Suitable lens for snowboarding and biking

I would like some advice on my next lens purchase please.

I intend to do some snowboarding and mountain biking photography whilst I recover from surgery on my knee. I may also take some photos of sports such as rugby over the winter.

I am looking for a suitable lens for my Canon 350D and my budget is around the $1k CDN mark.

The two lenses I am considering are a new Canon 70-200mm f4 L or a second hand Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L. (The IS versions of both of these lenses are a little out of my price range.)

- Which lens do you think would be more suitable?

- Is the aperture of the f4 lens wide enough to isolate my subjects? If anyone has any example pictures taken with the f4 to allay this concern, I would love to see them.

Many thanks for your help.

Marcus Buckle said:

The two lenses I am considering are a new Canon 70-200mm f4 L or a second hand Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L. (The IS versions of both of these lenses are a little out of my price range.)

- Which lens do you think would be more suitable?

- Is the aperture of the f4 lens wide enough to isolate my subjects? If anyone has any example pictures taken with the f4 to allay this concern, I would love to see them.

Many thanks for your help.

Click to expand...

Great challenge you set for yourself Marcus!

Both lenses are stellar performers. You do need a UV filter for the snow and mud splashes for the motor sports! Otherwise I never use filters. The IS is not needed for these pictures in general as you have enough light in the day for high speed.

However, the IS is wonderful. Remember that with these lenses, they money spent is pretty well money in the bank, except if your lens is dropped on concrete or you put it down in the ski Lodge, when it grows wings.

You can always sell and trade up later on.

The 70-200 4.0 is no less sharp, maybe even sharper than the 2.8 big brother. for your work, f4.0 will give you tons of light and beautiful out of foucs b.g.

The 4.0 lens is lightweight. One can get a collar for tripod use. (I mislaid mine after I removed it. Sans collar, it's so much more comfortable in one's pants pocket!).

The 2.8 lens is great for hand holding, but mine has a collar, of course and a Really Right Stuff quick release shoe for my tripod and is my main source of upper body strength training. I don't think you need it. I do a lot of events in poorly lit places and so I need the extra light.

This lens is a money lens. Either version, with or W.O. IS. Perfect for portraits, great for sports and it will not let you down in image quality.

Given that you already have had a knee problem and your body has to accomodate to that limitation in repositioning your weight every several minutes as we subconsciously do, I would most certainly go for the f 4.0.

Eventually I'll sell mine and get an IS version, just as you will some day!

Good luck,

Asher

Portability is an important consideration here, is it not Marcus? The 70-200 f/2.8 is pretty darn heavy.

For snowboarding and MTB shooting you will also need a good wide angle. Give consideration to the Sigma 15mm f2.8 rectangular fisheye, for about $350 last time I looked.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Nill Toulme said:

Portability is an important consideration here, is it not Marcus? The 70-200 f/2.8 is pretty darn heavy.

For snowboarding and MTB shooting you will also need a good wide angle. Give consideration to the Sigma 15mm f2.8 rectangular fisheye, for about $350 last time I looked.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Click to expand...

Hi Nill

Yes portability is an important consideration, but I have been balancing that against ensuring I have the right tools for the job. There will certainly be a degree of hiking/snow shoeing involved to get to the right locations, but I am not a weight freak. If the extra 1.3lbs that the f2.8 lens brings is more suitable, then I can carry the extra load.

Long term I envisaged moving to the 70-200mm f4 once I start hiking again, as weight will be more important. However, in the short term weight is less of a consideration. If I could buy a good second hand copy of a 70-200mm f2.8, then my thinking was that I could always trade it for the f4 next summer.

If the 70-200mm f4 will enable me to freeze the subject successfully given the typical light conditions found on mountains in winter, as well as isolate the background successfully, then I am more than happy to go with it. The lighter weight, as I mentioned before, is just an added bonus!

Thank you for the suggestion of the Sigma. I had not considered the need for a wide angle to do this type of shooting, but you've stirred my curiosity. What is the difference between a 'rectangular fisheye' and a wide angle lens such as the EF-S 10-22 (which is out of my budget right now anyway)? Could you suggest or post any images that I could use for inspiration please?

Thank you for your help.

I'll try to do that when I have a bit more time, but if you peruse any of the MTB mags/sites and I suspect the snowboarding ones as well, you'll see more than a few fisheye shots.

