Ski and Snowboard: What is in your bag?

<p>Alright, so I am adding equipment for the coming year to my current setup:<br>

Currently: Nikon D200, Sigma 70-200 HSM, Nikkor 24-85 f3.5-5.6, Nikkor 10.5mm Fisheye, 1 SB800, 1.4x Tele-extender for the Sigma, and lightmeter.<br>

Adding: Nikon D300s, Some Nikkor or Sigma to replace the 24-85 with f2.8, 50mm f1.2 AIS or 50mm f1.4 AFS<br>

Does this kit seem like a pretty good setup to you guys? Also throwing around the idea of a 300mm f4 and getting rid of the tele-extender. Mainly shoot terrain park stuff, but plan to add racing. Was also contemplating the D700 and the 300mm, which would then mean I could not replace the 24-85.<br>

<br /> Also I will be adding some small, battery operated lights. Anyone ever used anything like strobes in the park? I am thinking the Ranger Quadra system.</p>

<p>Zach, I see an enormous gap between 10.5 fish and 24mm. Filling that gap would be my personal top priority by a wide margin. It would seem that you're either 'on top of' the rider with the fish or shooting from an appreciable distance at 24mm (36mm on FX) with no middle ground. Food for thought.</p>

<p>Yeah, I haven't actually had a situation in the parks where I needed something wider than the 24. Mainly, because up until recently, it has always been at events, mostly amateurs. The kind of riders you need to give room. And I am in the Midwest, so we don't have the huge scenics the guys out West do. But yeah, I'll probably be adding a wider manual focus (or two) into the lineup.<br>

Also, the replacement for the 24-85 might be wider. Still looking over the options.</p>

<p>If i can translate this to canon i would take the following:<br>

1 Canon 1D mark III body<br>

70-200 f/2.8L IS<br /> a wideangle like 17-40 f/4 or 16-35 f/2.8<br /> and maybe (optional) a longer lens something like a 300 2.8 which is pretty ok handheld. but this one is pretty big so it depends.<br>

Checkout my <a href="http://sports-photography-blog.com">sports photography blog</a></p>

<p>If you want to shoot racing, it depends on the level of racing. At the JIV / JV level (kids 12 and under), you can probably get away with 200mm just fine. If you want to shoot upper-level events, 200mm tends to be either not quite enough or not nearly enough depending on the venue and how seriously they take safety requirements. When I've shot J1/J2 athletes with a 70-200 and 1.4x on it, I tend to find that for GS and faster events, I'm in places where I really need to stay on my toes. Given that I coach, I get a bit of leeway on that, and I also end up not shooting from a lot of places I'd like to because I can analyze the fall zones and realize that it's not a good place to be. If you're not as familiar with ski racing, you'd probably be better off with more reach. (I'd like more reach, but I can generally make do with the 70-200 and sometimes the 1.4x).</p>

<p>For general skiing use, I'd consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8 a reasonable addition to fill some of the hole between the 10.5 and the 70-200. Build quality is less than ideal, but mine still works okay after several years of hard use, and it covers the normal zoom range on a crop body. If I'm working with athletes and can talk about line choice, the 17-50 tends to work pretty damn well.</p>

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>Thanks for the input. I'm now really waying my options with the recent announcement of the D3s. I can probably hold off until about January for the new body (but my old one is showing its age), so I will be buying some nice new glass first.<br>

The downside so far to the D300s is the buffer size compared to the D3s. And probably ISO, being able to shoot 1600 guilt free would be very helpful.</p>