# Good lens for taking pics of babes at the beach



## ggnc35 (Jun 14, 2009)

What is a good lens for taking pics of babes at the beach? One that is good for longrange


----------



## gsgary (Jun 14, 2009)

ggnc35 said:


> What is a good lens for taking pics of babes at the beach? One that is good for longrange


 
300mmF2.8L


----------



## table1349 (Jun 14, 2009)

400mm f2.8 and bail money/hospital bill money in case you get caught by the Cops or a p*ssed off boyfriend. :lmao:


----------



## adamwilliamking (Jun 14, 2009)

I guess im the only one that finds this really creepy.. 

600mm 5.6 :lmao:


----------



## WesVFX (Jun 14, 2009)

I don't find it creepy. But do find it quite humorous!


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 14, 2009)

Hmm, you need a BIG lens eh ?


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 14, 2009)

Sounds like you need a lens that doesn't steam up too quickly. Idly curious as to what your intent is, but it doesn't sound too savoury the way you present it. :er:


----------



## table1349 (Jun 14, 2009)

Word has it that the Canon 1200mm f5.6 comes with a Klenex holder attachment.  :lmao: :lmao: :mrgreen: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## gsgary (Jun 14, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Word has it that the Canon 1200mm f5.6 comes with a Klenex holder attachment. :lmao: :lmao: :mrgreen: :lmao: :lmao:


 

Put a 2x on it and you wouldn't have to be near the beach


----------



## table1349 (Jun 14, 2009)

gsgary said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Word has it that the Canon 1200mm f5.6 comes with a Klenex holder attachment. :lmao: :lmao: :mrgreen: :lmao: :lmao:
> ...



No with this you don't have to be near the beach.




http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1...811e6462ao.jpg

Now where is that bean bag chair and that bag of Cheeto's???


----------



## Overread (Jun 14, 2009)

problem with all those long lenses is that yes your a nice long distance away - but at that range everything starts to get a bit flat in shots - better try something like :
24-70mm or
24-105mm 

if your feeing fit you could try for a 70-200mm instead.

Then all you need are a good set of running trainers and a reddy face (it helps to hide the red marks of slaps when you get caught ). Make sure you have good insurance as well..........
*I find it funny how many of us in this thread are canon shooters *


----------



## musicaleCA (Jun 14, 2009)

Yep, I find this creepy. Random asking for a good lens to "take pics of babes at the beach" as a first post. Devaluation of women by calling them "babes". Hmmm...Yep, creepy.


----------



## Overread (Jun 14, 2009)

pfft come on - if he has the budget for one of those super lenses he dosn't need to ask 

chances are he will get one of those phonix 600-1200mm ones of ebay and get nice blurry shots


----------



## table1349 (Jun 14, 2009)

Overread said:


> problem with all those long lenses is that yes your a nice long distance away -* but at that range everything starts to get a bit flat in shots* - better try something like :
> 24-70mm or
> 24-105mm
> 
> ...



Perhaps it's not the lens that causes the *"flat"* look, but rather the subject matter itself.  I can't say since this is not a form of photography I am familuire with nor do I want to be.  :lmao::lmao::mrgreen:


----------



## Dantheman4334 (Jun 14, 2009)

Overread said:


> problem with all those long lenses is that yes your a nice long distance away - but at that range everything starts to get a bit flat in shots - better try something like :
> 24-70mm or
> 24-105mm
> 
> ...


 Canon ftw! Anyways, why on earth would you stalk women on the beach? I pray this is a joke


----------



## CW Jones (Jun 14, 2009)

ya its got to be a joke... he didnt even say what camera it would be going on or anything, he joined up for a laugh... I bet you will find he is a friend of someone on the site and saw his buddy on the site and wanted to have some fun haha


----------



## UUilliam (Jun 14, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


is that lens real??? i so want to test it out!
32 miles.. thats like from my house to glasgow and back (i live in uddingston which is 30 minutes - 40 minutes to glasgow (20 miles)


----------



## Dantheman4334 (Jun 14, 2009)

CW Jones said:


> ya its got to be a joke... he didnt even say what camera it would be going on or anything, he joined up for a laugh... I bet you will find he is a friend of someone on the site and saw his buddy on the site and wanted to have some fun haha


 
Ha ha you say that like you know something we don't...


----------



## inTempus (Jun 14, 2009)

I like a good prime like a 24mm.


----------



## CW Jones (Jun 14, 2009)

Dantheman4334 said:


> CW Jones said:
> 
> 
> > ya its got to be a joke... he didnt even say what camera it would be going on or anything, he joined up for a laugh... I bet you will find he is a friend of someone on the site and saw his buddy on the site and wanted to have some fun haha
> ...



nope I really dont or else I would have been playing into the joke. I am on enough forums that I can tell when its probably someones friend just messing around to get some laughs


----------



## MattxMosh (Jun 14, 2009)

You guys are all wrong.

The Opteka Voyeur Spy Lens is where it is at!

You can even add on "X-Ray" filters!
:lmao:


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 14, 2009)

X-Ray Glasses !!


----------



## mooimeisie (Jun 14, 2009)

Remember, it's not only the size of the lens that matters.  You also have to be able to use it properly.  Sitting in the corner playing with it won't make you an expert.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 14, 2009)

MattxMosh said:


> You guys are all wrong.
> 
> The Opteka Voyeur Spy Lens is where it is at!
> 
> ...




Ok that just sent the creepy meter off the chart!!!!    :lmao:  :lmao:


----------



## Sherman Banks (Jun 15, 2009)

MattxMosh said:


> You guys are all wrong.
> 
> The Opteka Voyeur Spy Lens is where it is at!
> 
> ...



OMG, I couldn't click the buy it now button fast enough!


----------



## musicaleCA (Jun 15, 2009)

You guys haven't seen those? Okay, I have to do this.

Scan from John Hedgecoe's The Photographer's Handbook, Third Ed., page 204. (Great book, even though it was published in 1992, before digital.)

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii33/musicaleCA/Mirro-Tach90.jpg


----------



## Sherman Banks (Jun 15, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> You guys haven't seen those?



No, I'm really just starting to develop my fascination for voyeurism. I'm kind of a peek-a-boo noob.


----------



## Rich Ardt (Jun 15, 2009)

I'd suggest a wide-angle. In that way you'd have to at least introduce yourself.


----------



## Overread (Jun 15, 2009)

hehe those spy addons were made for all those street photographers who were sick of people catching them - can'tsee why they would not work just as well on the beach!


----------



## Stock Photos (Jun 15, 2009)

adamwilliamking said:


> I guess im the only one that finds this really creepy..
> 
> 600mm 5.6 :lmao:


 
I too find it creepy!


----------



## puyjapin (Jun 15, 2009)

perhaps a macro lens if ur feeling confident!! u could ask first of course if close ups are permitted!! u could then fill the screen with all kinds of interesting plesanteries!!


----------



## UUilliam (Jun 15, 2009)

I LOVE THE SPY LENS!! saved until i get paid  im so buying that


----------



## ShootHoops (Oct 22, 2009)

sorry to dig this up...

but how many of you actually bought the spy lens? lol.
my dad bought mine last christmas and i love that thing.
i haven't used it to take pictures of babes (lol) BUT...
i DID in fact use it to take pictures of my brother's ugly girlfriend,
so i could show alllll of my friends.
works like a charm!


----------



## Big (Oct 22, 2009)

Dang... people beat me to the Opteka lens... WTF    A guy tries to be funny but nope... never works out...


----------



## pharmakon (Oct 22, 2009)

When I first read the title I thought it said BABIES instead of babes...  Talk about being freaked out. I was going to recommend burning your computer and modem, and changing your identity before big brother finds the post...


----------



## BmDubb (Oct 22, 2009)

LMAO.... WOW... Really?


----------



## Dismine (Oct 22, 2009)

lol yeah, protect the potential pedo!


----------



## TJ K (Oct 22, 2009)

Sigma 10-20mm I'm a bamf and get up close! haha Nice 1 poster man


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 23, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> 400mm f2.8 and bail money/hospital bill money in case you get caught by the Cops or a p*ssed off boyfriend. :lmao:


 
This is the most disturbing post in this thread. There's no expectation of privacy in public, so "babes" dressing in very tiny swimsuits can't complain at the weird guy photographing them.

This is the most disturbing thing I'm going to lend to the thread:

70-300






This was on a small island off of NC.


----------



## syphlix (Oct 23, 2009)

damn if i had that 600mm i would have titled this image "boobs" instead of "kites"


----------



## Tappout (Oct 23, 2009)

syphlix said:


> damn if i had that 600mm i would have titled this image "boobs" instead of "kites"



:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 23, 2009)

Nudity. NSFW.


----------



## iflynething (Oct 23, 2009)

syphlix said:


> damn if i had that 600mm i would have titled this image "boobs" instead of "kites"



Someone is open with themselves!

~Michael~


----------



## Double H (Oct 23, 2009)

pssst, hey guys...I smell a Troll.
"In Internet slang, a *troll* is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotionalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." 

copied from Wikipedia


----------



## JamesMason (Oct 23, 2009)

This is the lens your after 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3252/2433187773_48aee7236d.jpg


----------



## CW Jones (Oct 23, 2009)

syphlix said:


> damn if i had that 600mm i would have titled this image "boobs" instead of "kites"




I just tried to zoom my screen way in lol still can't see anything :lmao:


----------



## fokker (Oct 23, 2009)

CW Jones said:


> I just tried to zoom my screen way in lol still can't see anything :lmao:



You could always just try typing boobs into google image search


----------



## Overread (Oct 23, 2009)

First thing I noticed?
Dustspots all over the sky - though one big on on the right side!


----------



## CW Jones (Oct 23, 2009)

fokker said:


> CW Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I just tried to zoom my screen way in lol still can't see anything :lmao:
> ...



lol nah I am all set thanks, I was saying it as a joke not being serious


----------



## ShootHoops (Oct 23, 2009)

maybe i should've left this thread the way it was...dead.
lol.


----------



## Felix0890 (Oct 23, 2009)

ShootHoops said:


> maybe i should've left this thread the way it was...dead.
> lol.



No no! I got some good laughs from this thread.  Thanks for resurrecting it.


----------



## Markw (Oct 23, 2009)

Nikon 1200-1700 Nikkor lens. Itll only run you about $75,000...as a deposit for layaway I believe. Not bad for a lens that looks like this:

Amazon.com: Kenko 1.5X Teleplus - 4 Element DG Auto Focus-Nikon: Electronics

Mark


----------



## gentry1242 (Oct 23, 2009)

Lol.  This actaully got people talking more than a 1/2 off sale at B&H.


----------



## ErectedGryphon (Oct 23, 2009)

Overread said:


> First thing I noticed?
> Dustspots all over the sky - though one big on on the right side!


 
What there's sky?


----------



## syphlix (Oct 23, 2009)

lol

leave it to photo forum members to notice the dust spots first on a borderline nsfw!


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 23, 2009)

Sorry to interrupt this thread with a (not really) serious question, but...



ShootHoops said:


> sorry to dig this up...
> 
> but how many of you actually bought the spy lens? lol.
> my dad bought mine last christmas and i love that thing.
> ...



Do the pictures come out reversed?  It's seems like they would have to, because of the mirror (unless there are actually 2 mirrors).

It would be an easy fix in PP, and sometimes it might not even need 'fixing'...
Just wondering what to expect if I ever decide to get one.  Even if it's just for the novelty value...


----------



## syphlix (Oct 23, 2009)

> Even if it's just for the novelty value...



or so he says


----------



## DennyCrane (Oct 23, 2009)

This is the lens needed.


----------



## Felix0890 (Oct 23, 2009)

Also, can't the people notice the big ol' hole on the side of the lens with a shiny mirror pointing at them?  Or does it have a transparent cover on the side?


----------



## TJ K (Oct 23, 2009)

DennyCrane said:


> This is the lens needed.



Thats actually me in that picture.


----------



## ShootHoops (Oct 24, 2009)

Felix0890 said:


> Also, can't the people notice the big ol' hole on the side of the lens with a shiny mirror pointing at them? Or does it have a transparent cover on the side?


 
If you look over at it, you can clearly see a mirror and a lens in there somewhere. Lol. But most people STILL won't notice what you're doing because you're pointing the other way.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 24, 2009)

So..., do you have to flip all of the pictures in post, or is that not an issue?


----------



## ShootHoops (Oct 24, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> So..., do you have to flip all of the pictures in post, or is that not an issue?


 
Nope. That shouldn't be an issue at all. The pictures will come out the way you see them in your viewfinder.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 24, 2009)

Yes, of course - but...  Is the image in the view finder reversed?

In many cases it may not even matter, but if there were some type of sign, for example, with text on it - the reversal would be quite obvious.


This 'spy lens' is basically just a tube with a mirror in it, right?  Unless it's more complex than that, I would think that the image would _have to be_ reversed...


----------