Basically, and in theory (practice always deviates a bit from theory), a rectilinear lens like the 10-22 maintains straight lines as straight, while a rectangular fisheye doesn't try to, thereby achieving the curved "fisheye" look. A "true" or "circular" fisheye produces a circular image covering a field of view of 180 degrees. A rectangular fisheye produces a rectangular image just like a regular lens does. (This is highly simplified, mind you.)

Either one can produce ultra wide angle shots. What I like about the fisheye is that, especially for people shots and often for landscapes, I prefer its particular kind of distortion over the kind the ultra wide rectilinear lens produces. Yes, it makes straight lines curved, but it doesn't stretch people and objects out at the margins the way the rectilinear lens does. And you can always "defish" it with software to get rid of the curvature if you want to.

I posted a few fishy examples back in this thread. See also this article for some more in-depth discussion.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Marcus,

I'm certain that you will have no limitation from your lens or camera using the 70-200 4.0 L.

You don't need the f2.8 unless you are trying to reduce the sharpest focus depth to several cm! There's plenty enough light with f4.0 and hardly anything ever made is sharper than that lens.

You would have to use special B&W film and certain selected lenses a very heavy tripod and a wind shield to do better with any lens that would fit your camera. Focus would have to be manual. Further you would have to both pray and give gifts to each denomination to have all the powers intercede on your behalf. You would then send your film to a German company to process and then have the film scanned professionally. Oh, yes, I forgot, you'll need a film camera!

If you have the 70-200L 4.0 you are carrying one of the most wonderful lenses ever made. The limit to this lens is actually your own skill and how much you have imbibed!

Are you reassured yet?

Great!

So go ahead and get the lens, you'll do fine!

Asher

Thanks to both of you for your help and suggestions. I'm off to buy the f4 lens this weekend. I think a few test shots with a fisheye lens may be in order too!

Once we are the other side of Christmas and the weather has started to cheer up then I'll head out to take some pictures. I'll leave the hip flask at home, just to make sure I have no excuses for poor shots!

I promise to post any good ones I get on the forum.

Thanks again

Marcus

Caveat, that I meant to mention in the other reply and forgot. You'll have plenty of light for the snowboarding, but shooting MTB in the BC woods will be another story. You'll need at least 1/400 to stop action, although blur effects that work very well in MTB shooting. Anyway, I can well imagine that you might occasionally find yourself wishing for the f/2.8 back in the depths of the forest.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Don't say that, Nil! I'll have to revisit all the shrines!

Asher

Nill Toulme said:

Caveat, that I meant to mention in the other reply and forgot. You'll have plenty of light for the snowboarding, but shooting MTB in the BC woods will be another story. You'll need at least 1/400 to stop action, although blur effects that work very well in MTB shooting. Anyway, I can well imagine that you might occasionally find yourself wishing for the f/2.8 back in the depths of the forest.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Click to expand...

I agree with your comments about the lack of light in the BC forests. I have thought of some potential work arounds if I was using an f4 lens, but I don't know how realistic they are.
- seek out better lit areas
- use a tripod/monopod
- position myself slightly closer to my subjects, so I'm not at the long end of the zoom
- if the light is really poor, switch to a 50mm f1.8 or the new addition to my 'potential lens list', the Sigma 15mm f2.8.

As I now have a split decision between the f4 for snowboarding and the f2.8 for biking, could I throw a final question into the mix? I assume that the 70-200mm f4 will work for shooting rugby? The reach of the lens might be a little short depending on where I set up, but I could add the 1.4x teleconverter (accepting the reduction to an f5.6 aperture). I will still achieve the desired subject isolation and should get fast enough shutter speeds except in poor weather conditions. Therefore the 70-200mm f4 lens will give me plenty of scope to learn good technique and at the same time hopefully capture some good images.

Please let me know if I am misleading myself through inexperience? Am I trying to get too much out of one lens?

If not, then I can save Asher a trip to the shrines!

Thanks

Marcus

Yes, I think you are trying to get too much out of one lens, especially if it ends up being the f/4. If you're throwing rugby into the mix I'd definitely recommend going with the f/2.8 lens.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Rather than go to all the priests again, I'm going to have to send you my 2.8 IS lens, but then again,

Asher