Ski Photography

[SLOskier]

For those ski photographers out there, who has experience with Canon's 70-200mm lenses (or other brand equivalent)? The f/4.0 IS is about half the price (and weight!) of the f/2.8 IS, and about the same price as the f/2.8 non-IS. Any recommendations for this category? Does anyone with the 2.8 ever shoot skiing at apertures wider than 4.0? Is image stabilization even important for the higher shutter speeds you'd normally use for action sports? I've got my short range covered, but I've just been using a kit 18-135mm for skiing. I'm looking to upgrade in this area and welcome any suggestions!

[6balls]

My guess is if you contact John Mommer, he can steer you in the right direction:

http://www.johnmommerphotography.com/

Skied at the same site as he did when he was just a kid, along w/his bro's. Reconnected 2 years ago when skiing in Orlando w/Jodi and ran into the he and his brother Casey.

 

[Tuney]

I have a Nikon D40X with an AF-S DX 18-200mm F3.5-5.5G ED VR2. I am no pro but it isn't fast enough.

[photobymarko]

I have Nikon 70-200 VRII on a D90. I find that it is quite often open to 2.8 when shooting slalom. But even when not, it is the quality of the glass in that lens that makes all the difference over a kit lens. See my pics on www.precarious.co.uk You will never be satisfied with the results until you have the quality glass. Good luck.

[Phil2360]

I've got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark II. It's brilliant. I usually shoot around 5.6 to f8.0. I rarely shoot wide open as depth of field becomes too limited. Biggest advantage of the 2.8 in this case is brightness in the view finder & additional light available for the auto focus system. The extra light will help with focus accuracy & speed.

 

Keeping IS on also has it's advantages too. Canon claim it will allow the servo focus system to track more accurately as it reduces the processing power required to discern subject movement from camera shake.

 

The f/4 Canons equally brilliant in terms of build & sharpness, just a stop slower & a whole heap lighter.

 

See:-

 

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/

 

Also a search in the Canon Lens forum on DpReview will unearth a heap of 2.8 vs 4.0 discussions.

 

 

[Kelvin]

I use Nikon and have the 70-200 2.8 with VR I (vibration reduction - 1st gen). It's a great lens for shooting from the boat, but a little short for shoreline work at tournaments. For most skiing, the light is good enough that shutter speeds are going to be high enough where VR or IS is not necessary. But, having said that, the IS lenses tend to be newer and have better optics. At least that is what the Nikon reviewers are saying about the new VR II lens compared to the older VR I. Another consideration for the 2.8 over the 4.0 - teleconverters tend to work better autofocusing with the longer lenses. A 1.4x converter turns a 200mm into a 280mm f4.0 and a 2x converter turns a 200mm into a 400mm f5.6. The teleconverters (at least on Nikons) don't work as well on the f4.0 lenses.

 

In the past, I've shot alot of skiing at 2.8 with high shutter speeds, but after spending a weekend with Bill Doster (staff photographer for Waterski Mag) he tends to close the lens down and use a slower shutter speed to improve the depth of field and create the sense of motion from the blurred spray. I'm going to try changing thing up a little this summer.

 

Check out some of my waterskiing photos:

 

 

http://www.sportpixusa.net/g/2010_ncwsa_collegiate_waterski_nationals

 

http://www.sportpixusa.net/g/2010_waterski_nationals

[SLOskier]

Solid guys, thanks for all the input. Kelvin, your point about teleconverters is one of the strongest reasons that I am considering the 2.8 over the 4.0. Having a 280mm f/4.0 for a fraction of the cost of a new lens would be pretty desirable down the road. Phil, thanks for bringing to my attention the advantages of the 2.8 for the autofocus performance and the IS for tracking. I'll check out the DPReview forums for more input, but I guess more than anything I need to consider my photography priorities. Being able to shed that extra weight hiking up mountains in the winter still speaks a lot for the 4.0...

[RichardDoane]

we rented lenses last summer a couple times for my son's Nikon, it was a $90 weekend, allowing us to use an $1800 lens

[Phil2360]

Ironically the few pics currently in one of my galleries aren't taken with the 70-200.

 

Some are from my 100-400L & the others from an EF-S 18-200mm. Considering the 18-200 is a "Compromise Lens",

Results are still pretty good (it's used for the 3 oldest shots).

 

Also I'd buy the F4.0 in a flash if I had the spare cash, simply based on it's reduced weight.

 

Gallery is here:-

 

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2003734538/invite/1D1A673C812B428688DA156EEDC0FC4B

 

[Roger]

If you go with the 70-200 2.8L and plan to use the teleconverters, make sure you spend the extra money and get the Mark II version of the lens. I have the Mark I version which is stellar by itself, but quality with a 2X is just ok. The 1.4X is acceptable. I shoot most of my slalom with a 300 though...

[Ham_Wallace]

Link to some of my shots taken the past 3 years with a Cannon 30D and standard Sigma 70-300. I really want the 70-200 with the IS (image stabilization) feature. But the Sigma does well in good light. https://picasaweb.google.com/106051890801515886608/SKISHOTS?feat=directlink