Cantoral 1 #1 June 27, 2007 Recently I bought a canon Rebel XT, and im looking for a lens. Its the Canon 18-55 wide enough? For the video I´m ussing a Sony HC-30 with a 0.5x lens. Thanks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #2 June 27, 2007 a lot of camera fliers shoot with the kit lenses (usually 18-55mm) with no problems... whether it lines up sufficiently with the 0.5x video lens depends entirely on the manufacturer of the video wide angle lens check out Quade's homepage (the moderator of this forum) for a great page on the differences of some wide angle video lenses. http://futurecam.com/wide.html. the easiest way to figure out if it will work is to take a picture of some FOV and then compare it to the video from the same location. edited to add: fwiw I use a 17mm Fixed lens on my still and a 0.6x Sony WA video lens.Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #3 June 27, 2007 QuoteIts the Canon 18-55 wide enough? Well that would depend on a few things now wouldn't it, like how far back are you going to fly, what result are you going for. ECT. I have seen others use the kit lens and poster on here use it as well, it will work yes, but may not give the result you want. You may want to try to search the topic in this fourm there have been many a posting about this kit lens and wide angle lens to use in FF. IMO you will want to look at a number of lens to use like a canon or sigma 15mm fixed, 10-20mm focus, a 20mm fixed, or maybe even a 14 or 15mm fisheye. As said depends on what you want to do and the results you want. I fly a 20mm fixed lens on stills and a .6 wide on video and they match up very nice. In the near future I will changing my set around and going with a 15mm fixed sigma on the stills.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #4 June 27, 2007 It might be (just) wide enough, however it is the very worst lens in quality. Pricewise and weight-wise you can't go wrong with it, and you might use it to check if 18mm or 20mm works for your needs, but really, quality wise, it pretty much sucks compared to any of the other lenses mentioned. It might get you started though untill you have the cash and know which lens you need. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #5 June 27, 2007 QuoteIt might be (just) wide enough, however it is the very worst lens in quality. Admittedly it is not great in quality. But it is certainly not "the worst", or even very bad for that matter. For visual evidence, here is one picture I took with it... pretty much everything in my galleries from March 2006 - September 2006 was taken with that lens. For analytical evidence, see Photozone's test report, which states that it provides "very decent results" at 18mm and ~f8... which is exactly where I liked to shoot, and I can confirm the "very decent results" sentiment. Zoomed in, and at slower apertures, the picture quality is indeed a bit less, but it's mainly color related, nothing that some post processing can't clean up.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #6 June 27, 2007 I don't just mean picture-taking wise, also build-quality wise it's not great. Personally I think it's the worst lens Canon ever built, it definately was the worst lens I ever used from Canon. You get what you pay for. BTW shooting at f/8 is something most lenses will do decently, it's when you want to shoot at it's upper and lower end you'll see the difference bigtime. Ie, sunset loads. Also zoom-wise the upper and lower ends show a lot of color aberations and distortion. Luckily with skydiving these distortions usually don't show too much, but still, no comparison to say a 20mm prime. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #7 June 27, 2007 I've thought about upgrading my lens, but I haven't been able to figure out how a better lens would make my pictures really look better. I don't mind the price of a new lens, it's the weight that bothers me. I won't argue that it's a low build-quality lens, but that's also what makes it small and light. Seems perfect for skydiving to me. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #8 June 27, 2007 Actually, my (Nikon) 16mm fisheye is a lot smaller if slightly heavier, my 20mm also is smaller and about the same weight I'd guess. Nikon's 10.5mm fisheye is even smaller and lighter. You don't HAVE to buy a 14mm straight or a 10-20mm zoom But I agree it makes a decent starter lens. The best equipment doesn't necessarily make you the best photographer. If/when you start running into limitations, then is the time to buy something else. But, have you tried borrowing a prime lens and comparing similar pics? Might be surprised ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cantoral 1 #9 June 27, 2007 Thanks to all for the comments, now I have a better idea about camera lenses. My intention is to take stiils mostly for tandems. By the way, have you heard about the brands of lenses COSINA or TAMRON? Are good, are not so good? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #10 June 27, 2007 Quote I don't just mean picture-taking wise, also build-quality wise it's not great. Personally I think it's the worst lens Canon ever built, it definately was the worst lens I ever used from Canon. You get what you pay for. Yeh, you're definitely right about that... but if you can't afford a real lens you can get it practically for free, and it will last you for 6 months like mine did. www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zoter 0 #11 June 28, 2007 its absolutely fine for most users....only those who really know what they are doing are going to notice a major hike up in performance compared to more expensive lens units... Ive personally gotten some excellent shots with it....and some bad ones too....but then again I could say the same about more expensive lens's I have used...