Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Climbing Photography:
Second Climbing Lens
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Climbing Photography

Premier Sponsor:

 


Myxomatosis


Jun 16, 2009, 4:30 PM
Post #1 of 9 (1743 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1063

Second Climbing Lens
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hey guys, just looking for some beta on what everyone uses for there standard climbing lens or a good back up..

I already have two kit len's from Canon (18-55 and 70-300) and also going to purchase a 50mm prime while im at it...

But have a few dollars left over for another lens, looking at

Fisheye 15mm F2.8 $1300nz
100 F2.0 prime $950nz
85mm F1.8 prime $850nz
28mm f2.8 prime $930nz
10-22mm f3.5-4.5 $1600nz

Im looking at prime's because I hate using anything above iso400 to shoot but Im getting a 50mm anyway so not really that important. But in saying that the 10-22 is the most expensive by a long way.

Most of my climbing shots come in around 50-80mm range.

Fisheye, for some reason I am really keen to get the fisheye, I love doing close up shots. Anyone use one for climbing photography?


pico23


Jun 16, 2009, 6:19 PM
Post #2 of 9 (1738 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2377

Re: [Myxomatosis] Second Climbing Lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Have you considered the tokina 11-22mm, you don't have a lens nearly equivalent to it on your list.

What about a 24mm f1.x-2.0 imo a bit more useful than the wide normal perpective 28mm (on ff, and precisely normal on aps-c)


Myxomatosis


Jun 16, 2009, 6:42 PM
Post #3 of 9 (1729 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1063

Re: [pico23] Second Climbing Lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Picco.. has to be Canon as I get good deal's through my company Smile

Seems Canon has three 24mm's... and even a 20mm. Will look up prices today. Thanks mate.

Edit: Actually made a typo on my lil bit of paper, was meant to be 20mm f2.8 above not 28mm.

20mm is $929 and 24mm is $750.... Swaying to a 20 or 24 at the moment.

Anyway, anyone have any experince with fish eyes?


(This post was edited by Myxomatosis on Jun 16, 2009, 6:47 PM)


wes_allen


Jun 16, 2009, 9:03 PM
Post #4 of 9 (1711 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549

Re: [Myxomatosis] Second Climbing Lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I would dump the kit lenses first off. Even if you don't get much money back, they are just taking up space...

If you are planning on staying with crop sensors, then the 17-55 2.8 IS ef-s would be my first choice. It isn't a really exciting range, like the fisheye or 10-22, but it is solid. And you need a solid lens to build on.

Next up would be 24-70 2.8, 16-35 II 2.8 (though might be too much, so 17-40 is just as good IQ, but f4). Maybe 24-105 f4IS?

Fisheyes are rad, but the effect will get old kinda quick, I usually just use it every once in a while. It is sweet on the 5d/5dII though and the colors are really nice.

If you use telephoto more then wide, the 85 1.8 is a really nice lens as well, great for the price. And the 135 f2 L is becoming my favorite piece of glass. Ever. Or, the 70-200 f4 IS should be in your price range, and that is a hella sharp lens.


pseudolith


Jun 18, 2009, 5:53 AM
Post #5 of 9 (1663 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 96

Re: [Myxomatosis] Second Climbing Lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'd go with the 10-22. I'm shooting with a crop sensor Canon, and my Sigma 10-22 is my favorite lens for climbing shots. Without a ultra-wide angle lens, it's sometimes impossible to get far enough away from the subject to get what you want in the frame. Especially in tight boulderfields like HP40. You can also acheive some interesting foreshortening effects with an ultra-wide.

Definitely ditch the shorter of the two kit lenses, as it will quickly become redundant. You may still get some mileage out of the longer kit lens, even though it's probably pretty slow, especially zoomed all the way in to 300mm. But if you're shooting outdoors in good light, it will probably work well enough until you get the itch (and the money) for a f2.8 70-200, or something of the sort.


Myxomatosis


Jun 18, 2009, 2:43 PM
Post #6 of 9 (1632 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1063

Re: [wes_allen] Second Climbing Lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hey guys.... I think I am gonna take Wes's suggestion and go for the 17-55 f2.8.

Altho its $2000, so another $700 more than I was going to spend but like he said, its something to build on.

I like my 70-300, although its not flash and crap in low light, its taken some alright photo's outside at distance.


pico23


Jun 18, 2009, 5:00 PM
Post #7 of 9 (1622 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2377

Re: [Myxomatosis] Second Climbing Lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Myxomatosis wrote:
Hey guys.... I think I am gonna take Wes's suggestion and go for the 17-55 f2.8.

Altho its $2000, so another $700 more than I was going to spend but like he said, its something to build on.

I like my 70-300, although its not flash and crap in low light, its taken some alright photo's outside at distance.

I don't know much about Canon kit lenses and I've never owned a kit lens myself. But to me they do have a purpose if you aready have one. They are decent quality (esp stopped down), light, compact, and good beater lenses.

I'm actually adding a weather sealed kit (yeah, weather sealed kit) when I get the K7, I don't need it, probably won't use it much, but I like the idea of having a $200 lens I can beat the crap out of in any weather.


Myxomatosis


Jun 18, 2009, 5:36 PM
Post #8 of 9 (1612 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1063

Re: [pico23] Second Climbing Lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hahah yeah always need a good beater, its part of the reason I don't want to upgrade to a 5D because the thought of dropping a $3000nz camera over a $800nz one lets me rest a little easier at night Laugh I dont think Ill sell my kit lens either, only get like $60.. whats the point.Smile

Anyway, I like taking photos in low light, something about pure black in my photos, thats why I am keen to get something faster than f3.5 while I still have access to the discount.


wes_allen


Jun 19, 2009, 8:44 PM
Post #9 of 9 (1565 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549

Re: [Myxomatosis] Second Climbing Lens [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Cool, you will have to let me know how you like it! That is one lens I really wish they made in an EF format, rather the EF-S, but it is killer on a crop camera. I use a 40d as a 2nd body right now, and still have a 20d as a back up, but we mostly use FF and the 1.3 crop, and I think all our future bodies will be one of those as well, so doesn't make sense for us right now.


Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Climbing Photography

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$144.71 (10% off)
$170.10 (10% off)
$197.06 (10% off)
$107.06 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook