What kind of lens do you guys prefer to take ski pics? Are you guys shooting in the 18 to 55mm range or going telephoto?
Printable View
What kind of lens do you guys prefer to take ski pics? Are you guys shooting in the 18 to 55mm range or going telephoto?
What type of shot are you trying to get?
Where?
I'm not sure there's one single "best" lens. Like grskier said above, it depends on the photographer. I think you've got a lot of guys who prefer to use a longer zoom like the 70-200mm f/4 (or 2.8), and then you've got tons of options for a wider-angle perspective.
Of course, it also depends on which camera you're using, as there are different choices for different brands. Personally, I shoot Canon and my go-to lenses are either the 15-85mm or 18-135mm plus the 70-200 f/4L. If you're shooting full-frame, I'd go with the 24-105 f/4L to replace either of the first two I previously listed.
And... if you want a light setup, I'd look into mirrorless options from Sony, Canon or Fuji. I have the Canon M50 and the 18-150mm EF-M lens and it's awesome for mountain biking action shots (haven't used it for skiing yet). Or for Sony, one of the A6000 series cameras along with their 18-135mm lens.
I’m not a good Photographer but I use this....Quote:
Originally Posted by smmokan
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I am also not a good photographer, but I also use an a6000 and if I had the money I'd buy the 18-200mm lens for it.
I mostly backcountry ski and find that safe travel practices regularly dictate that I'm not close to the action, so I appreciate having a long telephoto.
(I currently alternate between the 16-50mm and 55-210mm kit lenses)
Well FKNA!Quote:
Originally Posted by reckless toboggan
Pretty much everything smmokan said.
Also make sure whatever lenses you pick up have fast and accurate AF. A lot of that is in-camera, but some lenses just focus better than others. It sucks to miss that perfect moment because of a slow focusing lens.
Another thing to think about is lens flare. I shoot Nikon, and I love my 24-120 most of the time, but the lens flare is so bad on it I have stopped taking it out on really sunny days when I can't take my time to mitigate it. Some lenses give you nice, small, fairly pleasing flare and others give you totally shitty distracting flare. I've found skiing and water sports are the worst for that sort of thing.
Edit: and another vote for an 18-200 on a crop sensor. When I was shooting my D90 that's the only lens I ever had on my camera.
Really like the a6000 and 18-200. But for most days the 16-50 kit lens is really good and then I can fit the camera in the waist belt pocket of my backpack. You sacrifice some performance but I find I use the camera much more when its easily accessible and carry it with me more often if it isn't going to weight me down. Because I suck enough already and dont need a camera making me slower.
The Sony 35mm 1.8 prime is great for low light forest shots and you can get some really quality shots in a lightweight package with a compact prime lens and a mirrorless setup.
Thanks for your guys's input. I've been shooting for a while and have wanted to start doing some more action stuff. I have the Nikon d5300 (crop) with a 18-55 and a 70-300 af-p which I love.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Been meaning to start a prime lens thread. I'll do that now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ridinshockgun
Are you using a EF-M adapter for your M50?
Thanks
Yep, I do use one occasionally with my 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. I used to have the Canon version, and now I have the "mmLite" (?) brand that I got off Amazon for $40. Can't tell an ounce of difference with regards to performance or quality.
Shit! I knew I should have bought that warranty M50 you were selling. I really should consider that option as I am pretty sure a M50 with a 70-200 will fit into my Miggo large DSLR holster that's "storm proof"
Thanks for making my next purchase much harder ;)
That was actually the M5.... but now I own the M50. There have been a bunch of sales recently on the M50, you can probably find one for under $500 pretty easily after Xmas.
I’m shooting on a Sony a6000. I’m debating between the 24-105 f4 and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6. I will definitely get a wide angle later and I am building out the collection with the intention of switching to full frame later.
I can’t make up my mind between these two lenses. I love shooting telephoto compression style action shots but they aren’t the majority of shots. I feel like the 24-105 won’t give me wide angle and won’t let me shoot from another ridge or bottom of the run. It might be my go to mtn bike lens though.
Thoughts?
