[Kamui712]

I just picked up a sigma 30mm f/1.4, everything seems to have some nice results. Might be something u want to look into.

[Supafly]

I just picked up a sigma 30mm f/1.4, everything seems to have some nice results. Might be something u want to look into.

how do you like your 30mm sigma??

im planning on buying a Sigma 50mm 1.4 for nikon... i believe it equal to an 80mm on a AFS-C sensor (d60)....

what are your thoughts on it?....its a juggle between the nikkor 50mm 1.4 and the sigma 50mm 1.4....i like the 77mm lens face...:o

[Kamui712]

I love the sigma, it takes some nice pictures. Build quality seems to be good. Its newer than what similar Canon lens's could offer, and the autofocus is quiet. So far I have no complaints. What may help you is to read up on reviews between the two lenses, some review's I've read ppl say that the sigma 50mm1.4 has some strong points over the canon 50mm 1.4 equivalent.

[Supafly]

I love the sigma, it takes some nice pictures. Build quality seems to be good. Its newer than what similar Canon lens's could offer, and the autofocus is quiet. So far I have no complaints. What may help you is to read up on reviews between the two lenses, some review's I've read ppl say that the sigma 50mm1.4 has some strong points over the canon 50mm 1.4 equivalent.

yeah, i have been reading many forums for the last few days...but a lot of them are older (2-3yr old) when sigma had a bad QC department...causing their primes to have bad back focusing or bad front focusing....
i think im gonna buy it anyways....and then return it if im not satisfied..haha

the photos from the sigma seem to have a better bokeh...but what do i know..haha:haha:

[!Aznboi128]

Hi guys,

I'm looking at a 2.8 lens for my Nikon d80

Tokina 16-50 is the one that caught my eye, I have a tokina 11-16 and I love it!
what I was thinking is how good is the lens. I want the corners/edges is darkened

[K-Dub]

I would say go for the Tamron 17-50 instead. Tokina 16-50 isnt as common/well reviewed and you're also duplicating the 16 you already have with the 11-16.

[m3thods]

^ +1

I personally have the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and love it. I just couldn't find a good Tamron sample, but apparently they're sharper and cheaper!

[moky]

does anyone here have experience with canon FL mount lenses being used on EF mounts?
i've been reading up on them and many people seem to be doing conversions, yet there's a company on ebay who is selling canon FL/FD to EOS mounts so i'm just curios if FD/FL are just the same.

i've no intention of tinkering with lens conversions so i thought about buying adapters to use. can any one shed light? :D

[!Aznboi128]

I would say go for the Tamron 17-50 instead. Tokina 16-50 isnt as common/well reviewed and you're also duplicating the 16 you already have with the 11-16.

^ +1

I personally have the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and love it. I just couldn't find a good Tamron sample, but apparently they're sharper and cheaper!

thanks guys, I'm looking at the tamron 17-50 f2.8 right now $350 so it's pretty good. But I'm just thinking if it would be a waste comparing I still have the kit lens (18-135 f3.5-5.6)

[K-Dub]

thanks guys, I'm looking at the tamron 17-50 f2.8 right now $350 so it's pretty good. But I'm just thinking if it would be a waste comparing I still have the kit lens (18-135 f3.5-5.6)
You can still keep the kit lens, it was bundled right? I suppose you could sell it for about 300~ and put that money towards the Tamron. All depends on if you want to lose that extra telephoto reach I suppose.

[gars]

^ +1

I personally have the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and love it. I just couldn't find a good Tamron sample, but apparently they're sharper and cheaper!

me as well, in the exact same boat. I originally had a Sigma 17-70mm, which sported a 72mm filter, and since I outfitted myself with all these nice filters, I decided to upgrade to the Sigma 18-50, as opposed to the Tamron which has a 67mm filter...

I kinda regret it now, but I'm looking at the new Tamron with VC, but I heard it's got mixed reviews.

[m3thods]

me as well, in the exact same boat. I originally had a Sigma 17-70mm, which sported a 72mm filter, and since I outfitted myself with all these nice filters, I decided to upgrade to the Sigma 18-50, as opposed to the Tamron which has a 67mm filter...

I kinda regret it now, but I'm looking at the new Tamron with VC, but I heard it's got mixed reviews.

Ah that's too bad... I suppose I never had a good copy on hand to compare to my Sigma.. but apparently my buddy is getting one so there's a chance to have a closer look

Other than wide open, I think the Sigma is a very good lens and the build quality feels much more substantial than the Tamron, which is a plus.

[TurboTalon]

I too am looking at replacing my kit lens, with either the Sigma 18-50 or 17-70. After looking at reviews from all over, it seems as though the verdicts are split. Any insight?

[ddr]

What's a good L bracket? The RRS ones?

[mickz]

How common is it for a person to sell lenses by itself (no box or receipts?) I've never bought a used lens before but came across this one ad on Craigslist for two lenses. The seller claims he already sold his camera body and is switching over to Canon so he is selling his remaining lenses.

They're listed at a good price, maybe too good of a price. I just don't to be buying stolen goods.

[ddr]

depending on the condition of the lenses... i'd say very common. i kept all my boxes and receipts tho but i can see how it's not a big deal to some ppl.

[GomGom]

Is better to go with two lenses:
- Canon 18-55mm IS
- Canon 55-250mm IS

Or one lens Canon 18-200mm IS????

[Senna4ever]

does anyone here have experience with canon FL mount lenses being used on EF mounts?
i've been reading up on them and many people seem to be doing conversions, yet there's a company on ebay who is selling canon FL/FD to EOS mounts so i'm just curios if FD/FL are just the same.

i've no intention of tinkering with lens conversions so i thought about buying adapters to use. can any one shed light? :D

The adapters do exist, but due to the flange distance being different, they do have glass optics in them that does degrade image quality.

[Alatar]

70-200 f4L or 100mm macro f2.8 (non-L) assuming approx same price...

[LiquidTurbo]

Is better to go with two lenses:
- Canon 18-55mm IS
- Canon 55-250mm IS

Or one lens Canon 18-200mm IS????

If you can afford it, the 18-200mm is a very nice convenience as opposed to switching lens all the time.

[j3d]

Do you guys know some shops across the border that sells Nikon lenses. I'm thinking of getting a 35mm this coming holiday.

[aznrsx1979]

Anyone try the Tamron AF 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 Xr Di? I'm thinking of picking this one up since i wanted a better zoom lens.

[aznrsx1979]

Do you guys know some shops across the border that sells Nikon lenses. I'm thinking of getting a 35mm this coming holiday.

There's Glazers in Seattle. Picked up my Tokina 11-16mm for my Canon there. They sell Nikon ones to.

[j3d]

Thanks. I picked up mine at Kenmore Camera. No tax!

[keitaro]

I am thinking about going on a photography road trip to the rockies, and I cannot decide on which lens to rent. I would like to rent first since it allows me to use a lens in a real life, and get a feel for the lens.

Since I like to shoot landscapes, it would be best if I got a wide angle lens. Landscapes do not necessary need a UWA lens, in fact I've been using my 17-85 for all my shots from landscapes, nature and portrait. So I know what 17mm is like on a 1.6x crop camera.

I am looking at renting the EF 17-40L. It's actually a lens that I want to own, so it will be a good test of the lens. I am curious on how the 17-40L compares to the EF-S 10-22 in terms of colour, and sharpness.

Thanks!

[Alatar]

I am thinking about going on a photography road trip to the rockies, and I cannot decide on which lens to rent. I would like to rent first since it allows me to use a lens in a real life, and get a feel for the lens.

Since I like to shoot landscapes, it would be best if I got a wide angle lens. Landscapes do not necessary need a UWA lens, in fact I've been using my 17-85 for all my shots from landscapes, nature and portrait. So I know what 17mm is like on a 1.6x crop camera.

I am looking at renting the EF 17-40L. It's actually a lens that I want to own, so it will be a good test of the lens. I am curious on how the 17-40L compares to the EF-S 10-22 in terms of colour, and sharpness.

Thanks!

I just got back from a long-weekend road trip with Girl. We went Jasper/Banff and back over the 4 days. I went with my 17-50 Tammy and 70-400 f4L. Girl used the XS and kit lens for most of her shots (some shots taken with my Tammy). 17mm is wide enough for most landscape, in the rockies, I found. 10-22 would be overkill, especially since you can take some nice panos anyway. I did find the 70-200 came in really handy for wildlife, though.

[keitaro]

I just got back from a long-weekend road trip with Girl. We went Jasper/Banff and back over the 4 days. I went with my 17-50 Tammy and 70-400 f4L. Girl used the XS and kit lens for most of her shots (some shots taken with my Tammy). 17mm is wide enough for most landscape, in the rockies, I found. 10-22 would be overkill, especially since you can take some nice panos anyway. I did find the 70-200 came in really handy for wildlife, though.

70-200 would be good for wildlife/macro shots of nature, but landscape wise, I am still looking at getting the 17-40L. My buddy would be brining his 10-22, but like you said, it could be over kill.

10-22 FF equiv would be 16-35, which is near close as a 17-40 FF. I am still wondering about image quality comparing between 10-22 and 17-40L.

[JordanLee]

Anyone have any idea where I can pick up a Tokina 11-16 for a Canon mount for 600 US? I've see US retailers have it at 599 but their all backordered. JR, Adorama, B&H, Glazers. Can't find this thing anywhere. I'd much rather pay 600US new vs paying 700+ for a used one locally.

[m3thods]

It happens often. I complained about this here a few months ago, then they all got stock pretty soon. I'd check back with them in a few weeks. :thumbsup:

[JordanLee]

Awesome, thanks. I think my line up for my 7D will be a Tokina 11-16 2.8, Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, Canon 50 1.4.

[moky]

^ that's a pretty solid line up :)

[aznrsx1979]

When I got my Tokina 11-16 2.8 Canon mount at Glazers, it didn't take long before they got it back in stock. Took about a week and a half. I just ordered it online so they set it aside for me.

[TOPEC]

Lookin into a 17-50mm f/2.8, I know sigma, tamron, and tokina all offers similar lenses around the same price, and none of them have offers one in usm hsm or what ever good inner focus, but which one is the better one?? Its for a canon mount.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[JordanLee]

Tamron non VC model usually triumphs over those 2. Its exceptionally sharp just the focus is on the noisier side. I have one for sale if you're interested. $425

Lookin into a 17-50mm f/2.8, I know sigma, tamron, and tokina all offers similar lenses around the same price, and none of them have offers one in usm hsm or what ever good inner focus, but which one is the better one?? Its for a canon mount.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[TOPEC]

Tamron non VC model usually triumphs over those 2. Its exceptionally sharp just the focus is on the noisier side. I have one for sale if you're interested. $425


Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

hmmm...... very tempting....

[TurboTalon]

Lookin into a 17-50mm f/2.8, I know sigma, tamron, and tokina all offers similar lenses around the same price, and none of them have offers one in usm hsm or what ever good inner focus, but which one is the better one?? Its for a canon mount.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

this one has HSM...I just picked up a tamron 17-50 non VC from here http://www.dunneandrundle.com/, and i like it.

http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=13_46_47&products_id=4582

[!MiKrofT]

Wow that's a hefty premium to get HSM. I'm using the 17-50 VC. A bit noisy focusing but good enough for what I use it for. I got mine at Dunne and Rundle too when it was on sale.

[mickz]

Does anybody have the Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8? The lens hood on mine is outrageously loose. I'm wondering if this is a defect. Thanks!

[ilvtofu]

Is better to go with two lenses:
- Canon 18-55mm IS
- Canon 55-250mm IS

Or one lens Canon 18-200mm IS????

I am very happy with the quality of my 55-250 pictures however the 55 isn't so practical on an apsc. I currently use that and a 17-40 but am looking to replace the 17-40. I want to try the sigma 17-70 or 24-70 macro. Which would you guys recommend. I know they are a bit cheaper than my L lens but I want to invest in a prime too. I also have the sigma 10-20 which I am quite happy with
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[mb_]

Is the Nikon 70-300MM F4.5-5.6G worth it? Currently $499 at Broadway Camera

[Euro7r]

Could anyone recommend me a lens that shoots good night time photos?

[m3thods]

assuming you're not firing a flash, any big aperture lens (f/2.8 and below) will do. with a combination of increasing your ISO

The obvious cost effective solution would be the nifty fifty (50 f/1.8). Any more information about what you're shooting/how you're shooting/what you want out of your shots would help narrow things down a bit.

[Euro7r]

assuming you're not firing a flash, any big aperture lens (f/2.8 and below) will do. with a combination of increasing your ISO

The obvious cost effective solution would be the nifty fifty (50 f/1.8). Any more information about what you're shooting/how you're shooting/what you want out of your shots would help narrow things down a bit.


Well, I would like to shoot night time landscape/scenery and cars. Also, I would want to shoot outdoor portraits during the day. Will the 50 F 1.8 be able to meet my needs? I've done some research online, I found a lot of comparison between the 50mm F1.8/1.4 and 85mm F1.8. But I guess that really depends on my needs.

[m3thods]

Well, I would like to shoot night time landscape/scenery and cars. Also, I would want to shoot outdoor portraits during the day. Will the 50 F 1.8 be able to meet my needs? I've done some research online, I found a lot of comparison between the 50mm F1.8/1.4 and 85mm F1.8. But I guess that really depends on my needs.

Personally for landscape work I like to use a wider focal length. Are you using a APS-C camera (i.e. entry-level to semi-pro camera)?

Depending on your budget and use, it really depends. Your two needs could be solved with a single zoom lens if it's like a 50/50 use for your two needs. Assuming you run a APS-C camera, a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 could help if you're under a budget. Really sharp if you get a good copy, and a great great lens all around.

If money's not really an issue and you take landscapes way more than portraits, I'd get a Tokina 11-16 ultra wide for your landscape work. Personally I think 17 is not wide enough for landscapes, but you can make it work as I only have 18 on the wide end of my lenses.

If you take a TON more daytime portraits, I'd just think to get a 50 1.4 or 80 1.8. Recall with a crop camera (APS-C), you have to multiply 1.6 (1.5 for Nikon) by your focal length to get a more accurate reading. This means that a 50mm on a crop camera actually "seems" like using a 80mm. This is the same for using a 80mm lens.


Remember since you're taking night landscapes, I'm assuming you're using a tripod and really any well-reviewed wide lens will be ok since you'd probably be shooting at a small aperture (f/8 and above). The Tokina is sharp and fixed aperture, and has a large fan following because of it.


Hope this helps!

[ForbiddenX]

Is it worth it to get a Tamron 17-50mm over a Nikon 18-105mm? I'm thinking wether or not to sell my 18-105 and get a Tamron 17-50mm. I think I'd rather have a winder aperture instead of a longer zoom as I'll probably start saving up for a 70-200mm which will take me quite a while since I'm going to be going to school full time come september.

Also thinking of picking up a 85mm 1.8 in the mean time to make up for not having a longer zoom.

This is what my setup would look like:
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8
Nikon 85mm 1.8
Nikon 70-200mm 2.8(By January if I save hardcore)

[Senna4ever]

Is it worth it to get a Tamron 17-50mm over a Nikon 18-105mm? I'm thinking wether or not to sell my 18-105 and get a Tamron 17-50mm. I think I'd rather have a winder aperture instead of a longer zoom as I'll probably start saving up for a 70-200mm which will take me quite a while since I'm going to be going to school full time come september.

Also thinking of picking up a 85mm 1.8 in the mean time to make up for not having a longer zoom.

This is what my setup would look like:
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8
Nikon 85mm 1.8
Nikon 70-200mm 2.8(By January if I save hardcore)
Did you want the 70-200 VR II, or will a VR I suffice? We have some used 70-200 VR I for around $1300~$1400.

[ForbiddenX]

A VR I should be good enough for me. Do they sell well or would you have em until around january?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Senna4ever]

A VR I should be good enough for me. Do they sell well or would you have em until around january?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)
I expect them to be gone in a few days. They're ex-rental units - clean glass, but worn exterior.

[ForbiddenX]

^Yea I probably won't have $1300 in the next couple of days haha.

What do you say about going from an 18-105mm to a 17-50mm?

[Matsuda]

the tamron 17-50mm is a sharp lens, got a lot of good reviews, my friend has one and its pretty nice. I was also considering it but ended up getting a sigma 18-50mm

[Senna4ever]

What do you say about going from an 18-105mm to a 17-50mm?

That's your call. Are you willing to sacrifice the longer reach for a faster lens? Only you can answer that. :)

[ForbiddenX]

^Decided to keep the 18-105mm and get the 17-50mm >.> Won a non VC model on ebay for $350. Not that bad imo.

D90 + 50mm 1.4 + 18-105mm + 17-50mm 2.8 is good enough for me right now. I think I'll get the 85mm 1.8 next for sure or just keep saving for a 70-200mm 2.8.

My wallet received some damage in the past month but it's been worth it!

[gilly]

HEY GUYS

I currently have a kit lens 18-55mm and I want to upgrade. I am currently debating on either to get a 18-200VR or 55-200mmVR lens. I take a wide range pictures from macro, portraits and landscape. There is a big price difference between the two and I am not too fond of switching lenses all the time. Will the missing 18-55mm be a big deal if i buy the cheaper 55-200vr lens?

Thanks

[gilly]

^ well i researched a lot and picked up a 18-200mm VR lens. Good buy

[ilvtofu]

I've used the 18-200 on my friend's d90 he loves it for travelling since he's usually in beijing but goes on many business trips but he complains about the distortion, all in all for a new one seems a little pricey. I would consider the sigma 18-200 with OS HSM and tamron has a 18-270 which has won many awards and long warranty.

EDIT: You certainly don't want your lowest focal length to be a 55 especially on a crop sensor DSLR

[Euro7r]

Any recommendations on a macro-lens on the Nikon D80?

[Senna4ever]

The new 60mm f2.8 and 105mm VR lenses are great, but my personal favourite is the old 55mm f2.8 Ai-S manual focus lens made in 1979. It is an absolute stunner. It's a bit heavy due to its all metal construction, but that's what makes it feel so good in your hands, and the manual focusing is extremely well dampened. Not too shabby for a 30 year old lens.

I bought it used about 5 years ago at Kerrisdale Camera for $200.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Senna4ever/Forum%20crap/DSC07737-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Senna4ever/Photos%20II/DSC_1857.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Senna4ever/Photos%20II/DSC_1868-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Senna4ever/Photos%20II/DSC_1855-1.jpg

[RCubed]

Im looking for a fast MF 50mm for my NEX5.
Ive been looking at the Canon FD 50mm 1.4 SSC and the Minolta MD 50mm 1.4.
But the old FL Canon 55mm f/1.2 caught my eye. Its only a bit more than the 1.4s.
Has anyone used any of these and have any feedback?

[m3thods]

Hey Senna I think you have the resources to help me out with this question:


I'm looking into a Canon-mount 70-200 2.8 for myself as a graduation gift this April. There are 3 that I'm looking at- The Sigma OS, and the two Canon IS lenses. After reading the review on dpreview for the Sigma, I've very disappointed at the results. For $100 more I'd probably get the mk1.

My question is: How "tangible" is the difference between the mk1 and mk2? I recall you said that the AF is faster, but I don't remember you saying anything about the colour rendition or the added sharpness.

I'm not a professional, nor do I plan on being paid to take pictures, which is why I'm having trouble justifying a 3k purchase on a single lens. My main concern is the "softness @ 200mm", which several reviews on FM and dpreview say of the mk1. The same is applicable to the Sigma.

If you have the time, are you able to do a comparison shot at 200mm between the two Canons (100% crops as well)? I'd like to see the actual differences, and if it's night and day, I'll just save the extra $700 for the mk2 (and feel terrible about it :blush::rolleyes:) Thanks in advanced!:)

[Senna4ever]

Hey Senna I think you have the resources to help me out with this question:


I'm looking into a Canon-mount 70-200 2.8 for myself as a graduation gift this April. There are 3 that I'm looking at- The Sigma OS, and the two Canon IS lenses. After reading the review on dpreview for the Sigma, I've very disappointed at the results. For $100 more I'd probably get the mk1.

My question is: How "tangible" is the difference between the mk1 and mk2? I recall you said that the AF is faster, but I don't remember you saying anything about the colour rendition or the added sharpness.

I'm not a professional, nor do I plan on being paid to take pictures, which is why I'm having trouble justifying a 3k purchase on a single lens. My main concern is the "softness @ 200mm", which several reviews on FM and dpreview say of the mk1. The same is applicable to the Sigma.

If you have the time, are you able to do a comparison shot at 200mm between the two Canons (100% crops as well)? I'd like to see the actual differences, and if it's night and day, I'll just save the extra $700 for the mk2 (and feel terrible about it :blush::rolleyes:) Thanks in advanced!:)
I'll try and do some test shots with my personal 70-200mkI and one of the store's mkII. I know that one of the mkII we have isn't as sharp as my mkI, so I will not grab that one. :p

[m3thods]

I'll try and do some test shots with my personal 70-200mkI and one of the store's mkII. I know that one of the mkII we have isn't as sharp as my mkI, so I will not grab that one. :p

hahah awesome thanks! :thumbsup:

it's interesting to hear that your store's mk2 is not as sharp as your mk1. Is there an easy way of testing before buying? I normally just shoot some text and zoom in with the camera lcd screen to inspect. do you suggest a better way?

[ddr]

that's something i never understood - how to thoroughly test a lens you buy in a store

this (http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-cb-spyderlenscal.php) just came out and will help with focusing though

[c3m]

Need some advice on a new lens

I'm currently using 24-70z on the A900 and I can't decide on which telephoto lens to get.
I'm looking for at 70-200mm G and the 70-400mm G

Actually I am thinking about selling the 2470z and pick up the 1635z and then one of the telephoto

Need advice.

Thankss

[Boostslut]

c3m, doesn't it all depend on what you like to shoot? If you want a nice general lens, the 70-200 would be great, and very useful. If you are looking to shoot some birds, wildlife or planes then the 70-400G might be your thing.

[!MiKrofT]

I'll try and do some test shots with my personal 70-200mkI and one of the store's mkII. I know that one of the mkII we have isn't as sharp as my mkI, so I will not grab that one. :p

Hmm I'd like to see that too. Thinking about upgrading my 70-200 F4L Non IS. to the F2.8 L IS Mk1/Mk2 or Non IS.

[Senna4ever]

Need some advice on a new lens

I'm currently using 24-70z on the A900 and I can't decide on which telephoto lens to get.
I'm looking for at 70-200mm G and the 70-400mm G

Actually I am thinking about selling the 2470z and pick up the 1635z and then one of the telephoto

Need advice.

Thankss
Are you kidding me? You have a 24-70z and want to get rid of it? Why? You have the sharpest 24-70 on the market, man! It's a great lens to have on the A900 - I would keep it and augment it with either the 70-200G or 70-400G. I think if you get the 16-35, you would miss the focal lengths covered by the 24-70, unless you also pick up a 50mm f1.4and/or the 85mm f1.4. If you need the f2.8 that the 70-200 gives you, I would get it, but the 70-400G is an unbelievably sharp lens, so if the f2.8 aperture of the 70-200G isn't important, I personally would not have a problem with the 70-400G.