(read below..) Until you reach a 'better than average' standard using cameras skydiving...IMHO, the limitation is not the lens...its the users ability to use the camera settings to get the best out of both the camera and the lens (whatever that might be) for the shot you want, in the conditions you are shooting in stop being a lens snob saskia.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 June 28, 2007 QuoteBTW shooting at f/8 is something most lenses will do decently, it's when you want to shoot at it's upper and lower end you'll see the difference bigtime. All lenses are at their sharpest stopped down a bit (1-2 stops from wide open). Conversely, most lenses will start exhibiting fringing and chromatic aberration over f/16 or so. Admittedly, the higher end lenses will exhibit LESS of these problems, but they're still there...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 June 28, 2007 Between the two, I'd say Tamrom has the better rep, quality-wise.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azureriders 0 #14 June 29, 2007 IMO, its all you need unless you are really looking for that money shot for the cover of a mag etc. I know of several published pics taken with the 18-55. It is light, cheap enough to own a spare, etc etc. I keep mine bottomed out with a rubber band assembly that allows me to still zoom in for ground shots, but retruns it back to '18' when I release the zoom ring. This is just slightly wider than the the sony .6 lens on my HC-96. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spanky39154 0 #15 July 2, 2007 QuoteIMO, its all you need unless you are really looking for that money shot for the cover of a mag etc. . That is just not the case! I have seen cases of both skydiving and ground photography were the standard cannon 18-55 usm has resulted in published photographs in several magazines etc. I also use it alot although i do prefer to use other lenses on the ground due to its limited range. Slap a UV filer on it and its great for some really nice skydiving pics. also as its cheap then if it does get damaged it doesnt cost the world to replace!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large Groups!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
psw097 0 #16 July 3, 2007 I have a Tamron 17-35 and 28-75 both in Canon EOS mount and they are excellent lenses. They are fast 2.8 zooms and optically very good even on full frame. The biggest drawbacks are that they are not that cheap ($500 and $350), not small (fast & full frame) and do not have full-time manual focus. I cannot comment on Cosina. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azureriders 0 #18 July 13, 2007 Please dont take one sentence out of a post and then reply to it out of context. My very next statement was that I too know of published pictures taken with this lens. It is all that I shoot with for skydiving pictures, but I still stand by my first statement. If you are really looking for that money shot, you need a better lens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #19 July 13, 2007 Quote Slap a UV filer on it Why? ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #20 July 13, 2007 Quote Quote Slap a UV filer on it Why? to help reduce haze? I agree with the why... Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #21 July 13, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Slap a UV filer on it Why? to help reduce haze? I agree with the why... Why NOT: 1. an UV filter does nothing for digital so you do not need it to actually filter UV. 2. an UV filter is always detrimental to image quality no matter how good a filter you buy 3. ok so you want a UV filter to protect your lens a bit, even if you buy the best filter (ie, B+W) why the **** would you buy a filter that is as expensive as the lens you're trying to protect? Doesn't make sense on the kitlens. just gives you more expensive stuff to damage when skydiving. And like I said, buying a cheapo filter makes the kitlens even worse. Hence, my "WHY?" The kitlens is dirt cheap, so I'd just risk damaging it and if you do just buy a new one (or a better lens LOL). ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #22 July 13, 2007 I put a filter on mine (B+W, bout $30ish?). I clean my lens all the time... don't really want to be rubbing the real lens so much. $30 is less than $100, or whatever it would cost to replace that lens. Started with a cheap canon filter. That was a mistake... LOTS of lens flares when the sun was at the wrong angle. The B+W made a big difference. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #23 July 14, 2007 The last I paid for a b+w was 79 euro however that was for bigger glass, so it'd be less for the kitlens you're right. You definitely want the HMC coating and probably the slim version too so it's still an expensive filter compared to what others I've seen jump with. but way better if you do want a filter ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RossDagley 0 #24 July 15, 2007 The stock lens is fine for most shooting requirements you're going to need starting out. Forget the negative comments about build quality - personally I'd rather knock my kit lens about on exit whilst learning and getting a feel for the camera than my L glass any day. Its light, cheap, and easily replaceable. Unlike the 10-22 for example, or the 16-35L. Image quality wise, shot indoors, wide open, at ISO 100, can result in some nice images - for example : http://www.tunneltutor.com/gallery/content/2007%20Tunnel%20Photography/Fabian%20Raidel/IMG_4491%20(Custom).JPG Outdoors, stopped down, I've seen some amazing shots (cover worthy). http://www.tunneltutor.com/gallery Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
