Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Looking for a good wide angle lens (Canon) for action sport....

  1. #1

    Looking for a good wide angle lens (Canon) for action sport....

    I am after a L series lens for my 7D body to use while taking images at various rounds of the MX Nats, club motocross days, AORC rounds and for some portraiture in between. I have spent a fair bit of time looking at the 16-35mm f2.8 L II USM as it gives me a great wide perspective. I know it's fast and the picture quality would be typical of Canon glass but is it the right zoom combination for that type of photography?

    I don't want to go and spend big money on a lens that isn't the right one.

    Can someone help me out with this?

  2. #2
    Ausphotography Addict
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Firstly I wouldn't advise using anything wider than 30mm for portraits as you'll get a fair bit of distortion. I think a wide wide angle or even a fish

    I think a multipurpose lens that's a little but wide but over 50mm for portraits too would be a versatile choice, and the 24-70 is in most sport shooters bags
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2012
    Location
    Doncaster East
    Posts
    48
    The Canon 16-35 2.8L II is a nice lens. (Have a look here: http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Rev...ns-Review.aspx). You might also consider the Canon 17-40m 4.0 L (http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Rev...ns-Review.aspx) ... cheaper when you don't need low light. I would say that both lenses don't have the ultra wide perspective but are a nice wide angle on a crop factor camera and they make a nice ultra wide angle on a full frame upgrade.

    I have the Canon 10-22mm (not an L lens) for my Canon 7D. But I wanted more a ultra wide angle ... which is not as versatile. It is really hard to frame with that lens.

    Not really sure what MX Nats or AORC rounds are ... haha. For portraits I would not use any of these lenses ... but if I had to the 17-40mm would be my choice.

    Depends also on your other lenses. I have the Canon 24-105 4.0 as my always on lens ... so the 10-22mm gave me the widest range.

  4. #4
    +1 for the 10-22, it's very sharp and very wide and much cheaper than the 16-35.

  5. #5
    Drifter, Racer and Picture Taker Bennymiata's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenwich
    Posts
    1,597
    Virtually ANY lens under about 30mm is going to give you barrel distortion, which is OK for landscapes and probably action photography, but is very unflattering for portraits as it gives people big noses and ugly faces.

    If you don't do much in very low light, the 24-105 gets my vote, as the IS will be very helpful to you with the action shots and it takes nice portraits too.
    IMHO, it is one of the best value for money lenses Canon makes, and it's very versatile too.
    All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
    Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
    Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter
    pearson's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Armidale
    Posts
    406
    Sorry, perhaps I should have been a little more specific. MX Nats and AORC events are off road motorcycle competitions so a lot of high speed action. As for portraits I currently use a 70-200mm f2.8L II IS (this is an absolutely awesome lens for getting in close but not freaking out the subject) or a 50mm f1.4 but.....I'm after a few different styles of portrait, focussed on the face/eyes but having that part the farthest from the lens. Perhaps having a high heel shoe or wedding ring on a perfectly manicure hand close to the lens. I've seen a few shots like this particularly using HSS. I guess really I'm going to use this lens mostly on motorsport so if it's going to be too wide for that I should look at the 24-70mm.

  7. #7
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    15 Feb 2012
    Location
    Glenhaven
    Posts
    83
    watching the footy on telly on the week end i noticed that alot of the professionals had what looked like a 16-35 on a camera as well as much bigger grey lens, especially the guys that were in the corners.

  8. #8
    Ausphotography Addict
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    I do a bit of the stuff you see on tv, mostly it's a 400 2.8 and up until recently a 70-200 on body 2 though a few have now changed to a 24-70 or wider on the second body

    There's been a bit of a trend started in Sydney to capture tries especially wider

  9. #9
    I was at a rodeo for the first time on the weekend. Went with a 24-105 and a 70-200. At the side of the arena, the wider zoom was much more useful, and being close, the shots were much more dramatic.

  10. #10
    Member
    Threadstarter
    pearson's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Armidale
    Posts
    406
    Thanks for all your help with this everyone! I've been checking out a lot of images taken with the 16-35mm and hired one for the day today to check it out. I'm pretty sure this will be the lens I'm going to buy. There are some great uses for it on a motocross track coupled with my 70-200 f2.8. I'm managing to get a whole different range of images.

    Just have to work ou thow to pay for it now...

  11. #11
    the 16-35 is a cracker of a lens! I had it on for a few of my shots during a photoshoot this weekend. Only thing is the need to ensure that the camera plane is not too tilted that will result in huge distortion. This is not the final image, it was a 1 min quick tweak in lightroom but just to show what the lens is capable of.

    Last edited by KeeFy; 08-05-2012 at 3:52pm.

  12. #12
    Member
    Threadstarter
    pearson's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Armidale
    Posts
    406
    Now THAT inspires me to buy one! Great photo that really shows the capability of this lens. That's the type of portraiture I was thinking of. Thanks for showing me this, you've just made up my mind.

  13. #13
    Member
    Threadstarter
    pearson's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Armidale
    Posts
    406
    G'day KeeFy, just been thinking about this a bit more. Is that image you posted taken with a FF body? If not what crop factor is it? I'm just trying to get an idea how my 7d will perform and what type of field of view I'm going to end up with.

    Cheers

    John

  14. #14
    user tittle Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    Mudgee
    Posts
    8,292
    Quote Originally Posted by pearson View Post
    .... Is that image you posted taken with a FF body? .....
    From the blog in his signature, Keefy seems to use either a 5D or 7D.

  15. #15
    Sorry for the late reply. I used a 5d3 with the 16-35. Shot @ 16mm ISO12800 1/80 F2.8. Strobe rear left with a 1/3 CTO on a 580EXII 1/64 though a softbox.
    Last edited by KeeFy; 29-05-2012 at 10:48am.

  16. #16
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban JCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Apr 2009
    Location
    middle earth
    Posts
    50
    agreed

  17. #17
    Ausphotography Regular crafty1tutu's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jan 2010
    Location
    Seven Hills
    Posts
    1,543
    I have the Canon 10-22 wide angled lens and it is a great little lens, but if love L series lenses, so my choice would probably be the 16-35 but my daughter said she has heard wonderful things about the 24 mm prime lens.

  18. #18
    Member
    Threadstarter
    pearson's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Armidale
    Posts
    406
    I only have a 7D at the moment so I wonder what type of coverage I'll get using the cropped frame? It's obviously not going to be as wide as your photo but I would dearly like to see an image take with a cropped frame camera and the 16-35 if you had one. I just want to make sure I'm buying the right lens. I love the f2.8 DOF as it can be used very dramatically even in motorsports and it gives me a much better quality image in low light which at times can be an issue.
    Any help you could give me with this would be greatly appreciated! I would certainly owe you a beer!!

  19. #19
    Have you thought about the canon 17-55, if you're not planning on going FF in the very near future, this lens would be a better option I think, still 2.8, but with IS excellent IQ, a little more reach, and a good deal cheaper, and if you do decide to go FF, you'll have no problems selling it.
    Jayde

    Honest CC whether good or bad, is much appreciated.
    Love and enjoy photography, but won't be giving up my day job.

    Flickr

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •