^ personal pref. I have the Canon equivalent, and I only use it outdoors, as it's a bit long indoors (with my 50D- recall x1.6 factor). If I know I'll have a lot of room to move around, then I'll use it because it's a good performing lens for the price. It's definitely a fun lens to use, but if you haven't shot primes before it takes a bit of learning to see how far you need to be for a shot.



An aside- I didn't want to start a new thread. But does anyone know of another reputable online store that sells filters like maxsaver? They're completely out and backordered of a filter I want (Hoya Pro1 Digital Protector 77mm), and I'd like to have one before Christmas. Thanks in advanced!:thumbsup:

So the wife and I are planning on heading to Paris next year. Wondering if I should get a new lens (say one with a greater focal range) for the trip as I currently am only rocking an older Nikon AF Zoom Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF Lens ...

I mean, I'm not quite sure if I'll really be needing the extra telephoto in Paris...

who wants to convince me to spend more money on a lens, what lens, and why? :p

had this conversation this summer with a friend. I've never been to Europe so take what I say with a grain of salt.

He was insistent upon getting a telephoto (specifically a 18-200 lens) for his trip. I asked him "when and where do you ever think you'll need that long of a lens?" My reasoning: What *I* would be taking pictures of in Europe would be portraits (duh) and architecture. I suggested that he invest his money on a good wide angle (say, a Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 8-16). However he decided to go with the superzoom.

The result? He used his superzoom a few times in a month of travel, and used his Tamron 17-50 almost exclusively.


My opinion? If you're going to spend the money specifically for travel in Europe, I say go ultra-wide- specifically, the Tokina since it's fixed aperture (2.8) and incredibly sharp wide open.

you pay for what you get though... the Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 is a great lens that's still decently sharp, and costs a lot less than the Tokina. It may not be as fast, but for walking around, it's great. But you'll want to shoot at a higher aperture anyways, to get good front-back focusing...

I did find that my 18-50mm (Sigma F2.8) wasn't long enough. I wish I had something that went to 70 or 85 or something. The new'ish Canon 15-85mm would be perfect, but of course, it's quite pricey. I think Nikon has something similar.

I definitely second the ultra-wide. Some of my favorite shots were taken with my Sigma... Sometimes, I wish I had a long zoom to take candid shots, but mostly, they're of people, or of a building when I'm stuck behind a fence...

i will third the ultrawide. a lot of my good travel shots that i enjoyed was when i had a UWA lens back then (on a 1.6x). sigma did release a 3.5F version of the 10-20mm, but i am not too sure of the price, if it competes with the 11-16 of tokina. i definitely liek the range of the 10-20 more on a crop, more than the 11-16 just because it has a slightly better reach.

nowadays i just stick with the 24-70, or 50mm (on FF) when traveling

That new Sigma 8-16 is actually quite a nice lens.

i don't think the cost difference is that much. just doing a quick search it's about 120 with the sigma currently on sale at bccamera. given the reviews of the tokina it's not a huge cost to overcome (just a matter of saving a bit longer). but assuming he's on a crop body, the extra range of the sigma is a plus.

you do have a point about shooting at a smaller aperture, but i can imagine a lot of places that have low light and thus don't facilitate that (say, inside a cathedral)

thanks for the responses guys. yeah, sorry i didn't mention earlier, i'm currently using a Nikon D80.

good points by all. exactly what i was thinking. i was told that i would need a telephoto like the 18-200mm but when i imagined myself in Paris and in all the small neighbourhoods or taking photos of all the architecture, would i be really using the tele end of the focal range? somehow i didn't think so.

so ultra-wide angle eh? i was hoping my 24-85mm f/2.8-4 would be good enough. :p

thinking about picking up a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G for shits and giggles as well. today actually. unless someone convinces me otherwise.

im not too familiar with nikons, but don't they have like a 12-24 or 14-24(28?) lens as well? i would find that to be a good intermediate uwa lens. i've done a 24-70 and 24-105 before on a crop and i just felt it a bit too tight, whereas the 10-20 sort of lacked in range for me, hence i'm thinking of the 14-24 or 12-24 :)

I'm gonna vote towards a wide angle as well. I had a couple weeks in england this spring. I took my 5D with a 17-40, 85mm, and some cheapo 55-200. I only took the cheap lens because it was light, and I knew I wouldn't be using it enough to justify taking my big lens.

