it, with in the next few months, Canon will come out with a mid range zoom 2.8 L with IS.
post #38 of 54
Thread Starter 
Fox, did you do one at 70 on the 24-70? To compare to the 70-200
post #39 of 54
Nice comparison shots WTFH. Which shot mostly closely resembles a 1:1 between captured scene and visual reality?

What I mean is, with that DSLR at what mm zoom setting does the scene most resemble what you see directly (not shrunk, not magnified)? I got to wondering based on a Wiki page showing the wide variety of sensor sizes used and the variety of lens distances from the sensor possible.

Also, are those 'full detail' images on the web somewhere? Might be interesting to zoom in on the same section of pics taken at various optical settings and see how well the image is constructed at the pixel level.


Rick,
I always used a filter on the end of my cheap lenses also. In wet/dirty environments is was nice to just 'wipe it' quickly with a sleeve, paper towel, etc and take more shots. No need to use special cloths and fluids. The filter gets scratched up after a while through such abuse but since they were cheap I'd just swap for a new one.

.ma
post #40 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Fox, did you do one at 70 on the 24-70? To compare to the 70-200

I don't think so, I may have to get back to you on that one.
post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post
Nice comparison shots WTFH. Which shot mostly closely resembles a 1:1 between captured scene and visual reality?

What I mean is, with that DSLR at what mm zoom setting does the scene most resemble what you see directly (not shrunk, not magnified)? I got to wondering based on a Wiki page showing the wide variety of sensor sizes used and the variety of lens distances from the sensor possible.

Also, are those 'full detail' images on the web somewhere? Might be interesting to zoom in on the same section of pics taken at various optical settings and see how well the image is constructed at the pixel level.
Michael, "reality" was about 35-40mm, in fact the G9 at "wide angle" was pretty close to it!

Had a busy weekend here, but will post links to the originals tomorrow (they are on my flickr site), along with full exif data.
post #42 of 54
post #43 of 54
Hey WTFH, I think the test shots may have been re-pixelated or something. The downloaded images from the other site are just 1024x683 and the ones here save at 1024x768.

Even at 1024x768 that's only 2.36 megapixels, not the 12 or 21 mp expected. Did pixels get lost in posting due to site size constraints?

.ma
post #44 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post
Nice comparison shots WTFH. Which shot mostly closely resembles a 1:1 between captured scene and visual reality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
Michael, "reality" was about 35-40mm, in fact the G9 at "wide angle" was pretty close to it!
The widely accepted consensus for focal length that most resembles the human eye is about 50mm, and on a crop (1.6x) APS-C sensor that's a 30mm lens or thereabouts. On a full-frame, 50mm, of course. On the G9, that 28mm probably translates to about that... it's got a 1/17" sensor.
post #45 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post
Hey WTFH, I think the test shots may have been re-pixelated or something. The downloaded images from the other site are just 1024x683 and the ones here save at 1024x768.

Even at 1024x768 that's only 2.36 megapixels, not the 12 or 21 mp expected. Did pixels get lost in posting due to site size constraints?

.ma

If you go to each image, you should see an option for "All sizes", from there, choose "Original", which, for the ones taken with the 5D, will be 4368 x 2912, and for the G9, 4000x3000.
post #46 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by roastpuff View Post
The widely accepted consensus for focal length that most resembles the human eye is about 50mm,
True.

The G9 lens lengths I gave were the equivalent 35mm (i.e. full frame) lengths. The actual zoom on the lens is 7.4-44mm.

My feeling was that the G9 at its full wide angle was probably close to reality - it didn't "feel" wider than what I could see.

I suppose another good test to do would be to try to set the lens on the 5D and the G9 to the same length, and see the difference in results (although I'd need to play around with it a bit due to the difference in sensor shapes)
post #47 of 54

Nikon D300!

Go for the nikon d300, bro. It's autofocus system is as fast as the $3000+ pro canon bodies and has the added benefits of AF points covering the entire frame.

