Wide-angle lens for my camera

bwana said:
Things were a lot different when I was starting out because the bodies available at the time sort of made the decision for me. When the sports bug started nibbling I was shooting a 400D and there were two upgrade options available the 6 fps 50D or the 10 fps 1dmk3. Although not fullframe the APS-H 1Dmk3 couldn't take EF-S lenses so every lens choice was going to be EF because I knew I was going to want the 1Dmk3. These days, with the 7Dmk2, the body is certainly up to the task and sport photographers might be able to get away with EF-S lenses - though I cannot think of a 70-200 f/2.8, one of the goto lenses, equivalent off the top of my head. Personally I'm glad I have both bodies in my bag. The 7D + 70-200 combo gives me an awesome close-game setup (112mm-320mm) that I don't think I'd be able to match with a FF setup unless I switched to Sigma.

Obviously my genre based choices arent the same for everyone. Still, I've got a much broader range available to me with the same set of lenses by choosing to utilise both formats. 16mm on the FF at the wide end up to 640mm with the 400mm on the 7D and that's not including the 1.4 and 2.0x teleconverters.

If you need an ultra-wide on the APS-C bodies you're probably going to have to get yourself a EF-S lens and sell it if you switch to FF but all your other ranges are still pretty much covered by EF lenses.
Click to expand...

I observe a lot of photographers shooting with crop sensors in European football m
 
Bond said:
I observe a lot of photographers shooting with crop sensors in European football m
Click to expand...

It's possible, I'm sure I'm not the only one, but they could also be shooting with the prosumer full frame bodies. At R100k+ having two (or more!) pro bodies like the 1Dx or D5 is a big ask for a freelancer. :o
 
I finally settled on the 16-35 F/4. It's really an amazing lens. The only real difference I notice between it and the F/2.8 in low light conditions is the ISO that it has to settle for when trying to compete with the F/2.8.

This photo still needs to be touched up, but this was a quick one this past weekend. I could get the front detail a lot lighter as with another photo.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0jv7ea9537v32fb/FB_249A1058.jpg?dl=0
 
For a static scene like that, couldn't you try a longer exposure and lower ISO?
 
froot said:
I finally settled on the 16-35 F/4. It's really an amazing lens. The only real difference I notice between it and the F/2.8 in low light conditions is the ISO that it has to settle for when trying to compete with the F/2.8.

This photo still needs to be touched up, but this was a quick one this past weekend. I could get the front detail a lot lighter as with another photo.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0jv7ea9537v32fb/FB_249A1058.jpg?dl=0
Click to expand...

The noise is shocking! what settings and camera did that?
 
OP is shooting with a 7dmkII and Canon 16-35 F/4.
 
Dave123 said:
I presume using ISO 250000 if that example image is anything to go by...
Click to expand...

I wish the 7D mk2's ISO went that high but it caps out at 51200. :o

The noise is pretty bad but maybe he was handholding it to try and get a feel of the IS capabilities of the lens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X