Great all-around lens mostly for snowboarding

hey,

 

I am getting the new EOS 40D, and i am having troble picking out a lense for it. I was thinking the EF

24-70mm f/2.8L USM but the guy at the photoshop thinks that is a bad choice. Any ideas?

 

thanks for your help!

Why would anyone call that lens a bad choice? It's a fantastic lens.

 

Are you going to be close enough to the snowboarders to capture them using short focal

lengths?

The 24-70mm is an awsome lens and is never a 'bad idea' to own. Question comes in, as Peter points out, how far away will you be from the action? Using the 24-70mm on your crop factor camera gives you a fast f/2.8 38-112mm lens. I would think you'd need more reach then 112mm. Maybe the 70-200mm f/4 IS would be the ticket giving you an effective range of 112-320 f/4 IS on your 40D. To me that would make more sense given the distance you might encounter and cheaper than the 24-70mm lens.

You're not having trouble picking-out a lens. You're having trouble envisioning how you want YOUR images to look; wide angle taking-in the scape or telephoto which tends to isolate the rider unless shot from a great distance. Grab some 'boarder magazines and look at a bunch of photos to see which 'look' you prefer. Then we can suggest specific lenses.

 

My personal preference is to get close to the rider with a wide angle and include the surroundings! If you agree, then the angle of view offered by the 24-70mm (equal to 38-112mm on full-frame) just isn't wide enough. Referring to any lens as a 'bad choice' is a poor choice of words. One lens will be more 'appropriate' than another...the appropriateness of which is dictated by YOUR and only your vision.

If weight is a factor, the 24-70 is a brick, apart from that I can't think of a downside. For snowboarding (white, white) the 40D with its highlight tone protection sounds like a good fit - the 1.6x crop factor gives you more (effective) reach. There is no 'one lens' solution - a common sports range is 70-200mm (f4,IS facilitates handholding in reasonable light), if you need wider angle then the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a beaut lens. Take a look at Bob's recommendations: <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_40D_review_lenses.html">40D lenses</a>

Alexandra,

 

I think you have excellent judgement when it comes to lenses, but perhaps poorer judgement when it comes to salespeople! :)

 

I think that everyone should own an EF24-70mm F2.8L USM - fantastic general-purpose lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

I have the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, and I love it! gives me from wide angle to fairly good zoom, it's light, has IS, good image quality and it's not very expensive (+/- $500). Of course, if you do need more zoom as other people already said...

Essentially for sports photography, your choice of lens depends primarily upon the viewpoint you can secure, and then a little upon your style, or the type of image you wish to capture.

 

I covered Snowboarding Championships here this winter.

 

With a press pass I could get to any `Red Rail` (i.e. closer than any spectator).

 

At the fold back turn and double jump area I choose as my main vantage point, the course was about 120ft wide.

 

Assuming that most riders would hit the centre jump, I was about 60 feet away and 80 feet away when they hit the ground for the turn.

 

With that information from the reconnoitre, my choice was 70 to 200F2.8L on a 20D as the main camera / lens.

 

I would have been severely limited using a 24 to 70mm, given the FoV at 70mm FL, at 60 ft SD, is about 25x14 ft.

 

But for an all-round lens the 24 to 70 F2.8 is great: for snowboarding, it really depends on how close you will be to the action, primarily, and how closely you wish to frame your subject according to your style.

 

For sports coverage IS is of little use in nearly all shooting scenarios: it however does have an application in panning sports shots, and in this regard should be considered for snowboard shooting.

 

For me, sport requires the up close and personal issue, for most of the shots.

 

But as Lily W points out, this can be achieved with a wider FL than the 24 to 70 will allow you.

 

On the practice jumps where I was allowed complete freedom of movement, I captured some quite nice WA shots at about 17 to 20 mm FL with a viewpoint under and to the side of the jump at about 10 ft SD.

 

As I said first up, it depends on the viewpoint and SD you have to work with, neither lens is a `bad lens`, but both could be a bad `choice` for any particular job.

 

 

WW

hey thanks for all those great responses.

 

YEs that guy was not exactly the nicest salesman. He convinced me to go with canon and

then when i came back he only received shipments of nikons and he wanted me to go with

that.

 

I am definitely going to be close to the riders on the mountain so that lens sounds like a

good starter. It also seems that it will give me great close up shots for all my photos for

my websites and print designs as-well.

 

Now i just have to find one that is not extremely overpriced. I am finding them left and

right that are around 900 $ but that means that its only 300 more for a new one. I might

have to go with a new one.

<<I think that everyone should own an EF24-70mm F2.8L USM - fantastic general-purpose lens.>>

 

Thanks for the offer Colin. I'll send you my mailing address so you can ship one to me right away!

<p>I'd actually agree with the salesperson that the 24-70 is not a particularly useful focal

length <em>on a 1.6-crop camera</em>. With a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Canon 17-

55/2.8 IS (depending on your budget, need for IS, and weight considerations) and a 70-

200/2.8 of some sort, you can cover the most important focal lengths for both

"walkaround" ranges and telephoto ranges. I've got a 17-50 and a 70-200, and my next

zoom will be a 10-22 or 12-24, not a 24-70--the length gap from 50 to 70 just doesn't

seem to be a problem very often.</p>

 

<p>(And yes, I do shoot some snowboarding comps, and the 17-50/2.8 is almost always

my weapon of choice...but I can be pretty much wherever I feel is safe, so I'm not limited

in the same way that you might be at a larger comp with crowd control and

whatnot).</p>

Regarding use with an an APS-C Camera body or an APS-C system:

 

>>> With a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Canon 17- 55/2.8 IS (depending on your budget, need for IS, and weight considerations) and a 70- 200/2.8 of some sort, you can cover the most important focal lengths for both "walkaround" ranges and telephoto ranges. <<<

 

Do not underestimate the quality of information contained in this sentence. (and others who have pointed to it), i.e. the EF-S 17 to 55F2.8IS.

 

If you figure you can work with 24 to 70, then the loss of 20 at the long end most likely will be worth the gain of 7 at the wide end, and IS and less to lug around.

 

This crisp lens is becoming the main lens of many Professional Wedding Photographers, who have bedded into the APS-C format.

 

WW

>>> then the loss of 20 at the long end <<<

 

should read:

 

`then the loss of 15 at the long end`

I bring my sigma 18-55 out to the snow, its light and i can ride with it. There's some photos in my portfolio. If your going to spend the money on canon, the 16-35, 17-40 or 15mm would be my recommendations. I would save the telephoto, (70mm) for another lens. Maybe 70-200 f/4. The wide side counts when you need it. Be sure to check out the Burton Zoom pack, a great Waterproof lens and camera bag. It makes me feel comfortable to carry around my gear on the slopes. Good luck.

ya i have already ordered the zoom pack, its great. I am also looking at the Tokina AT-X 107

DX 10-17 for a fun fisheye lens. Anyone know about this one?