Nikon's 70-200 f2.8 IS rates just as highly as the Canon glass, but the wide angle 17-55mm rates higher than the canon equivalent.

On top of all that Nikon's CLS flash system lets you remotely control an external flash with your built in pop-up flash. You could clamp a flash to a tree or an extra ski pole and get real creative with your light at night.

High ISO is getting pretty impressive on all cameras, but Nikon's D700 and D3 are currently top of the pile. Nonetheless, if you want hot night skiing shots like the ones you see in the mags, you're going to have to use a flash.

My 2 cents!
post #48 of 54

This advice is maybe too late, but...

Rick- this is maybe too late, but here is my 0.02- IS is pretty useless for action shots, you will be using shutter speeds of 1/500 or faster, IS does not do anything at that speed.

Canon 70-200f4 is a gem, terrific optics, and you effectively get extra reach on a crop body (such as a 40D). So for so good. Your biggest problem will be the AF in the xxD cameras- in my experience it is often too slow to track a moving skier. It is supposed to work better with the f2.8 lenses, that maybe the only reason to get the 70-200f2.8. If you are serious about taking skiing pictures my advice is to look for used 1D series camera or buy something like a Nikon D300 that I believe has a pro-grade AF system. I shot with both a 1D and the 20D bodies and the difference in AF perormance is dramatic- with 20D it is always hit or miss, the 1D shots are always tack sharp.

Good luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
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
post #49 of 54
Thread Starter 
Thanks, Alex.

I have already bought a 40D and the 70-200 f4 is. I got the IS for versatility purposes. Though it does have a panning IS mode, I didn't buy it with the expectation of using it much on moving skiers. I'll keep your advice on better AF systems in mind. I'll see how it goes with the 40D, then upgrade when/if needed.
post #50 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick View Post
Thanks, Alex.

I have already bought a 40D and the 70-200 f4 is. I got the IS for versatility purposes. Though it does have a panning IS mode, I didn't buy it with the expectation of using it much on moving skiers. I'll keep your advice on better AF systems in mind. I'll see how it goes with the 40D, then upgrade when/if needed.
Good setup for your purposes. Make sure you separate the AF from the shutter release (I believe it is CF4). And don't be afraid to shoot at higher ISO to get the shutter speeds you need. Whatever you do with the camera body, keep the lens, it is a gem both in build quality and optics.
post #51 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
You could probably make a monopod out of one ski pole - that would be easier to setup, and more versatile.

Replace the screw in the pole grip with a double ended bolt - the top needs to be 3/8", and then attach something like one of these:
http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/...d=80|81&idx=83
http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/...d=80|81&idx=82
Probably a bad idea...A ski pole does not have enough torsional stiffness to hold even a reasonable weight camera. Exhibit A- the Leki trekking poles with built-in tripod screw- looks like a good idea, but utterly useless (I was stupid enough to buy a pair and I swear that they do not help a single bit for steadying a picture). Now, if you could find a way to connect two poles into a some sort of an A-frame arrangement, then we will be talking. But then, again, with the shutter speeds required to capture a moving skier, you might as well be handholding, no difference...
post #52 of 54
The Autofocus on the 40D is much better than the 20D. I remember shooting a 20D once as a backup cam for a basketball game...what a nightmare. Sure the 40D isn't as sharp as a Mark II or Mark III (although I heard the Mark III actually has some AF issues)...but does the difference warrant a 2 thousand dollar difference in price?

For the Everyday shooter and even the semi-pro ones like myself, I find it more useful to put that kind of money towards quality and diverse lenses. Spending more than double for a Mark II or Mark III over the 40D to me isn't useful...
post #53 of 54
Canon 10-22mm...assuming you haven't gone FF already (sorry didn't read the entire posts)
post #54 of 54
I wouldn't recommend using a small aperture, it will lead to cluttered backgrounds that will distract from the subject. Just go higher on the shutter speed. If you have a nicely blurred backgroung the image will look much more professional. This was shot at f/2.8
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: