Skiing telephoto for crop body

[D(C)]

I'm starting to look into picking up a telephoto lens to use on my 20D. I'm just starting out so it doesn't need to be anything overly fancy/expensive, but I want something somewhat decent. I also have a Sigma 17-70 OS HSM and Canon 50 f1.8. I recently inherited a Canon 75-300 II non-USM from my grandfather, but I'm finding the lens a bit slow for anything less than pretty good light, and the AF hunts a lot.

I like the range of the Canon 55-250 and am wondering if there exists anything with a similar range that's a bit of a step up. Anything higher end seems to start at 70, and I feel that having 55 at the wide end would add versatility.

[smmokan]

Nothing that I'm aware of that starts in the 50mm range (that's not the 55-250mm you mentioned previously) that's any good. There's the Canon 70-200 f/4L non-IS lens that's a solid performer, but it's around $500+ used.

I have a Sigma 18-125mm OS HSM for sale that's an awesome skiing lens, take a look at my for-sale post a few threads down. It's not as much of a long zoom, but it's a helluva focal range.

[kidwoo]

There's the Canon 70-200 f/4L non-IS lens that's a solid performer, but

That would be my suggestion.......

I shoot with one on a 7D/crop body and friggin love it.

[truth]

The 70-200L family has probably captured more published ski images than any other Canon lens in existence.

[D(C)]

For a budget lens, what are the thoughts on the 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM? They can be had pretty damn cheap and reviews are favourable. Is it a worthwhile upgrade over my 75-300? The USM and faster aperture would be helpful.

I don't think a 70-200L is in the budget right now, though if there is no lens I can get that's substantially better than my current telephoto other than going to that, I guess I'll start saving.

[splitter]

there's an awful lot of reflected light while skiing that would make a 5.6 or even slower more than adequate.

beyond sunrise/sunset ski shots, you'll likely want a bigger DOF than wide open on anything very fast could give you.

[SchralphMacchio]

I don't think a 70-200L is in the budget right now, though if there is no lens I can get that's substantially better than my current telephoto other than going to that, I guess I'll start saving.

The 70-200 f/4L is probably the single least expensive L lens you can purchase - you can find one for $500. And one of the sharpest lenses out there. And the autofocus is worlds faster than anything you can purchase for that amount of money. Save the money and don't subject yourself to a lesser lens, because all you will do in the end is be wasting your time. This isn't anything like thinking about a $1500 L lens as an upgrade over a $300 third party piece of glass - this is a $200 upgrade for a lens that will be one of the sharpest pieces of glass with awesome colors that you will ever own.

[smmokan]

For a budget lens, what are the thoughts on the 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM? They can be had pretty damn cheap and reviews are favourable. Is it a worthwhile upgrade over my 75-300? The USM and faster aperture would be helpful.

You may want to check those reviews again. There are two versions of that lens, the f/3.5-4.5 as you mentioned, and there's also a constant f/4. The constant f/4 lens gets good reviews... I'm pretty sure the version you mention does not. I don't think it would be much (if any) of an upgrade over what you currently have.

The good thing about the 70-200 f/4 lens is if you buy it for $500 now, you can use it for a year or two and then sell it for the same amount. They don't depreciate in value.

[kidwoo]

^^What those last two guys said^^

[D(C)]

Thanks, fair advice. I will use my current lens until it's time to pick up a 70-200 F4L.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

i'm no pro but I carry my DSLR when skiing quite a bit and honestly I can't imagine using a 70-200 lens. There are a LOT of times when the subject would be too close to me to be able to use a 70mm.

Maybe my technique is bad, but what I usually do is ski down ahead of the group and find a spot off to the side of the slope to set up then have the skiers come down to and past me one at a time. I'm wishing for the long lens when they first start out at the top of the slope, but some of the best pics I've gotten have been right as they go past me, where a 70 is too long. My old 24-120 seemed to be the best compromise for a skiing lens, I was just never happy with the images it produced, it was a rather soft lens and didn't focus very quickly. The 16-85 works way better, it's much sharper and faster focusing but doesn't have nearly the reach. That's okay because it's almost always easier to get closer to the subject but isn't always possible to get farther away.

I just went through my pics from ski trips the last two years and looked at the EXIF for my favorite shots. The vast majority were shot between 35 and 60mm. One at 18, one at 120. If your subjects are cooperative, they'll lay down their slutty slashing turns as they get close to you.

That and carrying a 70-200 f4 when skiing would be kind of a pain from a weight & handling perspective.

[SchralphMacchio]

^ I've carried my 70-200 f/4L in 3-4 miles and 4000 ft. above the road before. I've made shots in the BC with this lens, my 50mm prime, my 17-50, my 10-22 ... just depends on the perspective and terrain you want to shoot.

The thing a long lens can do is compress and flatten (vertically) the terrain if you have the right vantage point.

200mm


70mm


110mm


110mm

[Gregger]

Another vote for the 70-200 F4L.


Although I have the 70-200 2.8L II and it's by far my favorite lens.

[dfinn]

Another vote for the 70-200 F4L.


Although I have the 70-200 2.8L II and it's by far my favorite lens.

Curious why you own both? Wanna sell the F4L?

[birdboatboy]

I used to own the 70-200 F/4 and agree that it is often too long a crop body if you are photographing as you ski. I'm sure it works wonders if you're out on an intentional photoshoot and hike the opposite ridge as your subject, but usually I'm pulling out the camera while standing on the same pitch as my subjects. Looking back through my photos, most of them tended to be at 70mm shooting with the 70-200 (112mm on FF). Now I have the 15-85 and while I haven't skied with it yet, I think that it will be a better fit for the range I typically shoot 24-136mm with IS in a pretty compact package is hard to beat for most situations.

[Gregger]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/....php?t=1135668

There ya go.

[D(C)]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/....php?t=1135668

There ya go.

Thanks! I'll need to save up some cash, though. I also want to play around a bit more with my 17-70 and 75-300 to see what zoom range I use most on the slopes.

[Huck_Schmuck]

Quick bump on this for a 70-200 f4 question.

I've seen a great deal on a 2004 version ($400 CAD), what do I look for to make sure it's OK? I've never really bought a used lens before.

Cheers.

[hitek79]

Just take your camera with you and make sure the focus is quick on it. Other than that, check the front and rear elements for scratches, and the body of the lens for excessive wear. It's a used lens, so some wear will probably be evident. Most people take pretty good care of nice photography equipment though. I have yet to come across anything even remotely used looking.

[skibum220]

Play with the focus and zoom rings to make sure they aren't too loose. Take off both caps and look through it in light to look for scratches or dust inside it.
I bought mine used for $450, serial number is from 1999 and it kicks ass.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Keep in mind that a minor scratch or spot on the front element or a little dust inside won't affect picture quality. If there are big spots or scratches on the front element you'll get ghosts when shooting into the sun, but how often do you do that?

I'd be more concerned with how the focus & zoom rings feel. If the lens extends as you zoom, pay attention to how much wiggle/play there is between the sections of the barrel.

Flick the aperture lever too. It should move freely and snap back to fully stopped down.

I've never bought a new lens except for once when I broke my old 24-120 while on vacation and couldn't find a suitable replacement anywhere in SLC in the half-day I had to look, so ended up buying a brand new one.

[Huck_Schmuck]

Found another one for $430 (CAD) and 2010 date code. Turns out the seller is a friend of a photographer that I used to use for work.

The lens looks great, the "zoom" is somewhat looser than I was expecting but doesn't seem to be bad thing.

The brightest place we could find to meet on a wet Vancouver evening was a Starbucks, I shot off a load of test shots and was pretty happy with this:


March 5, 2014 by gavinprice, on Flickr
200mm @ 1/250 f4 ISO 1600

Looking forward to getting out on the hill with this. Thanks for the input.