Lens Suggestions

[texmex 0]

Getting a Digi Rebel, and was hoping to get some suggestions about a low-cost light lens...mostly for tandems....Trying to put as little weight as possible on my head. Thanks!

[Peej 0]

Did you try a search?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=forum_7&search_string=Rebel+XTI+lens&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=&sb=score&mh=25

I'm using the kit lens for now, dialled right back and it does the job, wanna get a Tamron 17-22 though when i have some cash, you can also look at a Sigma 15 fixed i have been told. You could also look at a Canon 10-22.

Advertisio Rodriguez / Sky

[pilotdave 0]

Low cost and light, there's only one option... The kit lens. Works just fine. Start with that and if you find something you don't like about it later, buy something else (which WILL be heavier and more expensive).

Edit: Be prepared to get suggestions for heavy, expensive lenses in posts to follow. It always happens.
Dave

[dragon2 2]

The sigma 15mm f/2.8 is great and isn't that heavy

Want heavy? Got myself an old 2nd hand 80-200mm f/2.8. It sure takes GREAT pictures. Wonder if I can put it on my head

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[pilotdave 0]

The sigma 15 weighs about double and costs about 4 times as much as the kit lens though.
EDIT: speaking of heavier, more expensive lenses... the sigma 10mm and sigma 4.5mm are available now. Those could be interesting. The 4.5mm is $900 and weighs a pound though.

Dave

[dragon2 2]

Quote

The sigma 15 weighs about double and costs about 4 times as much as the kit lens though.
Dave

It's also about twice as good (yes it is) and not that expensive for a 2.8 lens, and what are you complaining about anyway, with those toy cameras you should be able to handle a mere 15mm lens The 10-22mm or 10-20mm lenses are all way bigger and heavier and lots of people are jumping those.

Really, when you start using fast lenses (fast as in f/2.8 or f.1.8 or better) there's no going back A few good prime wideangle fast lensen that are affordable and suitable for skydiving are available, why the heck would you jump a cheap slow zoom lens that's not even very wide.....????? Beats me.... When the weather isn't cooperating very much or it's close to sunset, you'll be glad to have a decent lens. Sure when it's bright out there almost any lens will do for tandem shots and the like but even then, nothing beats a good prime lens for sharpness. The lens is even more important to image quality than the camera ya know...

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[pilotdave 0]

Hey, the question was about light and cheap. Just answering it.
But anyway... I just think the kit lens gets trashed for the wrong reasons. Sure, it's a cheap lens. But that doesn't mean a more expensive lens will automatically give better pictures. I like to zoom in for landing shots. 55mm looks a lot nicer than 15mm for that. It's also got less distortion than the 15. Some people like the fisheye distortion... I'm not a big fan of it, at least not for every picture.

A wider aperture would be nice occasionally. But I don't max out the kit lens very often so I don't think that'd be a really big deal for me. I wouldn't mind something a little wider than 18mm... but it works alright for me. Sometimes I wish it was a little narrower when things don't go so well... I'll probably get a 10-22 at some point... same aperture as the kit lens. If I set the 10-22 to 18mm, I bet I wouldn't be able to tell which lens I used, even though the pictures may be technically "better."

Dave

[dragon2 2]

I think you'll notice: a zoom is at it's worst in the wide end and narrow end, so both at 18mm and 55 mm you are using the worst parts of the lens, add to that you need about 3 stops from it's fastest f-speed, you need to shoot at say 25-45mm at about f/12 to get the best image quality the kit lens has to offer. With a 15mm prime lens, this would be f5.6-f16 at 15mm, a much wider range of "best" apertures, usefull for skydiving mainly when it's darkish or when you want fast shutterspeeds, so you win a lot here. The 10-22 zoom will still be better at 18mm than your kit lens, even though it has the same aperture problem (although to a somewhat lesser degree), the barrel distortion will be less at 18mm (part of it's "best part"), and that's even without the better (heavier) glass it's made out of.

I'm not a big fan of fisheyes either but the wide angle straight lenses are very heavy in comparison and also very big (and the fast ones are $$$$$). If there was an affordable and not-too-heavy and big f2.8 16mm straight for my nikon I'd buy it. For 1.5x nikon I find my 14mm a bit too wide to jump with, might work better on a 1.6x canon. But hey, at least you can't see the barrel distortion on a fisheye Eh, wait.....

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[pilotdave 0]

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/review/ is a good review of the canon kit lens, which really explains its limitations.

The center part is fairly sharp. The edges are soft at wide apertures until you get to about f/8, which is a pretty normal place to be for skydiving (in bright light).

I'm not saying you're wrong that a good prime lens will be sharper. I'm just saying that the kit lens works just fine for a quarter the price and half the weight. And it gives the the flexibility of a nice wide range of zooms, so it's more useable on the ground. Each lens has its advantages and disadvantages. If the kit lens was big and heavy, I'd say forget it. But for skydiving, it works great... with limitations.

Dave

[Laszloimage 0]

...for tandems?
Kodak V570 or Kodak V705 point&shoot camera (if you want digital) or Canon Elph LT (uses APS film).
Both weigh about 4-5oz. No costumer ever complained about the quality of ther pictures in the last 4 years.

[BMFin 0]

Quote

The 10-22mm or 10-20mm lenses are all way bigger and heavier and lots of people are jumping those.

The Canon 10-22mm is about 15 grams heavier than the Sigma 15mm

More expensive it is though...