[Senna4ever]

Hmm I'd like to see that too. Thinking about upgrading my 70-200 F4L Non IS. to the F2.8 L IS Mk1/Mk2 or Non IS.

The 70-200 f2.8 IS is not as sharp as the 70-200 f4. The new 70-200 f2.8 IS II is sharper than the f4, it seems.

[!MiKrofT]

Hmm maybe I should just upgrade to the is version of the f4 l.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Dangerphoto]

Hey guys,

Should I pick up a Sigma 70-210mm f4~5.6 from craigslist for 75$??

I read a bit on the lens, users say its a pretty soft lens but for its price do you think its worth it? Also, I'm on a pretty tight budget and currently without a telephoto lens.

On a side note...the owner doesn't seem to know anything about his own lens...

Any input would be appreciated!

Cheers,

Shin

[Senna4ever]

Maybe meet up with him to see if it's worth buying. You should test out the lens prior to buying for sure.

[c3m]

Are you kidding me? You have a 24-70z and want to get rid of it? Why? You have the sharpest 24-70 on the market, man! It's a great lens to have on the A900 - I would keep it and augment it with either the 70-200G or 70-400G. I think if you get the 16-35, you would miss the focal lengths covered by the 24-70, unless you also pick up a 50mm f1.4and/or the 85mm f1.4. If you need the f2.8 that the 70-200 gives you, I would get it, but the 70-400G is an unbelievably sharp lens, so if the f2.8 aperture of the 70-200G isn't important, I personally would not have a problem with the 70-400G.

I found myself shooting a lot of landscapes and always looking for a wider angle. The 24-70 is nice but it seems like it's not wild enough for me.

I do have a 50mm but it's the old/cheap version it's the F1.7 Minolta. So, that's why I'm thinking going with 16-35Z and then most likely 70-200G or just get the 70-200 or 70-400

I was told the 70-400 is sold in HK for only about 1300CAD vs. 1899CAD + tax here and I saw a few of your 70-400 pictures and loved the sharpness and bokeh from it. I haven't look too much into 70-200 picture quality yet but I like the 2.8.

[Senna4ever]

I found myself shooting a lot of landscapes and always looking for a wider angle. The 24-70 is nice but it seems like it's not wild enough for me.

I do have a 50mm but it's the old/cheap version it's the F1.7 Minolta. So, that's why I'm thinking going with 16-35Z and then most likely 70-200G or just get the 70-200 or 70-400

I was told the 70-400 is sold in HK for only about 1300CAD vs. 1899CAD + tax here and I saw a few of your 70-400 pictures and loved the sharpness and bokeh from it. I haven't look too much into 70-200 picture quality yet but I like the 2.8.
Well, I guess it all depends on your shooting style.

I've never posted shots with a 70-400 - I don't have one. I have posted shots taken with my 200mm f2.8G though.

[c3m]

Well, I guess it all depends on your shooting style.

I've never posted shots with a 70-400 - I don't have one. I have posted shots taken with my 200mm f2.8G though.

Oh I remembered wrong then. But yeah I just can't decide. I'm sure they are both good.

[Senna4ever]

Oh I remembered wrong then. But yeah I just can't decide. I'm sure they are both good.

Get both! :D

[LiquidTurbo]

Nikon 50mm f1.8 - must have lens?

[m3thods]

^ 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:

[seakrait]

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

[m3thods]

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.

[gars]

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...

[moky]

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

[Senna4ever]

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

[m3thods]

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 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)

[seakrait]

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.

[moky]

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 :)

[77civic1200]

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

[m3thods]

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

[Boostslut]

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.

[seakrait]

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!

[m3thods]

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.


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/379-tokina_1116_28_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:

[Senna4ever]

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.

[seakrait]

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

[m3thods]

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

[rental_metard]

I love my 35 1.8 :)

[m3thods]

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

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-USA/Canon_2751B002_EF_70_200mm_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

[Dangerphoto]

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?

[m3thods]

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.

[Dangerphoto]

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

[m3thods]

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.

[Dangerphoto]

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.

[Boostslut]

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

[ilvtofu]

Yeah I have the 55-250 I absolutely love it
It'll probably be $100 ish more than that sigma but it's worth it for the IS and what is generally a well acclaimed lens.

[rental_metard]

I have that Sigma, the "macro" feature on it seems gimmicky, and I can get much closer and clearer images with the 35mm 1.8. I agree with Boostslut

[Dangerphoto]

^ I'm too poor unlike you! On a budget but want to upgrade >.< But I will consider looking at it :D

[Dangerphoto]

Hey guys, I found a 55-250 IS on craigslist but I'm not sure what to offer him haha...

Edit: OK I offered him $190, he's gonna give me the box and hood too so yeah...ok deal?

[ilvtofu]

Sounds like a decent deal to me

[m3thods]

if this is your first time purchasing a lens used, make sure you test it thoroughly. take some pictures at different focal lengths. zoom into the results on your lcd to make sure it's not too soft. it's easy to get carried away by a good deal and not test it as much, but when you take it home you'd hate to find out you have a dud.

with that said, make sure you're shutter speeds are appropriate- with that lens you're looking at least anything faster than 1/100, even faster if possible (depends where you're testing)

[Dangerphoto]

^ Yeah, thanks for the advice...It was really hard to test it in doors but i tried to bump the iso up and stuff...lens is pretty pristine...not sure if it is at optimal performance tho...but $190 ain't a bad deal since I could easily sell it back out for $200. Overall its not a bad lens, love the range I now get. But it is damn hard to hand hold shots over 150mm IMO.

Edit: Only thing I do regret is that it doesn't have a USM.

[m3thods]

ah yeah if it's like the tamron (which i'm sure is worse) the focus motor sounds like hell lol.

as long as you're not shooting in really low light it sounds like you got a great deal! :thumbsup:

[Boostslut]

Congrats on your new lens Shinraboy! Post up some snap`s and let us pixel-peep for you! We all need original's, and then 100% crops STAT! I'm joking, just get your ass outside and use it already. That is, if its not shitty weather.

I'm flattered you took my advice! I'm glad you didn't get the 70-300 lenses. POS.

[Dangerphoto]

^ Yeah gotta wait til there is better weather...and tripod this thing up haha...overall its kinda fun to have it.

[Senna4ever]

Congrats on your new lens Shinraboy! Post up some snap`s and let us pixel-peep for you! We all need original's, and then 100% crops STAT! I'm joking, just get your ass outside and use it already. That is, if its not shitty weather.

I'm flattered you took my advice! I'm glad you didn't get the 70-300 lenses. POS.

The new Canon 70-300mm L is killer sharp...but of course not in the same price bracket.

[Dangerphoto]

^ know where I can pick up a cheap 58mm filter?

[Senna4ever]

UV filter?

[Dangerphoto]

^ Yes sir!

[m3thods]

The new Canon 70-300mm L is killer sharp...but of course not in the same price bracket.

first hand experience or reviews? i want pics! :D

[Senna4ever]

first hand experience or reviews? i want pics! :D

First hand experience, but it was a pre-production unit. I did take pics, I'll have to find them.

[ilvtofu]

^ know where I can pick up a cheap 58mm filter?

I got a few of those cheap online ones but I can never seem to get them clear.

Digital Rev has the B+W MRC for $59 shipped to canada. They have a pretty big selection on their site. I just searched 58mm filter and this is what came up
http://www.digitalrev.com/en/products_search.php?category_id=0&search_category_id=0&search_string=58mm+filter&df=ps&i=products&time=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

You'll definitely notice a wide range in prices, even on ebay the cheap ones can be $3-4 or sometimes $10-15

[RCubed]

^ Yes sir!

So you dont need my sigma anymore right?
Just making sure' Haha.

