VisionAir 0 #1 March 20, 2003 Quade, One place I read you recommend a 24mm lens on a Canon Rebel 2000 but in another post you made I read that 28mm is the way to go. Which one, and why? And do you recommend f1.8 or f2.8, and why? Also, I assume you mean a non zoom lens to keep it short. I'm making the big step into a real SLR camera and wanna make sure I'm getting the right thing for what I do (which is a bit of RW but mostly either tandems of freeflying). I use a .46 on my video camera. Huh?!? What cloud?!? Oh that!!! That's just Industrial Haze Alex M. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
garywainwright 0 #2 March 20, 2003 I would have a look to see which one lines up best with your video lens. IMO your still lens should be exactly the same or slightly wider than your video lens - people don't mind a very tightly cropped video but won't buy your pics if you crop a leg off! The f1.8 is a bigger aperture - sometimes described as a 'faster' lens. No need to worry about this as we have so much natural light in our playground! Personally my sigma 24mm lines up very well with my Raynox0.5 lens. have fun!http://www.garywainwright.co.uk Instagram gary_wainwright_uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #3 March 20, 2003 QuoteOne place I read you recommend a 24mm lens on a Canon Rebel 2000 but in another post you made I read that 28mm is the way to go. Really? That's probably a typo on my part. Sorry for any confusion. QuoteWhich one, and why? I think the 28mm is the "bread and butter" lens for shooting RW, tandem and AFF. It's wide enough without being too wide, fairly inexpensive and fairly easy to get. From http://calumetphoto.com $210 EOS EF 28mm f/2.8 Lens $320 EOS EF 24mm f/2.8 Lens The 24mm is just a little wider, but you'll have to fly closer (which will be slightly more difficult) and it costs about $100 more. QuoteAnd do you recommend f1.8 or f2.8, and why? Well, for one thing, just look at the prices (again from Calumet). $470 EOS EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Lens and then sit down for this one . . . $1,410 EOS EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM Lens Ok, beyond that little price issue, for the most part you'll be shooting at a smaller aperture than f/2.8 anyway, so why design your camera system for some extremely dark condition you'll almost never be shooting in? Typically I'll shoot 200 ISO, 1/500th and that will give me about f/8 to f/11 from about 1 hour after sunrise to about 1 hour before sunset. Obviously, I'll have to use other settings during sunset, but I think you see where I'm going. QuoteI use a .46 on my video camera. Unfortunately, that's sort of irrelevant. Different wide angle lenses on different video cameras produce wildly different results. I kinda see where you're going though. You're thinking about freefly and wider video and trying to match that to the 35mm film frame. Yeah, you can kind of do that, but realize that you're trying to do a couple of different things. Video and 35mm film have two different aspect ratios (width:height). "Normal" video is 4:3 and 35mm film is 6:4, so what are you trying to match; height or width? I prefer to match the height of the video to the height of the "film" (actually, I shoot digital now), but no matter how you do it it's not going to be a perfect match.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #4 March 20, 2003 Q. Thanks again for providing this invaluable information free of charge. That last one there was worth a case of beer. Thanks. JP Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VisionAir 0 #5 March 20, 2003 You da man Q... And just in time...almost ebayed a 24mm lens because it seemed to be a good deal. Back to the searches for 28mm. 8) I also appreciate you plain english answer for my noob question. Huh?!? What cloud?!? Oh that!!! That's just Industrial Haze Alex M. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #6 March 20, 2003 I kneel before the wisdom and plain old helpfulness of Quade. Really we all thank you. ~Chachi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #7 March 21, 2003 QuoteYou da man Q... And just in time...almost ebayed a 24mm lens because it seemed to be a good deal. Back to the searches for 28mm. 8) I also appreciate you plain english answer for my noob question. How good of a deal was it? I was looking for a cheap 28mm fixed as per Quade, but stumbled across a 24mm Sigma f2.8 on Ebay less than a week ago. Paid $107 after shipping and insurance to my door. I've already run a roll of 200 speed through it, and I tell ya what, it's sweet! Unless I read Quade wrong, the 24mm might be a little better than the 28, but not enough to justify the price difference. When prices are equal, go with the 24, which is what I did. Hope I'm not too far off base there. If I am, Quade please correct me.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #8 March 21, 2003 Well, here's my bottom line on it. Ultimately you have to decide for yourself what is worth what and you shouldn't have to live by any fixed set of rules as far as focal length is concerned. I -personally- find it a bit more -comfortable- to fly with the 28mm, but if somebody gave me a 24mm and said I had to shoot with it, well, it would certainly work out just fine. If somebody is just starting out, I recomend the 28mm lens for all of the reasons listed in the post that explained about cost and such. However, if a lens falls into your lap at a great price and it's going to work for you, then by all means, give it a shot. Over the course of your career as a camera flyer, I hope that you eventually can acquire a couple of different lenses to play around with -- no one lens is going to work for everything. That said, I do believe that the first lens an RW, tandem or AFF camera flyer should probably have is a decent 28mm on a 35mm film camera because it works pretty well for those "bread and butter" jumps.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #9 March 21, 2003 Thank you for the reply, Quade. Everyone has something in their heads that they would like to do, and for me it's shooting RW. I realize the 24 might be a bit wide for Tandems, but I'm not starting the camera flying for the money. I'm doing it because it's something I think I'll enjoy. I'm not looking for paid work, just pickup filming of pick up RW. Depending on the size of the RW, the 24 will probably suit me just fine. Anyway, thanks for the excellent posts and advice. Don't drop off the face of the earth either, I'm sure I'll have more questions in the near future. It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #10 March 21, 2003 My guess is that the 24mm is going to work out just fine for you. Just remember that while people don't like photos of arms and legs chopped off, they also don't like shots of ants either. In order to fill the frame you'll have to fly a bit closer and if you're shooting RW from right on top of them, that's a really tricky place to be AND stay on heading AND stay close.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #11 March 21, 2003 Practice practice practice. That's what I'm doing now, without the cameras. No need to add the next step of hazards until I'll confident in my abilities.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
