Best lens for action ski shots?

After extensive intellectual dentristy for my Sony A7ii fullframe I will likely go for the 24-240 f3.5- 6.5 or 24-104 f4.

Price for former is 900 used 1200 new. Price for latter is 1300. Even used is up there so may buy new and get warranty.

Tempted to get former because of price, acceptable weather sealing and amazing Sony miracle sensor lets me shoot high ISO decent quality even at f6.5. All I need to know now is which has useful Autofocus for ski and bike which I'll figure out by demoing lenses

Ive used the 28-70 kit lens for a while but while inexpensive it's lacking at both ends, is soft and AF is lacking. But it resells at 200 or so which isnt terrible.

Also been using my Canon glass with adapter on the A7ii but it's subpar AF. Can resell the Canon glass while it still has value. So maybe get another 300 or so.

Basically I want an excuse to go with native Sony lenses

Still use the RX100 for pocketability plus I bet that it produces better images than my old Canon RebelXT

Lee that 24-105 is def worth the extra $$ IMO. I rented an A7iii and that lens to test a couple weeks ago and it was super sharp and fairly small.

Found the AF to be fast as well. I love the Eye AF but that’s less useful for action than for portraits.

Edit: here is a sample shot with that combo. I always find shooting dogs to be a good proxy for action since they never stop moving or follow directions. lol.

Attachment 263007

Aye Supermoon. That's what I've been told. In the end the extra cost isn't that much spread out over the lifetime of a good lens

What I'm interested in is the performance in heavy snowfall with fast moving objects coming in at you hot. That extra reach of the 240 looks good on paper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

Yeah, you're welcome to try the 18-135. Not sure if it has enough reach for action shots from safe zones, but we'll see. Short hut trip to the Opus Hut late next week so I'll have a better handle on it after that.

I'd def be interested in that 12 mm F2. The Sigma 16 mm f/1.4 (which I keep coming back to as a great option for landscapes) is supposedly super sharp, but it's seems a little bulky for a prime -- approximately the same length as the 18-135. Prolly obvious to most of you guys, but I'm just learning that fast lenses need lotsa glass.

---

I really like the Samyang. MF only, but it's fast, sharp, and pretty easy to use. However, it's also not the most compact lens in the world.

I could see running a two lens combo of the 18-135 and 55-210 for skiing. Pick which one is on the camera based on what terrain you're skiing. In trees throw the 18-135 on, more open use the 55-210.
I like the 55-210 pretty well. It's pretty sharp, fast enough, and pretty light. I think I get better shots with it than either the 16-50 kit lens or the 18-200 that I rented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

I really like the Samyang. MF only, but it's fast, sharp, and pretty easy to use. However, it's also not the most compact lens in the world.

I could see running a two lens combo of the 18-135 and 55-210 for skiing. Pick which one is on the camera based on what terrain you're skiing. In trees throw the 18-135 on, more open use the 55-210.
I like the 55-210 pretty well. It's pretty sharp, fast enough, and pretty light. I think I get better shots with it than either the 16-50 kit lens or the 18-200 that I rented.

---

You ever use that samyang for astrophotography? I've been thinking about picking one up for that purpose and maybe landscape shots. I've been curious how easy it is to use.

If a two lens combo I still think the 16-70 zeiss and 55-210 is better and plent small and light.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app

Sounds like people are stoked on the 55-210. Any thoughts on the 55-210 vs the 70-300?

Unless I'm missing something, the 55-210 seems stupid cheap now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cdubmpdx

You ever use that samyang for astrophotography? I've been thinking about picking one up for that purpose and maybe landscape shots. I've been curious how easy it is to use

---

Note: I suck at astrophotography

https://photos.smugmug.com/TRIP-REPO...NbNHh3H-XL.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/TRIP-REPO...XNqqMtQ-XL.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/TRIP-REPO...WBVwQvL-XL.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/TRIP-REPO...xnVJLFB-XL.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/TRIP-REPO...4W54CZz-XL.jpg

I was SUPER intimidated by the whole manual focus thing, but turns out, it's really not a big deal for landscapes and night. You're basically going to always focus at infinity. Figure out where on the focus ring is sharp at infinity and you're golden. My lens is pretty much right on the markings, but some reviewers have reported that the marks on their lens are slightly off from the sharpest point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

I was SUPER intimidated by the whole manual focus thing, but turns out, it's really not a big deal for landscapes and night. You're basically going to always focus at infinity. Figure out where on the focus ring is sharp at infinity and you're golden. My lens is pretty much right on the markings, but some reviewers have reported that the marks on their lens are slightly off from the sharpest point.

---

Those are great shots! Yeah I figure I shoot in full Manual for astro and a lot of landscape anyway so it can't be too much of an adjustment. I've heard the same about the markings, most people just mark infinity with a sharp. I think these snow night shots might have sold me on shelling out some funds for a new camera toy.

Thanks for the photos!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app

were those astro shots done via tripod or hand held?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

were those astro shots done via tripod or hand held?

