Lenses for landing photos... Rebel XSi

[DougH 270]

I got my Rebel XSi for taking pictures of friends in the air but I am starting to realize that I am missing out on a lot of awesome ground photos because the kit lense doesn't have much range.

My knowledge of photography is pretty limited to point and shoot, or point and press tounge switch.

What zoom range lense should I be looking for?

I don't want to spend 2,000 dollars but I would spend a little bit more if it gets me noticable results.

Thanks!

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[dragon2 0]

What are the conditions you're taking shots in?

If you're looking to take shots of jumpers in the air, or futher away when they land, a 70-300 or 80-200mm lens might suit you.

If the pictures you shoot are generelly pretty close up, you might want something along the lines of a 28-70, 28-105 or 28-120mm lens.

Some tips: if you want to shoot using autofocus, get a lens with USM motor. If you want to shoot in lower light conditions, get a lens with a decent aperture (f/2.8).

Remember you get what you pay for, the cheap 70-300 lenses are pretty much useless in my book, but a 2nd hand good lens can just the ticket. Personally (on a Nikon) I use my 70-300 VR sparingly (even though it's a quite good 70-300), my fav lens is an old 80-200 f/2.8 lens that I got for cheap. Heavy as hell and slow AF, but it's sharp, good in low light, nice range. Quality glass For Canon, "quality glass" usually means L glass. If you want one, expect to pay more than you paid for the body. But it's worth it Cheaper alternatives from f.i. Sigma are available if you're more on a budget.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[velocityphoto 0]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/classifieds/detail_page.cgi?ID=106724;d=1

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 " ................

[4dbill 0]

I use Sigma 18-125mm. It's a tiny bit longer than 18-55mm kit lens. It has enough range for both wide angle freefall and telephoto landing shots, so you don't have to mess around changing lens all the time. It does not have an image stabilizer (don't need it), but it has a zoom locking capability at 18mm, which is great for freefall so you don't have to tape the zoom ring down. It's listed around $335 on Amazon. Paying more for than that, IMHO, is a waste of money unless you need a money shot for National Geography. :)

4DBill
http://dslrforvideo.com

[Fast 0]

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is_usm
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_200mm_f_4l_is_usm
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6l_is_usm

Those go from cheapest to most expensive. All are IS lenses and the last two are L glass. I have the first one cause I couldn't justify the $1500 for the 70-300L

I think that getting a lens without image stabilization probably isn't worth it at that zoom range unless you are going to exclusively tripod shoot, which I don't expect you will. The IS makes a crazy difference.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[DougH 270]

I have my eye on the second lense in the line up. I almost jumped the gun on a lense without IS, thanks for the PM giving me the heads up that there is a IS and non IS variant.

The ebay seller had both the IS and non IS product numbers in the item description.

The lense has nothing but glowing reviews. And if I can expect it to last many many years it makes the extra image and build quality worth the price tag I think.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[PhreeZone 15]

I had one of the 70-200 L non-IS lenses and it was great. I sold it and am looking to get the Canon 100-400L IS instead. I found the 200mm was great for most thins but a few times I wanted longer. I also found the lack of IS annoying for some of my handheld shots where I had to boost the ISO way to get the shot I wanted.

I was 98% happy with the 70-200L and most people who use it are too. It is a twist zoom with full time manual focus option so it really opens up creative options.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[dragon2 0]

I must say that personally I rarely use IS (or rather, the Nikon variant VR). For jumping, it's simply not needed due to the wide angles used. For macro, turn it off. For landing shots, IS might come in useful, depending on the speed of the incoming canopy (swooping) IS may be useless. If you shoot off a tripod, IS should be turned off.

All in all, if you can afford it, by all means get an IS lens. But if you come across a good deal on a good non-IS lens, wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me, personally. Like I said, I use my 2nd hand built-like-a-tank 80-200 f/2.8 way more often than my 70-300 VR even though that lens has much faster AF, has IS, is lighter, is a twist-zoom and has more zoom range. YMMV

If you can, try and borrow or rent a lens you think of buying, see if it works for you and your intended purpose (demoing lenses would have saved me plenty of money...).

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[DougH 270]

I am just amazed at all of the different product options! Way to many. It makes skydiving gear seem easy to pick through!

I definetly think the IS is going to be worthwhile for handheld shots of action.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[dragon2 0]

Quote

I definetly think the IS is going to be worthwhile for handheld shots of action

Not really, as the IS only helps with freezing YOUR movement (ie, camera shake), not your subject's. Basically, what IS does is letting you shoot handheld with 4-16 times slower shutter speed than you could without IS. With action shots, you mainly want FASTER shutter speeds.
Anyway, IS might help, but I wouldn't buy it for action shots perse as that's not what it is good at/aimed at. It's perfect for handheld shooting of canopies in the air @ 300mm though

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[velocityphoto 0]

I shoot a 70-200 2.8 usm with a 1.4 extention on it for landing shots. It is a non is lens and i only see is as a waste of money for this IMO.

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 " ................

[Laszloimage 0]

As it was said already. Unfortunatelly there's really no cheap option in this case for good results. The Canon L USM IS lenses are the solution. I use the 70-200 f2.8 USM IS. But I also thinking to get the 28-300 f3.5-5.6 USM IS.
Trust me, not worth it to buy a cheap lens for landings. ...they'll get you fuzzy and blurry shots most of the time.
I would get at least the 24-105 f4 IS.

[DougH 270]

Thank you everyone for all of the input.

It sound like every one agrees that the L series glass is worth the cost.

Less agreement on the IS, but I think the better handheld shots, both at the DZ and on holiday, could justify the cost.

The 70-200 F4L had a lot of reviews that claimed the optics were almost as good as the F2.8L 70-200 and half of the weight. Costs less too.

I think a few of these lenses are at the DZ, I am going to check them all of and compare some shots, and feel the weight.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[Icon134 0]

I actually have the same lens that Laszlo has 70-200 f2.8L USM IS... and have considered adding a 1.4x or 2x extender to the lens to push it out a bit farther (althouh they do affect the speed).

I also have/use the 24-105 f4L which is a very nice lens for if you are closer to the subjects... (it just doesn't have as much reach as the 70-200)

I would like a full frame body for shooting on the ground but I'll probably wait until the next generation of the 5D comes out to get one...

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...