Good lenses

[base570 1]

What's a good telephoto lens for the Canon 20D? Won't be used for skydiving. Will be used for other shots including ground shots for BASE. Want that up close and personal look from long distances. How about a good macro or wide angle lens suggestion too.

Thanks
Jason
570

[bmcd308 0]

Good telephotos cost big bucks. You want a Canon. You probably want IS. You need a fast lens so that AF works. You'll probably need a 400mm, 600 mm or even longer lens to get the field of view you want. You better be prepared to pay.

Macro is a little less expensive - the Tamron 90mm macro typically rates very high.

For wide angle - depends on how wide you want to go. For general use, the 17-40 f4L. Not really all that wide on a 20D, but nothing is.

For a specialty wide angle, search for Kiev Camera on e-bay.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[speedformula 0]

Jason: check out the canon site regarding the lenses they manufacture:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=148


hope that helps,

paul

Keeping it real 22x7

[dragon2 0]

I used to love my old 35-135 mm Canon. If I still had a Canon, this is the lens i'd get (mostly shooting swoop, landings, base): Canon EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM ø 72mm € 415.00
This is the lense i'd like: 70-200/2.8 L USM IS ø 77mm € 1707.00

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[blazetailman 0]

if you are on a budget, the 70-200L f4 is about half the price of the 2.8 and is a great lens.

The 50mm macro is also a great lens for the price. It is a more versatile lens.

www.canopyflightcenter.com
www.skydivesac.com
www.guanofreefly.com

[psw097 0]

I've had good luck with the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and then add a tele-extender when needed.

[vdschoor 0]

Quote

if you are on a budget, the 70-200L f4 is about half the price of the 2.8 and is a great lens.

I agree.. that's my new ground lens, and I am extremely happy with it, the pictures that it produces are unbelievably sharp and the focussing on it is FAST...

Definately the lens to get, I couldn't come up with the money for the 2.8 version, otherwise I might have considered that one..

Iwan

[Kwoo 0]

Jason,
So, you guys finally went digital. I bet Lisa loves it. I've got a cannon 75-300. It is what I used to do all the Kitty Hawk ground stuff. It might be a little long for base unless the ground crew is a long way off. You are welcome to come by and play with it. Stuart and I should be around home or CSS. give me a call.
karen

[riggerrob 558]

For Diamond wide-angle lenses, contact

www.generationfreefly.com

I have taken great footage with their low-profile 0.3 and 0.2 wide-angle lenses and a hand-mounted Sony HC40.

[dorbie 0]

The Cannon 100-400L is a great and versatile image stabilized lens with 2 modes one of them will allow you to pan to track the jumpers if you can handle the pushpull zoom, but even 400mm will not get you as up close as "in your face" (depending on height I suppose) and longer glass prices are insane. The sensor crop on the 20D helps you a bit there though I suppose.

You can always add a Canon 1.4x teleconverter to that too, that on a 20D would get you nice and close.

Handholding that even in daylight you probably don't want to be shooting at ISO 100. Going to a tripod you'd be talking about a fancy head like a Wimberley and of course turning off IS.

[vid666 0]

Quote

What's a good telephoto lens for the Canon 20D? Won't be used for skydiving. Will be used for other shots including ground shots for BASE. Want that up close and personal look from long distances. How about a good macro or wide angle lens suggestion too.

Thanks
Jason
570

sorry to stirr up an older post - but having recently given myself a 20D for new years, I have narrowed my search down to :

70-200mm L lens. Now there are 3 choices - the f4, f2.8 and the f2.8 with IS.

I have a 17-85IS lens and I do see the difference in having the IS turned on. But looking at the L glass- the price difference is quite high . So what do people think - I mean a f4 is ~~ 500 vs the 2.8 IS is ~~ 1400

where am I going to see advantages ? ( fairly similar situation, not much skydivng shots, but other sports, mostly football and BASE )

tnx !
P.S. I have considered the newer 75-300 IS, but it just felt a bit cheap (played with my friends for a few hours), and the f value was 5.6 on the high end - I thought that I wanted a little shorter DOF on the shots I plan to take.

tnx.

[yuri_base 1]

Quote

I have narrowed my search down to : 70-200mm L lens. Now there are 3 choices - the f4, f2.8 and the f2.8 with IS.

70-200 f/2.8 IS is a great lens. It's not only about resolution, but the color and clarity of the image. You get the images that are distinctly clear, colorful, defined. Shooting at f/2.8 or f/4 allows you to blur background nicely. No IS is a no-go for long focal lengths, when you shoot handheld and in low light. IS allows to use shutter speeds 4-8 times slower than without it.

Besides, girls DIG big white lenses.

