Best lense for tandems

[ozzy13 0]

I have a canon rebel xt. I am shopping around for lenses and was wondering what other people use? Thanks

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[sdctlc 0]

I had been using a Sigma 15mm and it was great. I now am using a Canon 10-22. Much nicer glass but more expensive..

Scott

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[DSE 5]

Big fan of the Canon 15mm, it's significantly faster than the Sigma, and although the Sigma is a good lens (I have both) the Canon is (IMO) worth the slightly higher cost. Sharper edges, flatter center, faster focus.

[VideoFly 0]

I like using a Canon 28mm.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

I like using a Canon 28mm.

On what camera?

Dave

[VideoFly 0]

I use a Canon 28mm on a Canon XTi. The 28mm matches shots pretty closely with my video, which I use without a wide angle lens.

[PharmerPhil 0]

Quote

Big fan of the Canon 15mm,...

Ditto. The Canon is also slightly lighter than the Sigma, and slightly smaller in diameter. On the heavier end is the Tokina 17mm aspherical (it isn't a fisheye lens). It is one of my favorites prime lenses, but it is getting hard to find. It might even have been discontinued.

I also use the Canon 24mm and 28mm on my Canon DSLR, but not for tandems. They are not wide enough for how I fly.

[ozzy13 0]

I was looking at the Sigma 10-20 and 15mm I really dont like the fish eye look.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[PharmerPhil 0]

Quote

I really dont like the fish eye look

Then don't get either the Canon 15mm or the Sigma 15mm lenses.

[DSE 5]

For wingsuiting, I have a 24mm 2.8 that I really like. but on an APSC sensor, it's too narrow.

[edit]
On an APSC camera, 15mm isn't a fisheye.
On a full-frame camera, it is.

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

For wingsuiting, I have a 24mm 2.8 that I really like. but on an APSC sensor, it's too narrow.

[edit]
On an APSC camera, 15mm isn't a fisheye.
On a full-frame camera, it is.

Ok don't quite understand all that mambo jumbo. I am using the stock lens right now. Everyone at my dz uses different lenses. I gaf tape it but it keeps going out of focus. So I figured its time to get a real lens. I really dont like the fish eye look. For video I use a PC 1000 with a cookies 0.29 and looking for something in the same range. Thanks again for helping

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[DSE 5]

Quote

For video I use a PC 1000 with a cookies 0.29 and looking for something in the same range. Thanks again for helping

Now I'm really confused.
A Cookie .29 (or any other .30) is more or less a fisheye... and no different than a 15mm on a small-sensor still cam.
In other words, if you're shooting a .3 on your video cam, and a 15mm on a Rebel, they'll be fairly close, albeit not perfect.

[PharmerPhil 0]

Quote

On an APSC camera, 15mm isn't a fisheye.
On a full-frame camera, it is.

Well, on a APSC it isn't as much of a fisheye, but it is still very much a fisheye. And any straight line not running through the center of the frame will definitely be distorted. For RW footage from above this doesn't bother me as much because you just don't get that many lines like this (but you still get the images in the center of the frame larger in proportion than those on the sides). But for tandems where the horizon or plane wing is often in view I find it very obvious and bothersome.

FYI, 15mm on a 20D, check out the roof lines:
http://www.philroberson.com/lenscomp/images/10%20Canon%2020D%2015mm.jpg

Here's the same shot with a 17mm, check out the porch roof line in the same part of the frame:
http://www.philroberson.com/lenscomp/images/09%20Canon%2020D%2017mm%20Tokina.jpg

[ozzy13 0]

This was shot with the 3x0.29.

http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=guestpass&id=nh4ab

The first 40 seconds I was not shooting the video


I really don't notice the fish eye in the video. If you are saying they are around the same , then that's what I am looking for. Next question is Canon or Sigma?

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[PharmerPhil 0]

Quote

I really don't notice the fish eye in the video.

??? That's fisheye alright. But if you like that you probably will like either 15mm. I still prefer the Canon, but they are both good lenses.

[DSE 5]

Quote

Well, on a APSC it isn't as much of a fisheye, but it is still very much a fisheye.

