# Best Lens For Park/Pipe Photography



## fuzebox (Nov 18, 2011)

I'm really getting into ski/snowboard photography this season, and I'm trying to select a good lens. I've got a t2i with the stock lens, although I borrow a buddy's sigma 70-200mm from time to time. What do you guys shoot with? Would be cool to see some sample pics as well.


----------



## aubzobot (Feb 19, 2011)

I'm a nikon so I can't help you man, but maybe go into a shop and talk to them about it.


----------



## AdamBQ (Sep 15, 2009)

I have a 7D for normal stuff and my wife, but for the mountain I also use a T2i...

I'd recommend anything with a low aperture. Unfortunately those are normally the most expensive.

I generally ride with a 17-85mm in my pack which is a good all around lens for mountains. If I was heading to a park to shoot (I dont do this but if I did), I would prolly bring that and maybe my fixed 50mm 1.4. The 50mm will be a bit of a pain because you are going to have to manually put yourself in position to frame the shot cus of no zoom in or out, but that should be easy. Hitting that 1.4 when ya want to will be key. Normally youd have to drop $2k+ on a lens that can get an AP of 1.4. If you want a cheap version of this, buy the fixed 50mm 1.8. Not nearly as good but a sick lens for $130.

The 70m-200mm Sigma would prolly be one of the last lens I would recommend  You want a lower lens, ideally with a nice low aperture IMO.

If you have $1k to spare, the EF 24-70mm F/2.8L would be my ideal lens to bring to the mountains, but I get that that is pretty pricey. Ill try to convince my wife she needs it for photography, then just start "borrowing" it to go to the moutains.


----------



## fuzebox (Nov 18, 2011)

AdamBQ said:


> The 70m-200mm Sigma would prolly be one of the last lens I would recommend


Yeah I just bring it with me sometimes because my buddy lets me borrow it... Cool being able to zoom all the way from the chairlift but the quality at that level wasn't that great.


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

I own the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. Canon version. I also have the Sigma 1.4x TC for it. Its not a perfect lens, but it will get the job done once you figure out where its strengths and weaknesses are.

Canon's 55-250 (Nikon makes a cheap 50-250 as well I think?) is a cheap alternative, but with a max aperture of f/4, you will want some decent light to freeze the action.


----------



## Kapn.K (Jan 8, 2009)

fuzebox said:


> I'm really getting into ski/snowboard photography this season, and I'm trying to select a good lens. I've got a t2i with the stock lens, although I borrow a buddy's sigma 70-200mm from time to time. What do you guys shoot with? Would be cool to see some sample pics as well.


Soooo what were the pix like with that lens? Where was it lacking? What have you seen in other peoples photos that you would like to see in yours?

I could do all kinds of stuff with that lens. Are you trying to stand at the top of the pipe and shoot someone coming out? Out on the mountain getting shots of people hitting a certain feature? 

Steve


----------



## Kapn.K (Jan 8, 2009)

AdamBQ said:


> The 70m-200mm Sigma would prolly be one of the last lens I would recommend  You want a lower lens, ideally with a nice low aperture IMO.


Why is it the last? Are Sigmas horrible these days? 20 years ago, I shot some nice stuff with one on an old Minolta. You mean large aperture(which means low f-stop) or a "fast" lens. With both lens caps off, hold it towards a light and cycle it from f2.8 to 22. 22 is the smallest, 2.8 the largest. Aperture literally means "opening". A fast lens has little benefit on a bluebird or otherwise bright day. It will help on a low light situation when you have a poor ccd(or slow film).

Any focal length less than 28mm(maybe 26) and you start getting fish-eye(which might be desired).

I only carry a Canon S95 point and shoot(their flagship of the class). I chose it for it's low light capability(more due to the ccd and image stabilization than the lens), portability, and I've found over the years that most of my shots require wide angle over zoom.

Some cameras have much better auto modes than others. Learning the manual-mode capabilities will do a lot in such cases.

You don't have to sell the farm to get good pix. Like anything, learning what you can do with whatever you have, can let you easily surpass those with more.

I suck at boarding but it's not because of my board! :cheeky4:

Steve


----------



## c0r3y.af (Oct 25, 2011)

Again, depends a lot on what you'll be shooting. If you like to be up close and personal, some of the smaller suggested lenses would be great (24-70mm or nifty 50). If you need some distance, a 55-250mm would probably be more than enough. You can get each of these fairly cheap, however if you want the ones with the larger aperture you'll have to spend quite a bit more but if you're serious about getting the best quality snaps it will be well worth it.

I personally have a 50mm f1.8 and a 55-250 f3.5-5.6. Didn't pay much for either but for what I use them for they're perfect. There's always the kit lens as well


----------



## fuzebox (Nov 18, 2011)

After deciding that I really only want to carry 1 lens around per day with me, I just ordered a 24-105mm F/4 to bring to the X Games next week. We'll see how it goes.


----------



## eek5 (Jan 5, 2011)

For outdoors sports the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 is great. It's going to suffer at night and in low light conditions but I love the extra reach over the standard 70-200's. I shot with a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS I and an older Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 before transitioning to the 100-300 and just staying there. It is a pretty affordable lens as well; I think I picked it up for around 550 used.




Kapn.K said:


> Why is it the last? Are Sigmas horrible these days?


Sigma has hit-or-miss QC. I've had very good experiences with them though. I think they get a bad rap as their newer lenses are great. If you're going to buy a used Sigma lens, I'd definitely ask for image samples though to make sure there are no issues.


----------



## AdamBQ (Sep 15, 2009)

Kapn.K said:


> Why is it the last? Are Sigmas horrible these days? 20 years ago, I shot some nice stuff with one on an old Minolta. You mean large aperture(which means low f-stop) or a "fast" lens. With both lens caps off, hold it towards a light and cycle it from f2.8 to 22. 22 is the smallest, 2.8 the largest. Aperture literally means "opening". A fast lens has little benefit on a bluebird or otherwise bright day. It will help on a low light situation when you have a poor ccd(or slow film).
> 
> Any focal length less than 28mm(maybe 26) and you start getting fish-eye(which might be desired).


Sorry I had my terms switched. You are correct.
Not that it is used much in mountain action type shots, but the LARGE aperture can give you great DOF shots that I really enjoy. Ill admit however that they dont get used much in snowboarding.

I wasn't saying Sigmas were horrible. I was specifically referring to the lens itself not the brand. The 70-200mm I just find too much. I'd rather something in a 24-105mm (be it a fixed 50mm or whatever).

At the end of the day, a lens choice can be pretty personal. PHOTOGRAPHS (not "pictures") are very much a form of art, and while I prefer a some art, others may not. Eek, Fuzebox and I might all prefer different styles and therefore prefer using very different lens. I dont think you have gotten any bad advice here and have been given some great options to try out.

Have fun and see what you like. (or post them here and we will judge)

Gotta throw it out there again though. The 50mm 1.8 is a great buy for a lens that you can do a lot of fun with. I highly recommend that for any new photographer.


----------



## Gibbs (Dec 7, 2010)

i'll quickly post my opinion. Typically when your riding pipe or even just out snowboarding its a sunny day. So canon 70-200 f/4 non IS. Cheapest, you don't need the 2.8 unless you shoot indoors really, it's just a nice thing to have. As for the IS, it'll be sunny/bright enough outside so your shutter speed will be fast enough and you wont get any shaky photos. 

Budget: canon 70-200 f/4 non IS -$500-700
Got money: canon 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS


----------