Yuri

Android+Wear/iOS/Windows apps:
L/D Vario, Smart Altimeter, Rockdrop Pro, Wingsuit FAP
iOS only: L/D Magic
Windows only: WS Studio

[velocityphoto 0]

I shoot a canon 70-200 2.8 usm , sometimes i use the matching 2x converter but rarely need it . Used this one for about 7 yrs now and it is fantastic .But if you can swing the xtra bucks buy the image stablized lense . The 1.4 converter will work great with it if you feel you actually need it , but i don't really think you need to spend that much for great results. If you'd like i can email you some shots i took with it sunday ? Just give me an address that will accept the files size.
Lonnie

A friend will bail you out of jail , a REAL friend will be sitting next to you in the cell slapping your hand saying "DUDE THAT WAS AWSUM " ................

[vid666 0]

Quote

Quote

I have narrowed my search down to : 70-200mm L lens. Now there are 3 choices - the f4, f2.8 and the f2.8 with IS.

70-200 f/2.8 IS is a great lens. It's not only about resolution, but the color and clarity of the image. You get the images that are distinctly clear, colorful, defined. Shooting at f/2.8 or f/4 allows you to blur background nicely. No IS is a no-go for long focal lengths, when you shoot handheld and in low light. IS allows to use shutter speeds 4-8 times slower than without it.

Besides, girls DIG big white lenses.

Yuri

Yo,

Hate to do this - I am quite aware of what the tecnical differences are. I am more interested in the actual in-the-field/hands-on critique of the abovementioned and similar lenses. Obvously if money was not a problem a 2.8 IS would be a no-brainer.

and just for shits and gigles - what about the 28-300 IS - I bet everybody is intimidated by the pricetag and weight... I know I am

Lonnie, you know my email address, foo !

[velocityphoto 0]

I have not checked into the 28-300 is as of yet

A friend will bail you out of jail , a REAL friend will be sitting next to you in the cell slapping your hand saying "DUDE THAT WAS AWSUM " ................

[adamd 0]

I have both the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 35-350 L. The 70-200 is my favourite lens, great in low light and you can get really creative with shots by blurring the background to varying degrees when shooting at f2.8 or f3.5. The 35-350 is a long lens, not as heavy as the 70-200 with IS but not much lighter than it, it's a good general purpose lens, max aperature of 3.5 at 35mm and 5.6 at anything over about 200mm, it is a slide zoom and takes a bit of time to get used to, if you don't remember to do up the lock ring then the lens zooms all by itself if you tilt it down to much. I haven't used either for skydiving but have taken about 4000 shots through each lens consisting of aerial photography from planes and helicopters, portrait shots, sports and landscapes (a lot handheld from a boat). The 70-200 is more than adequate for the majority of these shots if you are able to move around a bit to compose your shots, the 35-350 comes into it's own when you need the extra zoom range quickly without having to change lens. Both lens work well with the Canon 2x multiplier.
I haven't used the 28-300 IS yet but would think it would be a bit more versatile than the 35-350 with it's slightly wider lens and the IS giving it some extra low light capabilities.

This pic was taken with the 70-200 2.8 IS on a 10D at a body building event, ISO was 800 shot at 2.8 (can't remeber shutter speed off hand), crappy coloured lights on stage were bad for photography

http://www.flickr.com/photos/extremescenes/35022497/

And this was taken with the 35-350 on a 10D at ISO 800 in a rainforest in the Whitsundays, was fully zoomed up to 350mm and was wishing for another 150mm or so to be able to fill the frame fully

http://www.flickr.com/photos/extremescenes/37837995/

[billo 0]

Quote

70-200mm L lens. Now there are 3 choices - the f4, f2.8 and the f2.8 with IS.

I have a 17-85IS lens and I do see the difference in having the IS turned on. But looking at the L glass- the price difference is quite high . So what do people think - I mean a f4 is ~~ 500 vs the 2.8 IS is ~~ 1400

where am I going to see advantages ? ( fairly similar situation, not much skydivng shots, but other sports, mostly football and BASE )

I've only got the 70-200 f/4, and have found it to be a great lens. The one extra stop of shutter aperture just is not worth it for me in the world of digital photos where i can up the ISO a notch if i really need it. The focus is insane fast, and you can change its seek range from 1.2m->inf to 3m->inf if you know you're shooting stuff that is further than 3m from you, this helps the lens focus even faster.

I use mine for swooping, wildlife, and portraits...both handheld and on tripod. At the dog park it will capture sprinting or fetching dogs (much faster than football players) and capture them brilliantly.

If I wanted a longer lens than this one (read: if i had the money to spend on a longer lens) I would get a Canon 300 IS prime lens, either f/4 or f/2.8...but as you mention, it does come down to the money you're willing to spend and the quality that you'll be happy with.

Unless I win the lottery, I wouldn't see the need to upgrade my 70-200 f/4...to make a long rant short.

• Quote

[Faber 0]

i have a 75-300mm it can just reach up to 400ft getting the jumper but loads of the surronding aswell

for gc i think a 200-400mm ish is best make sure to get the image tabilicer or the shots will be shaked

At the exit point im using a 28-105 at this point,if i could have more vide angel i would be better off..
choice would be a 18-135mm ish lens

the wideangel 10-20mm would be great for freefall shots i think..

I wouldnt use a macro lens

just my oppinion

Stay safe
Stefan Faber