[Dangerphoto]

^ Nope, thanks tho!

[seakrait]

any particular filter you guys recommend for the 35mm f/1.8? picked up a cheapo 52mm Tiffen UV Haze-1 filter at LD to tide me over in the mean time...

[gars]

I got a few of those cheap online ones but I can never seem to get them clear.

Digital Rev has the B+W MRC for $59 shipped to canada. They have a pretty big selection on their site. I just searched 58mm filter and this is what came up
http://www.digitalrev.com/en/products_search.php?category_id=0&search_category_id=0&search_string=58mm+filter&df=ps&i=products&time=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

You'll definitely notice a wide range in prices, even on ebay the cheap ones can be $3-4 or sometimes $10-15

Maxsaver.net has it for $33.75 USD

http://maxsaver.net/B-W-58mm-MRC-UV-010-Filter-NEW-F-PRO-Multi-Coated-Alloy.aspx

[RCubed]

Im deciding between 2 Sony lenses
The DT 50mm f/1.8 SAM
or the DT 35mm f/1.8 SAM.
Im shooting with the NEX with the LA-EA1 adapter so I cant expect much for autofocus speed, but how is the IQ for these? The difference in price is only about $100. What advantages would I get from getting the shorter focal length?

[stevo911_]

I was planning on getting a Nikkor 50mm 1.8D AF for my D40x (I know I wont have autofocus and about the focal length multiplier)
From the reading I've been doing they seem like a great lens for such a low price, I found a (virtually) brand new one for $100. I was just poking around in the forum here reading on film cameras and such and found a bunch of posts commending on them having a tendency of falling apart, and I was curious if this is referring to the older non D model (since it was a few old/film camera threads) or if you guys have any reservations about that lens?

[Senna4ever]

They are a bit on the fragile side. I'd get the AF-S 50mm f1.4 if budget allows.

[stevo911_]

Unfortunately the budget doesnt allow for that one (unfortunately my wallet isnt as big as my want list)
I'm on a limited (student) budget and this is one of many expensive hobbies.
As far as I can tell there arent any other cost effective offerings in the 50-75mm (aps-c effective) range? Or do you think the AF 50mm would be worth my while for 100 bucks? My two lenses at the moment are the 18-55 kit lens and 55-200 vr, which i'm quite happy with, but they're not exactly ideal in lower light situations

[Senna4ever]

I think you'll have a tough time focusing manually with the small viewfinder in the D40x unless you focus using the live view.

[ddr]

is there anyway to remedy this?

from what i gather, not everyone like the focus screens. some ppl swear by just using their eyes and practicing more

[Senna4ever]

is there anyway to remedy this?
Yes, buy a Leica rangefinder. :p

....or buy a full frame body with a high magnification viewfinder and focusing screen. The viewfinders in crop bodies are terrible.

[604778]

Thinking about picking up a Tamron 17-50.
I was wondering though, Who is a recommended seller on eBay for lens and what not?

[ddr]

prodigital2000

i bought 2 copies of the non-VC from him

[VancouverG88]

RCubed,
Have you upgraded the firmware on your NEX? It improves the user interface a LOT, and you will need it to enable autofocus on your adapter.

Having said that, the autofocus with the nex adapter and alpha lenses is really bad. Claimed 2-7 seconds to autofocus, and in my opinion that's pretty much unusable. If you aren't worried about autofocus and are ONLY going to use manual focus, I suggest you stay away from the DT 50mm 1.8 and look for an older Minolta 50mm f/1.7. These may range from $50-100, depending on the condition, and they are also full frame lenses, if you ever decide to go full frame. But there is no built in motor, and thus, you cannot use autofocus with it on the NEX (but you will be able to with alpha bodies).

[VancouverG88]

I also need advice on lens options. I have recently acquired an old Pentax film SLR. This body uses the Pentax K mount, and I was wondering if anyone here has experience with the K mount and decent lenses. I'm looking for a faster portrait lens, 35mm or 85mm will do.

Help appreciated!

[RCubed]

RCubed,
Have you upgraded the firmware on your NEX? It improves the user interface a LOT, and you will need it to enable autofocus on your adapter.

Having said that, the autofocus with the nex adapter and alpha lenses is really bad. Claimed 2-7 seconds to autofocus, and in my opinion that's pretty much unusable. If you aren't worried about autofocus and are ONLY going to use manual focus, I suggest you stay away from the DT 50mm 1.8 and look for an older Minolta 50mm f/1.7. These may range from $50-100, depending on the condition, and they are also full frame lenses, if you ever decide to go full frame. But there is no built in motor, and thus, you cannot use autofocus with it on the NEX (but you will be able to with alpha bodies).

Hmm.
Yeah I upgraded the firmware already. I just want to find a use of the LA-EA1 adapter. Lol.
I already have the a Minolta 50mm 1.4 for the nex. Maybe ill save the money and pick up a Canon FD 55mm f1.2 with the money instead.
Thanks.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Bobby_Mac]

I also need advice on lens options. I have recently acquired an old Pentax LX (from the 80's) and it came with a Vivitar Series 1 24-48mm f/3.8 lens. This body is amazing! Everything feels really solid, and the shutter sound is just wonderful =) Anyways, this body uses the Pentax K mount, and I was wondering if anyone here has experience with the K mount and decent lenses. I'm looking for a faster portrait lens, 35mm or 85mm will do. Keep in mind, I will/can only use manual focus with this body.

Help appreciated!

You'd have to buy used but I'd he looking out for a pentax a* 85 f1.4
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[carisear]

prodigital2000

i bought 2 copies of the non-VC from him

just wondering why you bought 2?

also, for an everyday lens, is the extra $100 for the VC worth it in your guys opinions? i'm also looking at getting that tamron 17-50 for canon mount

[aznrsx1979]

just wondering why you bought 2?

also, for an everyday lens, is the extra $100 for the VC worth it in your guys opinions? i'm also looking at getting that tamron 17-50 for canon mount

I'm in the same boat. After reading all the reviews, I'm leaning towards the one without the VC.

[ilvtofu]

Need a suggestion for a good zoom lens, I'm using the 55-250mm and I do a lot of indoor shooting. Today was probably the 4th time this year I shot pictures at River Rock
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs991.snc4/76490_452749222911_505467911_5560187_452913_n.jpg
This is a picture I took of my friend tonight @ river rock, The noise performance of the 7D isn't horrible especially @ 3200 ISO (this was uploaded onto facebook, it looks a lot better on my laptop!)
It was hard to keep up with a low shutter speed cause my friend was the only one who did a rock & roll routine -_- So I had to throw it on a 320 speed if I remember correctly as opposed to 120 ish for the other contestants.

Anyways I definitely want a sharper zoom lens with possibly more reach. The only ones I'm more familiar with are the canon L zoom lenses but those are about 4x the price of my current one :/ Any suggestions? Or should I just get an L?

[Senna4ever]

You will preferably need a 70-200 f2.8. It doesn't have to be Canon - Sigma & Tamron also make them for a bit less money. If you're allowed to get closer, you may want to go with a fast prime like a 100mm f2 or 135mm f2.

[ddr]

just wondering why you bought 2?

also, for an everyday lens, is the extra $100 for the VC worth it in your guys opinions? i'm also looking at getting that tamron 17-50 for canon mount

one for myself, and one for a friend that wanted one. you can't beat this lens at this price point ... until you get into another price category and grab the 17-55 and just forget about walk-arounds for crops heh

the tamron lacks corner sharpness in general. and the VC version supposedly is not as sharp as the non-VC. your other option would be the sigma with OS but at that price you mind as well get the canon/nikon one. a lot of people like the sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS too.

[Senna4ever]

The Canon 17-55 isn't very good.

[ilvtofu]

You will preferably need a 70-200 f2.8. It doesn't have to be Canon - Sigma & Tamron also make them for a bit less money. If you're allowed to get closer, you may want to go with a fast prime like a 100mm f2 or 135mm f2.

The problem is I think I will be going full frame in the future and 200 probably won't be enough reach. I guess when you want that kind of range you are sacrificing image quality.

SLR gear just posted the review of the sigma 70-200 2.8, has the least chromatic abberation and seems like less vignetting and distortion too compared to the tamron
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1328/cat/31

The tamron still has a very high image quality rating though but the price is quite high (still over $800 CAD in HK) The canon F4.0 IS is only about $200 more in HK and the older
thttp://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1090/cat/23

Are there any differently ranged lenses you would recommend? (ie. Nikon's 200-400 or Canon's 100-400)?

[Senna4ever]

The Nikon 200-400 costs $6000+, but it's bloody amazing. The Canon 100-400 is way too slow for concert use. Do you really need FF for your work though? A crop body with good lowght capability like the 7D is probably best for you.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[gars]

the thing with lenses, is that you can always sell off the lens. You do lose a bit of money if you got the lens new - but if you get it second-hand, you can always sell it off for around the same price assuming that you've kept it in good condition.

[m3thods]

i agree with senna that you need a 2.8 or faster. if budget is an issue the non-is version of the sigma 70-200 has some decent reviews, and with hsm it'll be more helpful than the tamron in low light.

gars is also right in that you get more return out of lenses compared to bodies, so if it's what you need now, it's not too difficult to move along as you can still get good dollar for your lens.

if you do this often, get what you need now and worry about the FF issue when/if it comes.

[ddr]

The Canon 17-55 isn't very good.

what's better for a canon crop? i don't really like the wide end to be 24mm if i was to carry one lens out.

[Senna4ever]

The 15-85 is fantastic, although not a f2.8 lens.

[ilvtofu]

The Nikon 200-400 costs $6000+, but it's bloody amazing. The Canon 100-400 is way too slow for concert use. Do you really need FF for your work though? A crop body with good lowght capability like the 7D is probably best for you.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

i agree with senna that you need a 2.8 or faster. if budget is an issue the non-is version of the sigma 70-200 has some decent reviews, and with hsm it'll be more helpful than the tamron in low light.

gars is also right in that you get more return out of lenses compared to bodies, so if it's what you need now, it's not too difficult to move along as you can still get good dollar for your lens.

if you do this often, get what you need now and worry about the FF issue when/if it comes.

Good points I think I will get rid of my 17-40 and get the sigma with the OS, for that amount of zoom I think OS is a good idea

[ddr]

The 15-85 is fantastic, although not a f2.8 lens.

hhhmm... i read the review that your coworker wrote when you posted it, i didn't expect it to be sharper than the 17-55, if that's the aspect you were talking about ... maybe i should ask what don't you like about the 17-55?

but the constant aperture and IS has let me take shots that would have been impossible when i didn't have a flash or tripod.

[m3thods]

^ i hear the new Sigma 17-50 os hsm performs just as well as the 17-55 in most situations.. but hearing that the 17-55 isn't that good kinda extends to the sigma.

oh well food for thought (and another lens to research :))

[Senna4ever]

We had three customers who bought the lens, and all of them brought the lenses back because each one was not very sharp. Now admittedly, these guys are hard core professional commercial shooters who charge $10,000/day or just picky wedding shooters - they can't afford or want to have a lens that's not up to their standards. The Canon 17-55 is not as sharp as the Nikon one for sure, but I guess it's ok for most people.

[ddr]

i didn't think they'd use crop bodies ... or see why they would. (the reach maybe?)

for the level of sharpness that it has (i guess not very for some copies?), and the f/2.8 and IS, i don't think there is another choice.

i actually read that that new sigma outperforms the 17-55 in some situations. but it almost always seems like a gamble with sigma's QC. then again, i don't even know if my 17-55 is actually sharp lol.

[Senna4ever]

Lots of pros have crop bodies as back-ups or for personal use.

[m3thods]

i actually read that that new sigma outperforms the 17-55 in some situations. but it almost always seems like a gamble with sigma's QC. then again, i don't even know if my 17-55 is actually sharp lol.

well you could always try multiple copies in store. that's what i did and got a super sharp 18-50 2.8 on the second try. It's no big deal to have to test it, especially since you'd be doing it to the canon anyways.

considering the cost savings, if qc is your only concern i think it's a small cost to try multiple copies.

there's also the tamron vc, but i read that it's softer than the non-vc version, and comes in third with the other two.

[RCubed]

Anyone know any local places that sell old manual lenses?

[moky]

^kerrisdale camera sells manual lenses and leo's on granville iirc
im sure senna would chime in if beau photo does as well

[Senna4ever]

Yep, Beau has some old lenses too - what are you looking for?

[RCubed]

Yep, Beau has some old lenses too - what are you looking for?

Im looking for some fast normal lenses, namely:
Voigtlander ULTRON 40mm f/2
Takumar SMC 50mm 1.4
KONICA HEXANON AR 50/1.4
YASHICA 50/1.4

[moky]

voigtlander ultron?
check it out on here http://www.cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm
i gather you'd be using this on your sony nex though, right?

[ddr]

have you tried keh.com?

the local selection is not the greatest

[Senna4ever]

Im looking for some fast normal lenses, namely:
Voigtlander ULTRON 40mm f/2
Takumar SMC 50mm 1.4
KONICA HEXANON AR 50/1.4
YASHICA 50/1.4

I saw some Konicas and Takumar lenses at the camera show/swap meet last week. Did you not go?

I'm on holidays for the next week, but call Ken at 604-734-7771, as he's our used equipment guy. He might have something.

[RCubed]

I saw some Konicas and Takumar lenses at the camera show/swap meet last week. Did you not go?

I'm on holidays for the next week, but call Ken at 604-734-7771, as he's our used equipment guy. He might have something.

Awesome will do.

Where can one find out information about swap meets?

[77civic1200]

I have a 50mm f1.4 screw mount lying around if you are interested? pretty sure its a Super Takumar, not one of the SMC ones. Its got the fluorite element in it for sure, as I was leaving it at my dads place in a window to bleach out the glass. Not sure how thats going, haven't been back in a while haha

[RCubed]

I have a 50mm f1.4 screw mount lying around if you are interested? pretty sure its a Super Takumar, not one of the SMC ones. Its got the fluorite element in it for sure, as I was leaving it at my dads place in a window to bleach out the glass. Not sure how thats going, haven't been back in a while haha
Definitley interested!
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Senna4ever]

Awesome will do.

Where can one find out information about swap meets?
The next big one is on April 25. The one in the Fall is usually on the last Sunday of October, but this year they had it on the first Sunday in November.

http://www.whistlerinns.com/camerashow/

[stevo911_]

^is anyone aware of similar events on Vancouver Island?

[Senna4ever]

Phone up the Victoria Kerrisdale Camera and ask. There is one that used to be the weekend after the big Vancouver show in April, but I'm not sure if it is still on going.

[N.V.M.]

try the Victoria Kerrisdale guy on Twitter. seems like a nice guy.

http://twitter.com/#!/KCLVictoria

[ilvtofu]

Sigma 50mm 1.4
or
Sigma 30mm 1.4

I hear the 50mm has very good quality but on an APSC is a long focal length. Good for portraits I guess, they are about the same price and my dad will be coming back from HK on sunday

[moky]

^ if you aren't planning on switching to ff, the 30mm is a good choice.
on the other hand, being limited to tighter shots by using the 50mm is a great way to expand your creativity. i've played with a sigma 50 1.4F and it's built like a tank.
with it though, you do get rid of any premise of "discreet prime" because it's about the same size as the sigma 10-20 (77mm filter thread) as opposed to canon's own 50 1.4F which is very compact

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-30mm-f-1.4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

[gilly]

looking for a good wide angle lens for my nikon. and one thats not too expensive. preferably under $400

[ilvtofu]

^boy that is a tough price range unless you are just looking for a zoom lens with a low focal length

[Euro7r]

Still looking for a decently used wide angle as well, can't seem to find any Tokina 11-16 for a good price within $500.

