Choosing camera (or rather lens) for this season's chase

Does anyone have experience with renting lenses? I really want to try out a wide angle lens, but I won't have the funds to outright buy one this year so I'm thinking about renting one. If anyone has a company that they recommend or any tips I would appreciate it.
 
I would recommend Borrow Lenses for any renting. They're professional & reliable. Unless you can find a local shop that rents out cameras and accessories. Then that might be the way to go.
 
Does anyone have experience with renting lenses? I really want to try out a wide angle lens, but I won't have the funds to outright buy one this year so I'm thinking about renting one. If anyone has a company that they recommend or any tips I would appreciate it.

I've rented from LensRentals.com previously and it was a smooth experience each time. Borrow Lenses also gets high praise. My "chase" setup is a 70D with 10-22, 15-85, and 70-300. I've had the 15-85 since it was introduced and it stays on my camera the majority of the time on a chase and I have found it to be a fantastic all around lens for my needs. My 10-22 is my least used lens, but I would not be without it (or an UWA) for chasing. I have faster and longer glass for non-chase usage.
 
For 15 yrs now I would typically park far off the road, ;) and then take out the
tripod and vid cam. This was set up in s static frame, as if it was a still camera,
to do timelapse on. Then once rolling I'd set up a second tripod for stills.

Now saying that, I am still wanting nonconductive tripods. Three
aluminum lightning rods? Really?

You can't get wide enough or telephoto enough. The omg shots are often
whole storm views. 180 deg, but fisheye lenses are just weird. Best storm lens
I had was a 17mm in 35mm equiv. Yet
it had very little edge warping.
Telephone poles didn't lean I'm badly.
A nice 20-35mm in 35mm equiv is great.

Then again, when a mile away in Iowa with 1 mile hill crest to hill crest, you
will certainly want a telephoto for the barn a half mile away.
It's an old, empty barn. But a 100-300mm zoom will get ya at least
close enough to see it is, was, a barn.

And keep those lenses on manual focus please everyone. No more sharp
raindrops on window and fuzzy tornado.

Neal.
 
I carry two Sony mirrorless cameras: a nex6 and alpha 6000. On one I have the Sony 10-18 f4 and the other the Zeiss 18-70 f4. I also have a 55-210 if I need a longer reach. The cameras and lenses are small, light weight and have excellent video quality.
 
I've recently bought the Sony FDR-AX1 so will be shooting 4k, Gopro and the canon 24-105mm the workhorse of Canon will be my only lens on this trip.
 
I am picking up this old thread of mine since I never got to purchase a new camera last year but will do in the next couple of days. I realized I should probably have asked differently since I am no pro-photographer and had a bit of a hard time catching up on the lingo.

My telescope lens actually has proven to be very useful since I always seem to be at a distance from the tornadoes. Unfortunately I had to return it to my sister (who I borrowed it from). So, now I am back to my old (2009) camera.

What I conclude from this thread is to try to purchase a camera with a really fast shutter (1.8)?) in order to get sharp images of moving targets like tornadoes. As far as I understand, fast lenses with zoom are expensive so I have a trade-off here, right?

The way I photograph is 95% structure and non-tornadic features just for the very reason that tornadoes are rare. On the other hand, the photos I look at the most aftewards are obviously the tornadoes i do see (and amazing structure). I never really seem to end up close to tornadoes.

What I have is:
- An old Camera 450 house and standard 28-55mm lens
- A rather decent budget


So, what I want is:
- Primarily, to get sharp images of tornadoes and structure at "normal" distance.
- To be abe to take photos of tornadoes at a far distance (as well)
- To shoot videos, if possible, without having one hand on the still camera and one on the video camera.


So, having said that - when I go the camera shop in a few days. What should I ask about?

- Fast shutter
- 20-100 mm lens or fixed 50mm?
- Great light sensitivity but I guess that comes with a fast shutter?

I know it is difficult for you to say but what would your recommendations be for me to ask the camera salesman?
 
Last edited:
Whats your budget? Your decision could be solved in a quick second by a few members on here with just that info. As for lenses, just buying one to serve all purposes is a challenge. There are some very nice full range zoom lenses out there, but theres something to be said for prime lenses and being able to pick the right glass for the occasion.

Disclaimer: I'm no expert. I run Nikon(s), and use a kit 18-55 (ok but not great), a Sigma 70-300 (long shots, love it and cheap), and last year bought a budget Rokinon Wide lens (I believe its 18mm, but I'll have to check when I go dust off the gear for this season). Having multiple lenses is very beneficial, and good lenses can be had for cheap if you fall into the hobbyist category like me and don't really need perfect quality.
 
Christoffer-

There are two elements to your search for a new camera: the body and the lens. Given, I haven't done a lot of chasing photography yet, but coming from a sports photography background, I can imagine chasing is fairly similar.

As far as a body goes, shutter speed isn't really a big factor when looking to buy. Anything you purchase that isn't ancient will have a wide variety of shutter speeds to select from. Currently the biggest factor when it comes to a body will be ISO (sensitivity range of the sensor). Newer bodies can shoot at higher ISO values with less digital noise, which will allow you to increase your shutter speed and aperture if need be. For example, I used to shoot on a Nikon D2x but I have since moved to a D3 and D700. Shooting at ISO 800 on the D2x was borderline unusable in anything but broad daylight because of how much noise there was, and as a result I was inclined to open my aperture all the way and slow my shutter. With the "newer" bodies, I can comfortably shoot ISO 3200 in all conditions without having to compromise too much on shutter speed or aperture. Given that is moving from APS-C to full frame sensor, but there are PLENTY of amazing APS-C bodies out there currently and the technological improvements over the past 5 years have been a game changer.

