7D and non weather sealed lens..

L

lewyyy

Messages
38
Name
Jonathon
Edit My Images
Yes
So tomorrow I'm going to watch my sister competing in some local Horse show jumping and I plan on taking my camera to take some shots of her jumping etc.

It's all taking place indoors, which are notorious for being very dusty from the surface they use.

Is there any precautions I need to take before I go to avoid damage from the unnatural amounts of dust?

I understand the weather sealing on the 7D is very good but the 17-55 2.8 is not weather sealed..

Any help greatly appreciated
 
unlikely to be a problem. Try not to change your zoom that would obviously increase the likely hood of sucking dust in and obviously don't change lens. When you get home inspect the lens/camera for surface dust and clean if necessary.
 
As long as your carefull it should be fine exept i would make sure i had a clear glass filter fitted so dust and muck dont damage the lens and maybe use a clear bag with hole in it for the camera :)
 
Thanks Paul.

It my first outing with the new body so I may be a little over thinking it atm!
 
I have a UV filter on the lens, plastic bag may be an option..
 
I hardly ever feel the need for a UV filter on my lens, but for this I'd make an exception. You shouldn't have too much of a problem, and personally I wouldn't worry about a plastic bag, but it would be worth taking a cloth to wipe the dust off the camera and lens body before you pack up for the day.
 
Turns out 55 wasn't enough for some of the jumps on the far side of the arena. But they may crop down once I put them on my Mac. The nearside jumps; 55 was okay, not the best, but okay. I don't want to drop a lot of cash on a telephoto lens as I know I wouldn't use it as much, so my 17-55 will have to do for the moment.

It was only as a bit recreational photography to try and give my sister some photographs. She'd be more than happy with a cropped shot.

The light was better than I expected too, which I was really pleased about.
 
You'll probably be fine but I have to say that the lack of weather sealing was the main reason I switched from the 17-55 to the 24-70, although it was more about rain than dust.

My main worry with the 17-55 was always getting water on the extending barrel and then drawing this inside the main body of the lens when zooming out. Don't know how much of a risk it really was but it always bothered me to the point where I just didn't feel comfortable using it in the rain.
 
lewyyy said:
Turns out 55 wasn't enough for some of the jumps on the far side of the arena. But they may crop down once I put them on my Mac. The nearside jumps; 55 was okay, not the best, but okay. I don't want to drop a lot of cash on a telephoto lens as I know I wouldn't use it as much, so my 17-55 will have to do for the moment.

It was only as a bit recreational photography to try and give my sister some photographs. She'd be more than happy with a cropped shot.

The light was better than I expected too, which I was really pleased about.
Click to expand...

you can get a 55-250IS on amazon for about 130 quid - obviously its quite a small max app (F5.6 at the 200 end) but the IS compensates for slower speeds to some extent and if its only for occasional use
 
big soft moose said:
you can get a 55-250IS on amazon for about 130 quid - obviously its quite a small max app (F5.6 at the 200 end) but the IS compensates for slower speeds to some extent and if its only for occasional use
Click to expand...

Something in that focal range would be ideal! But.. I think I've been spoilt by having a 2.8 lens :D
 
Vertigo1 said:
You'll probably be fine but I have to say that the lack of weather sealing was the main reason I switched from the 17-55 to the 24-70, although it was more about rain than dust.

My main worry with the 17-55 was always getting water on the extending barrel and then drawing this inside the main body of the lens when zooming out. Don't know how much of a risk it really was but it always bothered me to the point where I just didn't feel comfortable using it in the rain.
Click to expand...


The 24-70 is also an option, it could always double up for my nightclub work (if I had to sell the 17-55 to fund it, that is)
 
lol - you need a 70-200 f2.8 but they are about 800 quid more ;)

(that said you do get bargains on the sigma/tamron/tokina versions every now and then on the bay so long as you can live without the IS)
 
big soft moose said:
lol - you need a 70-200 f2.8 but they are about 800 quid more ;)

(that said you do get bargains on the sigma/tamron/tokina versions every now and then on the bay so long as you can live without the IS)
Click to expand...

That's the dream! :LOL:

As I mentioned before this is not a paying position etc, just hobby. But we all like an excuse for new toys don't we...
 
lewyyy said:
The 24-70 is also an option, it could always double up for my nightclub work (if I had to sell the 17-55 to fund it, that is)
Click to expand...

The 24-70 is georgous but watch out if you like taking wide shots as 24mm on a crop can be limiting. I wouldn't have made the switch had I not had the 10-22 to cover that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top