[ddr]

i was curious if the sigma 50mm 1.4 is worth the extra ~$200 over the canon one

i've been looking for a good prime around the 30mm range but their prices vs. performance just doesn't seem attractive...

[ilvtofu]

Damn sigma 50 mm 1.4 sold out at a lot of places in Hk. Guess I'll use the 30 mm a bit first. Works out to abt 320 cad
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[moky]

^^ that's a good price! cheapest you can find for the 30mm is 440USD from b&h
http://www.photoprice.ca/product/00440/Sigma-30mm-F1.4-EX-DC-HSM-for-Canon-price.html

consequently, the 50mm sigma was 499usd on b&h as well. not a big price diff from the 30mm
http://www.photoprice.ca/product/02952/Sigma-50mm-F1.4-DG-EX-HSM-for-Canon-price.html

[ddr]

that's an awesome price for the 30mm. too bad i don't have AF microadjust otherwise i'd take a chance.

[N.V.M.]

wow. i just replaced my 17-40 L that i sold a couple weeks ago with another one i saw on Broadway Camera forums. $500. wOOt! this one is a "UX" , the one i sold was way older(UU).

[ddr]

i found the pantone huey pro on sale right now. is the spyder or the i1 products really worth twice the price?

i don't print at home, but would like some consistency when editing between two monitor. i've read good and bad reviews for all three products. any thoughts?

[dutch]

any opinions on the sigma 8-16?

what about the cheapest place in canada to get it?

[m3thods]

i recall senna saying it's a great competitor to the famed Tokina 11-16. Having the extra 3mm on the wide end is intriguing to me, so unless you need a constant 2.8 I say it's up there in terms of UWAs.

As for the cheapest price in Canada, it really depends on who has it on sale. Check the usual Broadway Camera, Beau, Kerrisdale, Lens&Shutter locally, but also Vistek, Henry's, McBain outside of BC.

[Boostslut]

Dutch, go to Photoprice.ca they tell you all the prices for Canada and USA for do all the math for you. Great website!

[Matsuda]

I'm thinking of getting that lens too to replace my borked sigma 10-20mm....or I may just get it fixed.

[Boostslut]

Tokina 11-16mm F2.8? Sigma 30mm F1.4? Just throwing things out there..

[m3thods]

Dutch, go to Photoprice.ca they tell you all the prices for Canada and USA for do all the math for you. Great website!

i checked but they aren't updated for the new sigma :( it does look like there's an average of $200 difference between the states and here.

[dutch]

Thanks for the price site, thats actually really helpful. Most of the shops around here will price match with in Canada :D

m3thods is right though, no 8-16 yet.

The only thing holding me away from it at the moment is the high aperture (and lack of weather sealing). But this is what you can expect for something so wide.

[moky]

for those of you interested in the sigma 8-16, i dunno if this had been posted before, it's a review of the lens by The Digital Picture.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

[m3thods]

Thanks for the price site, thats actually really helpful. Most of the shops around here will price match with in Canada :D

m3thods is right though, no 8-16 yet.

The only thing holding me away from it at the moment is the high aperture (and lack of weather sealing). But this is what you can expect for something so wide.

to be fair the majority of UWAs are not weather-sealed. I can only think of Canon's upcoming UWA L (8-15 I think) and a few primes (14mm L ) on the canon side at least. However those will come at a much higher price premium- but i guess if money's no real issue I'd wait around for more reviews on the much-anticipated 8-15L

[dutch]

8-15L is no go for me, i shoot pentax :P Plus isn't it fisheye?

[moky]

yeah the 8-15L is a fisheye. canon japan had the video up and it looks pretty good. depending on price, that might be my next lens since i have been looking at getting a uwa for ff

** not a bad price. $1400 USD on adorama pre-order
http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=CA8154*&utm_source=rflaid041619&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Search&utm_term=CA8154*

[Senna4ever]

We have the Sigma 8-15 in stock - it's quite a nice lens. In fact, it's the only Sigma that the owner has deemed good enough to keep in stock.

[dutch]

What shop senna?

[moky]

^^ Beau Photo.
http://www.beauphoto.com/

1520 W. 6th Ave
Vancouver, BC Canada

[N.V.M.]

there's a piece of used lighting equipment on that site that looks soooo used..lol


http://www.beauphoto.com/frames/used/usedphotos/lights/ltsp2403568.jpg

[dutch]

^^ Beau Photo.
http://www.beauphoto.com/

1520 W. 6th Ave
Vancouver, BC Canada

Oh wow, my friend Dennis works there. :)

[ilvtofu]

How is the EF 70-300 F 4-5.6
I read the review on SLR gear looks pretty good.
I am thinking of selling my 55-250 for it

[m3thods]

How is the EF 70-300 F 4-5.6
I read the review on SLR gear looks pretty good.
I am thinking of selling my 55-250 for it

i've heard only good things about it during my telephoto research. if you're looking for a great travel tele and don't want to shell out for the good looking L version, I say get it.

[Spoon]

Anyone know much about the Metz 50 AF-1? Was thinking of picking up an SB600 over the holidays until I stumbled onto this. I'm open to suggestions as well. Thanks.

It's for a Nikon D80 btw.

[ilvtofu]

i've heard only good things about it during my telephoto research. if you're looking for a great travel tele and don't want to shell out for the good looking L version, I say get it.

Thanks just bought one going to pick it up sometime next week :P

[Boostslut]

Thanks just bought one going to pick it up sometime next week :P

What one did you buy? the 70-300mmL? Like the brand new white one? Or one of the older 70-300's? I would hope its the 70-300 IS (older version) cause its a pretty nice lens!

[ilvtofu]

the IS one can't afford an L :P

[m3thods]

^ good choice!

I was surprised at the supposed MSRP of the new 70-300 being higher than the 70-200 f/4 actually, but i guess new IS and new optical formula and 100mm = $$$.

[ilvtofu]

Yeah ordered one in the states gonna pick it up next week I guess, border lineups are a little crazy though

[!MiKrofT]

Hmm. Thinking of getting a wide angle for xmas.

Narrowed it to: Tokina 11-16 F2.8 and Canon 10-22 f/3.5 - 4.5 USM

Thoughts? Going onto my 40D

[ddr]

i believe they're equally sharp

tokina for indoor or low-light, canon for excellent flare control. apparently wide angle nuts own both

[Hehe]

Does anyone know if there's any shop around town that have a Nikon 35mm F1.4G to rent or to try it out?

I am in the market for one but Broadway Cameras (although they said they have stock) won't let me even try a couple of shots before making my mind to drop 2 grands on it.

[Dangerphoto]

Quick question...
Which lens would be the optimal choice for indoor party/restaurant photography without flash? Mostly shooting food + friends...

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

or

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

or even any 3rd party lens.

I am looking for high level of detail and sharpness...something with a big aperture to handle the low light settings. I want to have the range because it is handy, but I know prime lenses are still the best for sharpness and detail...not sure where my next investment should be into...

Feedback would be great,

Shin

[ddr]

how come you don't want to use a flash?

[Dangerphoto]

^ People hate the strobing from the e-ttl and people aren't natural when they see a flash coming at them.

Currently owning the two kit lenses and a 50mm on my 450d...looking to get some sharper images from better lenses...they are very slow lenses...I should invest into a flash unit too...but yeah :D

[m3thods]

my personal choice is for the 24-70 on your crop body, but rumor has it that it's replacement is on the horizon. of course this is just a rumor :)


how about the sigma 30mm 1.4? I only hear great things about them. There aren't any real 3rd party lenses that will give you the same reach. Not sure how the sigma 24-70 hsm compares to the L.

