Is this a good setup?

RZcrew

RZcrew

Member
 
No.

Get a T2i, unless you ABSOLUTELY need that articulating screen.

Get a Tamron 17-50 or a 18-135 (I think thats what DTF has)

Get a nice tripod setup. (Durable, lightweight, small)

Don't get either of those stabilizers, i have the Opteka handle and it doesnt stabilize shit. And that ring looks utterly useless. Get a glidecam 2000 pro/hd.
 
No, zac has the 24-105 which is most likely out of his price range, the 17-50 is a dope as hell lens, so thats good.
 
Yeah but the 17-50 isnt much of a focal range compared to what i think hes looking for. i dont know shit about canon lenses so ill leave that part to greater minds.
 
consider whether you need the articulating screen, if not, go t2i. then get a tamron 17-50, some class 10 cards and more batteries. scratch both of those two stabilizers, just about useless. do you have a good fluid head tripod? that's first order of business when it comes to stabilization. then consider a glidecam 2000 pro or hd.

do you know and accept the downfalls of shooting a dslr? its a tricky business, but it can reward you with great footage if you know what you're doing.
 
true, but for the price of the 24-105, he could pick up the 17-50, then the 70-200 f4. which one then give him a bigger focal range, even though it would be lack the 51-69 range, but that really should not make to much of a difference. He could also grab a set of primes lets say, the 14mm rokinon, then the 30mm sigma, then the 50mm 1.4 or the 1.8, then the 85mm canon or rokinon and he be set for a good amount of time
 
Primes?

This sounds like OP's first DSLR, i dont know if he knows enough about manual aperture to be able to work a prime to its full potential. Besides, if this is for skiing, hes not going to be switching lenses on the lift.
 
Primes don't mean manual aperture...... Those are vintage pimes with adapters from different mounts buddy.... and just making suggestions...
 
don't complicate this too much for him, he's new to cameras sort of. i think a 17-50 then maybe a 70-200 would be better for the money. also l-o-fucking-l at that fig rig thing, the center circle is made out of a god damn hockey puck.
 
i have the opteka stabilizer and i find it works perfectly, i mostly just wanted to see how well it would work with the t3i, and thats why i need the articulating screen. pretty much the only reason i considered the fig rig is because i saw an edit of mike hornbeck filming the meltdown and all thier sohts look super good so i figured it must work.
 
Tokina* 11-16, but all aside, thats such a specialty lens, he should really just think about getting that later and try to get a good focal range going, because you can do follow cams at 17, its really not that hard....
 
Who cares what anyone else has? If you know what you're doing, the 18-200 will give great results. In the wrong hands any lens can produce shitty images, DTF has a 24-105 I believe, which gives him good results because he uses it well. Why would you recommend an 18-135 over an 18-200? Both of those lenses' main goal is to provide a large focal range, the 18-200 being the better of the two.
 
Uhh, isn't the 11-16 meant for crop sensor? Unless you're comparing it to a 35mm equivalent (but i don't know why you would do that since I don't think OP understands that concept), it will be just about 11-16 on a T2i.
 
no, it will be the equivalent of 17.6-25.6. It only covers a crop sensor, but the physical focal length is the same regardless of the camera. When i put a 58mm lens on my gh2, it becomes the equivalent of a 116mm field of view (compared to full frame), but gives the same dof and the same compression (telephoto lenses make things look more flat) as a 58mm lens on a full frame, it is just like taking a center crop. the larger sensor is better for being able to get a shallow dog at a shorter focal length (as well as low light, resolution, etc.).
 
it would be the same as a 17-25 FF lens on a FF body I believe. If you put a 17-25 FF lens on a APS/APS-C body, it will be tighter than a 17-25 DX lens
 
You guys are saying the exact same thing, just in different ways. A lens is always the same focal length, it field of view is different on different crops.
 
ya, when I first saw it, i thought he meant that lenses for crop cameras show their focal length in FF equivalent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top