Take a look at my shots here: http://www.revscene.net/forums/england-t618307.html

You can tell pretty easy what lens was used for most of them. I'd say 90% were shot with the 17-40, most of which were in the 17-20mm range (on a full frame). Something in the 10-20 range would do you the most good

remember that on your D80 24 isn't that wide anymore (1.5 x 24 = 36)

and if money's no issue, then definitely the Nikkor 14-24 2.8. Isn't that thing in the lens hall of fame yet? lol

Its not useless, but i would imagine the 14-24 2.8 to be a full-frame only lens. Of course it'll work on a crop but from what i've heard from people the best use it on full-frame. I'd personally go for the tokina 11-16mm if it were me. Or a prime Sigma 30mm F1.4. Both pretty solid lenses.

does anyone know if the Tokina 11-16 will work with the AF on my D80? or will it all be manual focusing?

money IS somewhat of an issue. i'd be hard-pressed to convince the wife that the $850 Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX was a worthwhile investment. :p Then again, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is only a $100 cheaper. :p

The Tokina 12-24 f/4 is yet another $100 cheaper than the 11-16 at $660.




edit: 77civic1200, awesome pics. as others had mentioned in that thread, love the pig!

If you don't mind paying for the 11-16, I'd get that over the 12-24. Having that extra stop is pretty handy especially when travelling. Plus when I was shopping for UWAs, all the reviews comparing the two have the 11-16 beating the 12-24 in every way except price.

And someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure your D80 will have a focus motor on the body (unlike the d40/40x/3000), so it should AF on your camera.

photozone- http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/37..._canon?start=2
photo.net- http://photo.net/equipment/tokina/11-16/
ken rockwell (:bullshit:)- http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

even the bombastic KR suggests it. moreso than the 14-24 ;):thumbsup:

Also consider the new Sigma 8-16. It's less prone to some types of flare that plagues the Tokina 11-16. At least in our limited testing.

cool. i'll have to save up for the UWA... bought the 35 f/1.8 two days ago. loving it. :D

great choice- on your crop body it's a great travel prime!

I love my 35 1.8 :)

just in case anyone is actually serious about buying one..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...f_2_8L_IS.html

Canon USA has some rebates going on, including a $200 rebate on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II. Final price on BH- $2069.00 :thumbsup:


And if you're in the market for a new higher end body (60D and above) you can double that to $400.


Happy Shopping! :D

Contemplating between the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro (plus hood) $120 vs Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM with hoya standard polarizer $175...I would love to go with the Canon but the cheaper Sigma is so tempting...which is faster in terms of AF and which has a better quality?

canon definitely has faster af (but it's not the same ring-type USM found in their other lenses, so no manual override), but both IQ wise will be a toss up. you just have to be trying them in store because the quality control isn't always there, especially for sigma.

I have the canon, and tbh i had better pictures come out of my tamron 70-300 (wide open), which was cheaper. stopped down they were pretty much equal. i needed faster af though, and so i shelled out the extra for the canon

under ideal conditions (read: lots of light) and assuming you have a good copy, you should be happy with your purchase of either.

^ so the canon has no manual mode?? :S

sorry let me rephrase that.

the canon you're looking at has USM, but people use that as a catch-all for the USM found in the higher end L-lenses etc. the USM on such lenses are "ring-type usm", which allows you to manually focus even if you're in AF. unfortunately, the canon you're looking at does not have this type of USM (I think the other one is micro-motor USM or something), so if you're in AF mode, you cannot override the focus manually.

It still has a MF/AF switch, which is what you were asking about.

in my experience, the canon lens focuses faster than the sigma/tamron equivalents, but it isn't as good as ring-type USM lenses.

I'm still pretty novice at this but I can understand what you are saying...I'm just not sure what is better value...I do daytime portrait shots and quality of capturing the image is what I want...the canon lens does come with a polarizer but I'm not sure if it is worth the $175 that it is at...or if I should go for the $120 sigma which I read reviews that it is alright...I read that the sigma is pretty sharp for its the upgraded macro DG model...and the canon III USM isn't as sharp but has the faster focusing speed...quite the dilema.

How bought neither? Save up some more coin, and get Canon 55-250IS. It's a great value lens that'll blow away both of those other lenses you were talking about.

Look on craigslist