Second factor - the lens. As previous comments have said, there is a balance between optimal focal length and aperture. For example, if you're shooting a wide meso shot with a Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8, it doesn't mean that you need to be at F/2.8. While faster glass is amazing at 50mm+, landscape photography usually ranges between F/8 and F/16 to ensure that everything is in focus and you have a deep depth of field. Translating this to actual advice, prioritize focal length over aperture with a wide lens. It wouldn't hurt to get one that can open to F/4 for low light situations. As far as a mid range or telephoto lens goes, a 50mm prime at F/2.8 that is properly focused will shoot the pants off a stock 55-200mm at F/5.6 (especially in low light). Don't let those cheap 300mm F/8 lenses wow you with numbers, the longer focal length you go with, the more important the aperture of the lens becomes.

I hope this helped a little, feel free to respond with any questions you may have and I'll do my best to answer. Below is a graphic to help make sense of all those terms I just threw out. The top row is associated with the lens while the bottom two are related to the body.8ba689a1611488da0570583d8696db38.jpg
 
Thanks, all you guys! I really appreciate it!

I will make a printout of this and bring to the camera store as well as show it to my sister.

My budget would be somewhere around $1.500 maximum but preferrably around $1.000. That is including both lens(es) and camera house.

I think a good solution would be to purchase a (cheap/bad) telescope lens that would work with my old Canon 450 and use a great 50mm lens with a new camera house. I could have the telescope lens as a backup in case I need it but use the 50mm as my "go to"-camera.

I think I will go with another Canon-camera in order to re-use battery chargers etc.

Will think some more, and go through all your answers a second time.
 
I think you should have something wider in your lineup. If you get a 50mm and a longer telephoto zoom, that leaves your current 28-55 as your widest option (did you actually mean 18-55?) and you'll be hurting when it comes to structure shots. Since you mentioned that you want more reach, I'm not sure the 50mm prime would be that useful. Personally I think a used 15-85 would cover most situations. You could then add on either an ultra wide-angle or a cheap 70-300, depending on budget and personal preference.
 
Batteries and chargers evolve pretty quick, so unlikely you'll be able to share batteries between New and old. I recommend hit up Amazon for spare batteries/chargers. I use Wasabi brand batteries in all my cameras and they're great, and about half the price of brand name (canon/nikon).
 
Darren: For the wide angle shots I am hoping to rely on my GoPro. I do, however, have one of those that I need to view through my iPhone to see the image but since structure shots are usually something you have time to set up I think that would be fine.

This is way harder than I thought it would be!
 
I'm halfway there now. Today I bought a Canon EOS 760D which came with a 50mm f/1.8 STM lens as a part of the package deal. Even though a few of you rely on that kind of lens I still want to have something I can use, most importantly, for more zoomed in shots and, to a smaller extent, structure shots. I am not focusing on wide angle photo but I still want to be able to take structure shots, at least from some distance (17-18 is fine I think).

What they had on stock was:

- Sigma 17-70 mm f/2.8-4 (i.e. good aperture, less zoom)
- Canon EF-S 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 (i.e. good zoom, less aperture)
- Some other brand starting with T (not Tokina): 18-55 mm f/2.8 all the way.
I am mainly choosing between these three. They all cost roughly the same.

They also had a used one :
- Canon EF-S 55-250 mm (f/4.5-5.6)

which I may (probably not) use with my old 450 house.

The $300 dollar question now is, which one will I have the most use of? Outside of chasing I tend to use my systematic for animal safaris and some random travel stuff.

Reading this thread it seems:

- I should get a "fast" lens, i.e. good aperture.
- Not having the best optical zoom could be less important since a great image (with less optical zoom) could, digitally zoomed/cropped, still be better than what the optical zoom did in the first place.
- More optical zoom would be more perceptible to motion blur
- Still, I find myself using the most zoom on my 18-55 and still have to digital zoom/crop images in order to photograph tornadoes (or animals) in a far distance.

I do find myself at quite a far distance to tornadoes (or animals) quite frequently so this is a real issue.

My questions now:
- Which one would you pick? Why?
- Would you buy something completely different?
- Will the trade off with having a better aperture (and less zoom) make it much easier to photograph in dim lights due to more light coming into the camera and I thus need less shutter time and thus is less prone to get motion blur from adrenalin-shaky hands (or "moving target blur").
- Is there a notable difference in wide angle between 17 and 18 (I forgot to check towards the sky at the store)?

I am hoping to be able to go back to the camera shop tomorrow and buy this lens. I appreciate any input!

Lastly, sorry for posting in the wrong forum. Did not see the right one until now...
 
I did some photographing after sunset (lit only by some city lights) and this answered a few of my questions in terms of aperture vs light. With a f/5.6 and ISO 6400 I got shutter speeds at 0.3 sec (roughly from my memory). This would mean that if I want to take a zoomed photo at 130 mm in "darkness" I would have a really hard time (without a tripod). On the other hand, photographing in the dark without tripod might not be preferrable anyway.

I guess it boils down to, what is most common. Needing a good (130mm) zoom during daytime or a decent zoom in night time? Is that correct?

Edit: I guess I could also use my fixed 50mm for night time conditions if I really need it. Guess zoomed photos are not very common during the evening/night?

For lightning photos (where I would need a wider angle than 50mm) I will need long shutter times anyway so it doesn't matter if the shutter time is slow.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top