What about the Sony 16-70 f/4? That lens is sharp, smaller, and covers a pretty nice range on the a6000. That's probably the first lens I'd buy if I had a Sony... I wish there was a Canon equivalent.
Seems like a sweet lens, only problem is it is not for full frameQuote:
Originally Posted by smmokan
Ah, I missed that part. Personally, I'd buy APS-C lenses for an APS-C camera, and then upgrade/update later. The 24-105 will be OK for skiing pictures, but like you said it's not very wide for landscapes and is too short to zoom significantly.
That's the problem I've found with full-frame lenses... there really isn't one "do it all" lens like the Sony 18-135 or Canon 18-150. The options are much more specialized (and expensive), which for me means I'll always have a crop sensor camera for things like hiking, MTB'ing, skiing, etc. I don't want to bring along two heavy lenses to cover the same range as one smaller lens.
That 16-70 f4 Zeiss looks nice.
Should've added it to my Christmas list. Maybe I'll just go buy it!
That could be a huge money pit switching everything. More importantly to this discussion, I guess people people should say what they intend to do with the photos. These long range zooms (18-135, 16-70) are reportedly not the greatest quality. Are you shooting for Instagram or to sell? I am beginning to sell stuff and want to accommodate that with my lens selection.Quote:
Originally Posted by smmokan
I worry about the size of my kit and that I will hesitate bringing it places. I will always have my apsc and a small lens for that.
If you buy new lenses, then I agree- it would definitely be a money pit. That said, I can't remember the last time I bought a new lens- I buy everything off POTN and FredMiranda and have had great luck. I'd much rather pay 30-40% less and get something that's lightly used.
For that D5300 look for a used Sigma 50-150 2.8. Light and Fast and gives you similar coverage to the 70-200 options for much less money. They can be found for $400 or less for the older non VR versions.
Nah, you want this: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...Z-18-105mm-f-4Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Update: I rented the Sony 18-200 LE and was disappointed in the sharpness of it. Possibly user error.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
I used the 18-105 shooting mountain biking in the dark forest. Super usable range. Heavy, but more importantly, not super long so easy to transport. The aperture left me wanting in the forest. Sharpness was good, not amazing. Obviously there is some user error, also darker shooting isn't it's forte to begin with. Similar to the kit lens, but that was hardly a scientific test. All in all, a sweet lens for a recreationalist looking to have sweet photos.Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
Not necessarily user-error. DXOmark gives it a not so great sharpness rating. I don't know much about this stuff, though. Just getting my feet wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
Why oh why couldn't that be for full frame! Oh for a Sony 24-104Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
A6000 isn't full frame. I have the 16-70mm, it's a great lens. Great color rendition also.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBC
I wouldn't shoot full frame lens on a cropped sensor for a ski/travel set up. I like the small size of the 16-70mm for the quality and range it provides. Seems like a full frame lens kind of defeats the purpose of the A6000. Unless al
With that note we also have the 55-210, sigma 150-600 with Canon mount and adapter, 50 1.8mm and 35 1.8. All are really small and I can bring multiple lenses in most situations with the exception of the 150-600, that thing is a beast.
I initially had the same intention but decided we love the small size, it goes everywhere with us. if I get a full frame Sony it will be an addition and will build out appropriately or sell some of the crop lenses.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app
One other thing to note.... supposedly Sony is going to announce an A6500 successor (or maybe a new line like the A7000) in the next couple of weeks. Kind of like a Canon 7DII competitor but mirrorless. Something like that, combined with Sony's APS-C lens lineup could be quite appealing.
Since I just got an A6500 for christmas, that's right on schedule, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by smmokan
Score dude, great gift!
Since everyone here is talking about sony aps-c...
I have an aging NEX-5R... functional, lots of snaps. I'd like to get a new lens for it this winter. I've cheaped through with the kit lenses so far but want to get some better images, especially on a rare-for-me overseas trip approaching.
What should I get? I'm attracted to the idea of a compact prime lens for the travel sleekness, but worry about not having as much fun with it. Also attracted to the 16-70 Zeiss or similar for versatility with good quality... I thought I was afraid of the bulk but I guess it's not much bigger than the kit lens.