True, you get bend at 24mm, but it doesn't fit the generally-accepted definition that anything below 16mm is a "fish-eye" lens in a 35mm film/imager world. But...anything that distorts the peripheriy and expands foreground from the center is technically a fisheye. But that's not how the industry generally defines the term.
By that definition, anything with more than 100 degrees of expansion is a "fish-eye." Nobody generally considers a 28mm, for example, as a fisheye lens.

[ozzy13 0]

So the Canon is lighter but more money? I rather spend the extra bucks and have less weight

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[DSE 5]

not just lighter, better.

[markovwgti 0]

the sigma 15mm is like 540 +.....the canon 10-22mm is about 7-800+.....canon has better glass.....if your shooting with a .29 lens....its a wise idea to get either lens so you will have almost the same vision through both lenses...if you go with anything bigger then a 15mm...you willl be in the tandems face with the camcorder and have the whole shot in the frame..but then the still will not have the whole picture the camcorder has in the frame!

call me if you need help loser

meant to say the canon 10-22mm

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

the sigma 15mm is like 540 +.....the canon is about 7-800+.....canon is lighter and it has better glass.....if your shooting with a .29 lens....its a wise idea to get either lens so you will have almost the same vision through both lenses...if you go with anything bigger then a 15mm...you willl be in the tandems face with the camcorder and have the whole shot in the frame..but then the still will not have the whole picture the camcorder has in the frame!

call me if you need help loser

I found the Canon for 579.00http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12069-USA/Canon_2535A003_Fisheye_EF_15mm_f_2_8.html

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[pilotdave 0]

Just another video/still comparison... Waycool .45 on a PC1000 and Canon 18-55 (at 18) on an XTi. (ignore the video quality... it's a capture from a small web-version of the video).

I've actually never looked at a direct comparison of them before... pretty surprised how close they match!

I use a 10-22 now, but I find that I mostly use it at the narrower end. Maybe 16-18 for tandems and sometimes 22 for 4-way.

Dave

[markovwgti 0]

or you can do that...like 3 people at the dz are jumping the xt or xti wth the stock lens...just get a .45 and keep it on 18 for the stock lens and you will be fine...just cant go in too close

[pilotdave 0]

You can get close... the pictures just look funny. I just don't recommend STAYING close.


Dave

[PharmerPhil 0]

Quote

...But...anything that distorts the peripheriy and expands foreground from the center is technically a fisheye. But that's not how the industry generally defines the term...

My understanding of fisheye is in how the lens distorts the periphery.

Any lens distorts the image somewhat, as you are effectively putting a part of a sphere (that is, the part of the sphere the camera sees) onto a flat plane (film, imager, or a print). Of course, the wider the lens, the more the distortion because the lens is "seeing" and flattening a larger part of the sphere.

The simplest method of squashing the arc of the sphere is to just make a lens with all the elements being circular around the axis of the lens. This leads to circular distortion where lines on the edges of the frame are curved around the imager (hence non-centered horizons bend around the image).

A different, and more costly method, is to make an aspherical lens where the corners of the lens elements are stretched outward. This straightens lines, and is perceived as less distorted to the average eye. Keep in mind that it is still distorted (it has to be if the image is flat), but we just don't notice this distortion as much. However, if you take a picture of a group of people with an aspherical lanes, everything looks okay until you notice that the people in the corners of the frame have bulges in their heads that stretch towards to corners of the frame. Again, many people won't notice this until it is pointed out to them, but will instead think of these images as more "natural."

I believe the Canon 10-22 is considered an aspherical lens. I have never jumped with one, but I did use on on a trip. Compare the shots below to any shots taken by the fisheye Canon or Sigma. The first was taken at a focal length of 14mm, and the second is at 10mm. In each case, there are strong horizontal lines on the edge of the images that are hardly curved at all.

[DSE 5]

Quote

My understanding of fisheye is in how the lens distorts the periphery.

.

Your description is perfectly correct as to how the industry and most people relate to "fisheye", but the technical description, but aspherical/rectilineal or not...anything that is more than 100 degrees FOV is technically a fish eye whether it's hemispherical or aspherical.
But nobody really categorizes them that way, at least not in the production world.