1. D300 with 12-24mm for wide angle + 24-70mm - medium coverage
2. D300 with 10.5mm fish eye and 17-55mm (really light weight kit) - but no to airshow....
3. D300 with 12-24 for wide angle and the 70-200mm - heaviest, but covers all i need. very tempted to go with this one, but the 70-200 is heavy for a full day...
any suggestions? just one camera + lens, and another extra lens.
thanks all.
I'd go with 12-24 + 70-200.
12-24 for static stuff (you really do need wide here!) and 70-200 for some flying shots (tho 200 is too short even with the DX crop).
Avi B wrote:
I'd go with 12-24 + 70-200.
12-24 for static stuff (you really do need wide here!) and 70-200 for some flying shots (tho 200 is too short even with the DX crop).
I used a 20mm for museum displays, where planes are tucked in tightly and there's not a lot of room to back up without hitting another plane. The Valkyrie didn't fit no matter how far back I got, and I was against the wall. Fisheye should be light enough to tuck in if you choose, but definitely take the 70-200 if you're looking to catch fighters showing off their best stuff.
So you want wiiide because the planes on the ground are pretty well stacked and you can't back up that much
And you want birding-style focal lengths for the air part of the airshow because the planes are faaar from you! And 200mm just doesn't cut it most of the time. Think 500mm (cheapest way to get there is 300mm F4 + 1.7TC). Or I was thinking the 70-300VR may be a good option here.
Infact, I am going to an airshow this very weekend and am having trouble finding a 300 F4 to rent here in Toronto. I can get the 300 F2.8, but I dont want to lug that around (the 70-200 F2.8 is very light comparatively).
So you want wiiide because the planes on the ground are pretty well stacked and you can't back up that much
And you want birding-style focal lengths for the air part of the airshow because the planes are faaar from you! And 200mm just doesn't cut it most of the time. Think 500mm (cheapest way to get there is 300mm F4 + 1.7TC). Or I was thinking the 70-300VR may be a good option here.
Infact, I am going to an airshow this very weekend and am having trouble finding a 300 F4 to rent here in Toronto. I can get the 300 F2.8, but I dont want to lug that around (the 70-200 F2.8 is very light comparatively). ...Show more →
Good advice. Although I have a 500mm I usually go with my 300 f4 IS + 1.4TC on a crop camera.
for an airshow, you will indeed need a very short and a very long lens...
the fisheye could be fun (light and small so no issue)
I would take the 12-24 too
the 70-200 is much too short, add a TC (minimum 1.7) or try to find a 80-400VR or a Sigma 50-500 (Bigma), a much more useful lens for flying planes...
I'd take the 17-55 and the 70-200, plus I'd invest in the TC-17EII (1.7x) teleconverter which will give you a 120-340/4.8 VR lens. That will at least get you in the game and let you have some fun. You won't capture the same level of quality and detail on the ground-to-air images as will others with 400- or 500-mm lenses, but you will get some beautiful images if you use your equipment well.
Yes, those lenses are heavier. Honestly... get used to it, do a little light weights and use that lens a lot. Over time, you get used to anything. Then, when you try out Nikon's wonderful 200-400 f/4 VR lens (7.2 lbs and my absolute favorite), or a 400/2.8 prime lens (10 lbs of screaming-fast focus and images so sharp they'll cut you), the 70-200 will seem like a child's plaything to the new you.
Check out the "Mustangs Air-to-Air" thread in the Still Life forum if you like airplanes, airshows, or anything that flies. We have a wonderful community of people in that one thread, and some images that will simply blow your mind. Lots of help and tutoring, too.
One big hint on technique: fastest shutter speed you can get on the jets, but slow down to 1/160 or slower for the propeller-driven planes, and pan the camera along with the airplane so you get the airplane sharp as you track it, but you allow enough time for the propeller to rotate and show some motion blur. Planes with stopped props look unrealistic and silly, since everyone knows that's not how they look in real life.
P.S. This kind of question is a pleasure to answer: it has depth, detail, richness, and enough "personalization" to make it easy for lots of people to provide their answers and opinions for your specific needs and thoughts.
Clearly, you are listening to and learning from the suggestions of others on how to improve both your photography and your forum-ography.
thank you guys. i am learning each day from your learned opinions.
yes, i do notice that prop planes definately need to show motion in the air and a slightly slow shutter speed would do the trick. it will be a challenge and i'll try to post some photos up after sunday.
actually it is a military fair with both military vehicles as well as an airshow. im aiming for the Royal Air Tattoo as well, but time might not permit as i have another trip planned.
would you guys prefer me to post photos taken here, or to post photos on the other sub-photography or critique forums?
ps:
guys, im not sure to about the suggestion on the 17-55mm or to go with the 24-70mm.
however, i am more inclined, after reading today's post, to bring the 12-24mm and 70-200mm. but not sure if i should bring the 10.5mm fish eye along... i will need to work on the panning technique then!
What I'd do is bring the 12-24 and the 10.5. The 10.5 is so small you won't even know it's there. Then I'd rent something like a 400 or 500 lens for the day and get some nice shots.
Or bring the 70-200 and buy/rent a 1.7 TC.
Or just bring the 70-200 and crop. You've got plenty of pixels in the D300
oh ....... and I'd slip over to the City, Still Life and Abstract forum and check out the beautiful plane photos there for some composition ideas ......
I mostly shoot between the 12-24 wide and the 70-200 sometimes with a 1.4x TC on it (depending on where i'm standing vs the center of action).
Things are either really close... or really far. So I vote #3. And there's enough time between the planes flying to take a break and sit down, the 70-200 isn't that bad Maybe taking a tripod/monopod to simply rest it on between shots would help? (definately taking it off when you're going to start shooting)
panos.v wrote:
Then I'd rent something like a 400 or 500 lens for the day and get some nice shots.
I'd caution users without prior experience with longer lenses not to try a 400mm lens just for a day. For someone whose longest lens is a 70-200, the very narrow field of view is disconcerting at first, makes acquiring and tracking subjects a large challenge, and likely introduces lots of vibration as the left arm attempts to hold that ten-pound lens out front. The percentage is "keeper" shots is going to be really, really low.
I was that shooter only two years ago, and I still remember how hard it was to make the initial adjustment. And I had two things to make it easier: the 200-400 can zoom out and make focus tracking and acquisition easier, and it's only seven pounds, not ten. For a newbie, all of these things are a shock.
If someone is renting a long lens (200-400, 400, 500) for an airshow, I'd advise that you rent it at least for a week and take that opportunity to really give yourself an "intro" to long lenses. Shoot it as much as you can that week. Handheld, on a monopod, on a tripod, everywhere. You're going to need all the practice you can get. Then, once you get used to them, they're great fun and not a big deal... it's just the initial shock.