Or should I just buy a newer camera? The NEX is pretty basic next to the big Alpha ones... but with good glass can prolly still make some nice images.
Advice? This is the only decent camera I have and shares many duties.
The successor is rumored to be a lot bigger. The a6500 will still be produced I'm guessing and is a sweet little camera. Great gift.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app
I'd keep the camera and add new lenses. A camera is only as good as its lens and Sony seems committed to keeping their cropped sense line. I think the camera you have has the same sensor as the A6000 series, which creates the image quality but I might be wrong. You can get a new camera next or later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
I'm no pro by any means but I have a few primes and the 16-70mm zeiss along with a few zooms for our A6000.
I really like the 35mm 1.8 for a prime. It's pretty affordable and does great for indoor shots like museums if your traveling. Decent for landscapes but not as wide as you might like. or photos of people indoors. It's basically the focal length of what your eye sees so it's a good one lense setup for travel or just carrying around. No zoom obviously so you may or may not have an adjustment for this. But great bright photos.
We use the 16-70mm the most. It isn't the best for indoors with f/4, but it's f/4 though the whole range. Gets wide enough for most circumstances and a decent amount of zoom to 70mm but won't get you super close. We like a small setup that I can throw in my backpack or whatever. If I could only have one lens with me I would keep this one. One Downside is the filter size is different than any other lens I have so if you use filters at all you will have to get an adapter or new filters. The 16-70mm is also pricey. It isn't bulky by a long shot, almost pocketable in a larger coat
Happy to answer any question specifically the best I can. Again I'm only an amateur but a gear junky for everything I'm into, including skiing and photo gear. Though photo gear has fallen behind a little due to a new baby and lack of funds to spend on lenses and such.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app
To add to the previous talk of a telephoto, I have a 70-300mm lens for my d5300 and I love it. It has the af-p focus which I find to be super fast to focus and is perfect for action shots.
The smaller 70mm focal length is great for portraits. At 300 mm it tends to get a bit less sharp but you rarely need that much zoom. Great for both action and portraits. This tends to be my primary lens over my kit 18-55. Only thing it sucks for is wide angle/landscape obviously.
Do note that others have found this lens better and sharper than the 200 mm zoom lens that was also previously mentioned
35mm prime would be a great, inexpensive travel lens. On a crop body a 24mm would do ok too. 50mm prime is pretty standard and much better for things like portraits on a crop sensor. A compact wide zoom would be ok too, but the IQ you get from primes is so much better for the money, and you’ll get faster apertures which comes in handy when shooting indoors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Good glass will beat a good body any day.
Oh, I'm super stoked on it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Others can give you much better advice than me, but it seems like the big question is: what do you want to get better images of?
It seems like you primarily shoot landscapes, so maybe you'd be happy with a wider prime? I've been eyeing the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN as a sharp but reasonably priced option. Not super compact, though. I should stick with the 18-135 that came with it for a while before buying more gear.
Auvgeek. I got a waterproof radio harness. A7ii (and therefore A6500) with reasonable sized lens fits in there
I may have to try to talk you into letting me shoot with the 18-135 sometime... that's another lens I'm interested to try.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
On the topic of wide angle primes, if you ever want to try my Samyang 12mm F2, you're welcome anytime.
Good info! Sorry, I edited my post pretty substantially and decided to start a new thread so as to not distract this one from the lens discussion. Will post it soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
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.
For others reading this thread and thinking about getting into ski photography beyond your iPhone: if I was buying starting from scratch right now, I would take a very hard look at the RX100 VI. It is pricey for the image quality compared to an A6X00, but 200mm zoom (35 mm equivalent) + 24 fps + 233 buffer limit + pop-up EVF ... and will fit in your pocket. Blows the older RX100s out of the water where it counts for skiing (at least IMHO): zoom and buffer limit. Frankly, I'll very likely be upgrading my RX100 I to the VI at some point when I have the monies. You just can't beat the pocketable size, and I'm a firm believer that the best camera is the one you use regularly.