| Ranked Posts: 539 |
| Hampshire |
|
 #8 Re: Lenses for park use? 25/04/2008 @ 20:09:10 |
   |
|
| Revision #1 (Last edited: 25/04/2008 @ 20:10:40) |
Tokina 10-17mm. A mate of mine has one and it's fisheye at the 10mm end on a crop factor zooming to a pretty wide 17mm. Best fisheye you can get for crop bodies at the moment. You should JUST be able to get one in your budget if you hunt around...
Edit: Here you go... 400 quid at Warehouse Express...
Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye |
 |
Chair. Hike. Powder. Piste. Park. Pipe. Beer. Liftie for life.
Vail . pr:w . Get some
psammeadspace . psammeadNet |
|
|
|
| Ranked Posts: 1119 |
| Somerset |
|
| #7 Re: Lenses for park use? 25/04/2008 @ 16:21:54 |
|
|
| In reply to post #6 ... |
used to use a fisheye adapter on my old 35mm OM4 , never really looked through the viewfinder while using it (didn't want my head removed by a flying skateboard)
quality was hit n miss, wouldn't work with one and expect consistent results |
|
|
|
|
|
| #6 Re: Lenses for park use? 25/04/2008 @ 15:45:08 |
|
|
| In reply to post #1 ... |
This is why a fisheye is good.
You don't even need to aim, but you do need to be close.
 |
|
|
|
| Ranked Posts: 800 |
| UK - England |
|
| #5 Re: Lenses for park use? 03/03/2008 @ 22:41:47 |
|
|
| Revision #1 (Last edited: 03/03/2008 @ 22:46:37) |
| In reply to post #1 ... |
Specifically for the park, which you're asking about, you want a fisheye. Assuming you've a crop factor on that body and the 18mm is 35mm format, then you're not doing too badly with that. The Canon fish is f/2.8 and about £450. It's a Canon wide so it's not brilliant, but it's a Fish and entirely ok for that use. I wouldn't bother with "fisheye adapters" as the quality will be shite; off-brand wides may be ok though - Canon's weak on wides and Sigma and may well be better. Check independent reviews. The Sigma 12-24 is interesting and surprisingly good although it's rectilinear.
Lens speed... well obviously faster is better; yeah there's a lot of light about on the snow, but you may want to use it somewhere else and it's not generally a good idea to shoot wide-open.
In general longer lenses are good for shooting bad riders who you don't want anywhere near you. Also they work well for races or portraits. They're not particularly great for shooting riders generally as you cut all the background out. Please don't bother posting counter-examples; I've a poster-sized one hanging over my monitor.
The one lens I don't have is the 70-200; it's neither fish nor fowl to me. It's not long enough to be a tele and it's not short enough to qualify as wide.
In general, you want wide and you want to be really, really close. I once had the front element of a fisheye lens broken by the tail of a pirouetting skier: that's a tad too close, but only just. The park's the ideal place because you know pretty precisely where a rider's going to go; you need much better riders to be able to shoot with a fish in the back country.
As far as depth of field... with a fisheye you have a huge depth of field, so you can actually get away without focusing much. The Canon's AF is pretty crappy old technology, but it's ok for this use. The opposite's true for long lenses wide-open. |
|
|
|
| Ranked Posts: 25 |
| North Yorkshire |
|
| #4 Re: Lenses for park use? 03/03/2008 @ 14:42:11 |
|
|
| Revision #1 (Last edited: 03/03/2008 @ 14:43:14) |
I reckon that 4.5 should be a large enough aperture for the park, there's loaaaads of light in the snow. The thing you've got to watch out for is your camera under exposing because the snow is so bright, a good rule of thumb is to push it up a stop. I have a Sigma 10-20 which is an absolutely great ultra wide zoom, you get a lot for your money with it and is great for getting some interesting shots when you're stood close up.
Allegedly the best lens for shooting snowboarding, and what a lot of pros swear by is a 70-200 f4 L IS, or if you're even more extravagant the f2.8 version. They're serious money though... |
|
|
|
| Ranked Posts: 1847 |
| Somerset |
|
| #3 Re: Lenses for park use? 28/02/2008 @ 17:36:02 |
|
|
Not a big photographer at all, but just got a Lomographic Fisheye Camera for £16.
There's something about photo's taken with a Fisheye lens... even better if they involve alcohol  |
|
|
|
| Ranked Posts: 1119 |
| Somerset |
|
| #2 Re: Lenses for park use? 28/02/2008 @ 11:25:47 |
|
|
| Revision #1 (Last edited: 28/02/2008 @ 11:31:28) |
| In reply to post #1 ... |
from my skate days, I would say you really need a wide angle (for when you feel brave and want to get in there) and a reaonable telephoto.
remember that with the snow there is extra light reflecting all over so f4.5 may be enough
think about the fact that you are photographing a moving target , so a wider apperture may not give you enough depth of field to get consistently infocus shots
I'm sure more more snow experienced photographer could add more..or tell me I am talking cock |
|
|
|
|
|
| #1 Lenses for park use? 28/02/2008 @ 10:55:23 |
|
|
Hey all.
I am going away to Switzerland in a few weeks and will be taking my Canon 350d.
Currently I've got the kit 18-55, canon 75-300 and sigma 28-135.
All of these lenses are quite slow (their widest apeture is about f/4.5).
What is a good lens for use in the snowboard park? I've got abou £450 to spend.
Thanks a lot |
|
|
|