---

Definitely need a tri pod for those. Provably 20 to 30 second exposures, the trailers are probably hours

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cdubmpdx

Definitely need a tri pod for those. Provably 20 to 30 second exposures, the trailers are probably hours

---

I mean, that's what I assumed, but I was curious if he actually brought a tripod into those huts or set the camera on something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

I mean, that's what I assumed, but I was curious if he actually brought a tripod into those huts or set the camera on something else.

---

Tripod for sure. I think all of those are 30 second exposures at F2 and ISO 3200. The star trails one is 2 hours of 30s exposures stitched together.
I have a MeFoto Backpacker Air tripod. It's not the lightest but it's light enough and packs small.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

I mean, that's what I assumed, but I was curious if he actually brought a tripod into those huts or set the camera on something else.

---

Fair enough, could have been set on something, I've done that before with a remote. I also have a mefoto tripod but one heavier than the backpacker, can't remember the exact model. Fun to work with. We went a long time with just resting the camera on surfaces but a tripod changes the game. Good investment if you are on the fence.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

Tripod for sure. I think all of those are 30 second exposures at F2 and ISO 3200. The star trails one is 2 hours of 30s exposures stitched together.
I have a MeFoto Backpacker Air tripod. It's not the lightest but it's light enough and packs small.

---

3200??? How do you avoid noise? That seems stupid high for a long exposure


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

Sounds like people are stoked on the 55-210. Any thoughts on the 55-210 vs the 70-300?

Unless I'm missing something, the 55-210 seems stupid cheap now.

---

From all my research, the 55-210 is a cheap lens. It's good enough. Soft, slow, no contrast. The 70-300 get's awesome reviews. Marginally less sharp than the 70-200 f4 but way bigger reach. I am buying one tomorrow. And a 12mm f2.8 rokinon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bdog325

3200??? How do you avoid noise? That seems stupid high for a long exposure


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Here's a pretty cool calculator for astrophotography: https://www.lonelyspeck.com/milky-wa...re-calculator/

edit: doesn't answer your question, just thought it was appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bdog325

3200??? How do you avoid noise? That seems stupid high for a long exposure

---

Again, I don't really know what I'm doing. There is definitely noise but I've found it manageable to deal with in post to bring it down to acceptable levels for web viewing and small to medium sized prints.
That calculator says I should be using ISO 1600. I'll give that a shot next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bdog325

3200??? How do you avoid noise? That seems stupid high for a long exposure


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Most of the sensors built in the last few years can shoot that high with the noise being fairly easily managed in post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supermoon

Most of the sensors built in the last few years can shoot that high with the noise being fairly easily managed in post.

---

I agree. Also depends what you are doing with the photo. If just for your own viewing pleasure, internet photos and small prints the noise won't be very noticeable at 3200. I've shot 6400 for astro without much notice for IG photos. If you are blowing them up for large prints or selling your work that's a different story, but if you are a pro or selling your work you probably aren't shooting a cropped sensor.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app

Since we've totally hijacked this into a "what Sony lens" thread....

I don't think it's really fair to compare the 55-210 with the 70-300. The 70-300 fuckin' better be better. It's a $1200 full frame lens vs a $350 crop sensor lens. It's also physically way bigger - 1-3/8" longer, 3/4" bigger diameter, and over 1lb heavier. I understand why GoldenBC is going that way since he's buying for a future camera, but I don't think it makes any sense to buy that lens if an a6X00 camera is your only rig and you don't have intentions of going full frame. Throwing a giant lens on a compact mirrorless kinda defeats the purpose of using a compact mirrorless.

So if you stick with APS-C lenses, I think your choices for a long (200mm+) telephoto E mount lens are Sony 55-210, Sony/Tamron 18-200, and Sony 18-200 LE. I haven't tried the standard 18-200, only the LE, but I think the 55-210 is better/sharper. Which is a bummer as I would have liked to have been able to just run one lens instead of carrying around multiple. Here are examples of 100% crops from both lenses, in similar shooting conditions:

Sony 55-210mm, shot at 150mm f9 1/640s ISO320
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-...37Lxt3D-XL.jpg

Sony 18-200 LE, shot at 170mm f8 1/800s ISO800
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-...L5Qrq2n-XL.jpg

There's more noise in the second image due to the higher ISO, but it definitely is not as sharp either. Neither are perfect, but to me the 55-210 is better.

For a shorter range zoom, I'll probably have to try both the 18-135 and the 16-70 and decide if the 16-70 is $400 better than the 18-135. Either should be an upgrade from the kit PZ16-50.

I think this thread may have talked me into getting a 35mm-ish prime. Opinions between the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and the Sony 35mm f1.8? The Sony is smaller, the Sigma is faster and cheaper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

Since we've totally hijacked this into a "what Sony lens" thread....

---

Yeah, the Sony APS-C lens discussion probably deserves its own thread. Just started one here: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ens-Discussion

A 400 F2.8 is defnitely a good lens but heavy so a tripod is recommended.

Sure. If you have 10 grand to spend on glass and a Sherpa to haul it up the mountain for you.