[Boostslut]

I second the Sigma 30mm F1.4, although i don't have one yet but hopefully i do at some point! Great walk around on a crop, and good for indoor stuff too.

[ddr]

i'm gonna take a stab at this and give u my 2 cents

the 16-35 will be better indoors for wider shots. but if you already own a 50mm (f/1.8?) you're going backwards in wanting better low light shots. the only thing I can see counteracting that is if you shoot at 16mm you can handhold it at 1/(16x1.6) instead of the 1/(50x1.6) with the 50mm.

i use my flash in all my friend gatherings in restaurants. the flash is pointing up or against the wall most of the time. i think a 30mm (sigma 1.4) prime would suit you better if you must get a lens. I'd grab a 580exII instead, gel it properly, and add a light modifier. i think you should know by now how much light is sufficient when taking a shot with the max. usable iso on the 450D paired with the 50mm @ its largest aperture. some restaurants are really dim. might need a 5D and f/1.2 for that w/o a flash heh

Here (http://www.digital-photography-school.com/a-visual-tour-of-canon%E2%80%99s-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii-usm)'s a user comparison between the two. it's more a discussion on focal length.

[Dangerphoto]

I will think about the flash...it was so cheap a while back...$399 in Toronto brand new...

But yeah...on the crop body...50mm (F/1.8) is really too close it works pretty well for me in a few situations but I do want that wider angle...main thing is level of detail and sharpness...some nice bokeh is cool too :p

Gonna wait to see if there will be upgraded versions of some lenses...going to get rid of the 50mm and see if I can also upgrade to a 85mm focal length or a little bit more...for a few outdoor portrait shots.

Thanks for the input,

Shin

[moky]

the 24mm might be a tad bit wide on a crop body for indoor shots (i guess depending on actual physical indoor space). if you don't see yourself going FF in the future, why not get the canon 17-55? it gives u a balance of range, big aperture and it's also a bit cheaper than either 16-35 or 24-70. and it has IS too :)

and if people hate the big flashes, try looking into the small flash canon came out with: the 270ex. it might provide just the right amount of fill/bounce flash you need and it won't look oversized or intimidating like the 430/580ex flash units.

[gilly]

Which one should i get between the 3 lens.

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G, OR Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6

Probably just doing general indoor/outdoor shooting. Nothing special. Just want a good all around wide angle lens. thx

[!MiKrofT]

I will think about the flash...it was so cheap a while back...$399 in Toronto brand new...

But yeah...on the crop body...50mm (F/1.8) is really too close it works pretty well for me in a few situations but I do want that wider angle...main thing is level of detail and sharpness...some nice bokeh is cool too :p

Gonna wait to see if there will be upgraded versions of some lenses...going to get rid of the 50mm and see if I can also upgrade to a 85mm focal length or a little bit more...for a few outdoor portrait shots.

Thanks for the input,

Shin



580EX II @ Vistek.ca on sale this saturday for $419

http://www.vistek.ca/marketing/enews/consumer/Vistek-enews-dec9_2010.html

[m3thods]

^damnit that's such a good deal. only 5% tax too :thumbsup:

why'd you have to go and post that before I'm done all my Christmas shopping? :(

[!MiKrofT]

Lol. I'd buy it if I didn't already have my 430ex ii.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[ilvtofu]

Not gonna start a new thread but just a question for you experienced photographers out there

I just got my EF 70-300 IS USM and when I'm taking pictures it buzzes a lot, I believe it is the IS, when I'm in my living room with my tv on you can't really hear it but definitely noticeable when I was in my bedroom. Is this normal? It's not the focusing for sure

Also this lens focuses noticeably slower than the 17-40 USM but I'm guessing that's because of the sheer range.

Overall I'm still VERY impressed by the quality of the pictures though and the IS works really well. Taking pictures at 1/13 that still turn out fine

[77civic1200]

Ya the IS is supposedly pretty noisey, read that from a few people before

What are the chances you are coming back out to a UBC autocross and want to let me try it? I'll let you try the bigma ;)

[ilvtofu]

Haha maybe in the new year, my brother still goes every time. He's the one in the gold 02 trans am

[!MiKrofT]

That's cause it's not Ring USM. They use Micro USM. A cheaper, slower, noisier alternative.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=15260787

[77civic1200]

Haha maybe in the new year, my brother still goes every time. He's the one in the gold 02 trans am

Felix?

I'm sure he will pass along your lens in trade for a few extra shots of his car haha

[gars]

That's cause it's not Ring USM. They use Micro USM. A cheaper, slower, noisier alternative.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=15260787

Yes, the Micro USM is noisy, but after it focuses, you can definitely hear the buzz of the IS. I love how well the IS works on it though - especially if you're shooting at 300mm - the picture just stabilizes in the viewfinder.

It's definitely a great lens!

[m3thods]

yeah it's pretty crazy. i never noticed the IS on my old 17-85 but when i got my 70-200 IS i started tripping out when i saw it stabilize in the viewfinder. very cool!

[qhey]

Hi when buying a used Len, what are some things to look for to make sure every thing works??
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[m3thods]

some things to look for are that it focuses correctly, no huge dings or dents, no/limited scratches on the lens.

take a few pictures and see if there are any visible dust spots (if your lcd allows that, and assuming your sensor is clean). I also would check "through" the lens (without the lens/rear cap) to make sure there isn't anything funky in the lens.

if it passes all that, you're gold!

[RCubed]

^+DOF preview to check the blades!

[ddr]

http://www.focustestchart.com/chart.html

print one out and test for focus accuracy. not sure what body you're using but maybe you can compensate for it if it's off by a little

is focus something that needs to be calibrated from time to time (i.e. 5 years) and will deteriorate over time? just curious for used lens buyers that factor in focus calibration into their costs

[LiquidTurbo]

Anyone have any thoughts on the Sigma 8-16mm? Any good? How does it compare to the 10-20? Is that any good also?

[m3thods]

got to play with one in lens and shutter while buying my 6mdh on tuesday.. and i must say i was intrigued. I've never played with anything wider than 10, and the FOV at 8mm was very cool. I would love to rent one and play with it outside to really know how i feel about it.

Aside from that- the shots i took indoor where pretty sharp even magnified, and the build quality is very good. My only gripe is that the front element is pretty exposed, even with the hood. And i'm not sure if all HSM lenses are like this, but it felt a bit grindy? The guy said it was ok but it didn't feel as smooth as USM that's for sure.

[Senna4ever]

The Sigma 8-16 is sharper than the Canon 10-22. Long term reliability is something I can't be certain of though.

[N.V.M.]

it's been "declared" that instead of buying each other stupid useless expensive gifts we're going to buy our own gift for ourselves. i'm looking at long IS lenses on my other monitor as i type! 100-400? maybe.

[N.V.M.]

looked at a Sigma 50-500. good grief it's huge. anybody try this beast?


edit: ok, looks like Canon 100-400. it's cheaper than the Sigma Bigma(OS,APO,EX,DG), go figure.

[77civic1200]

I've got one of the original non OS bigmas. I handhold it 99% of the time. Its damn heavy if you have to hold it still for 10+ minutes, but I'm better handholding than I am with a tripod.

I have been wanting to try out a 100-400 lately, but only because I want mode 2 IS for panning shots. 50% of my shots are probably pans, and it would be nice to have slower shutter speeds with the IS.

You can check out my second flickr site here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/19426172@N08/

All of those were shot with the bigma and a 30D/5D/1D2

[N.V.M.]

the weight is not an issue. on average, i'm stronger than 2.6 revscene members. :D anyways, i think i've decided. hope the buyer for my other lens won't flake on me tomorrow.

[TOPEC]

not sure if its been discussed before, but im not sure if i should keep my 24-105 f4 or sell it for a 24-70 f2.8. the f4 has IS which is nice to hand since i have shaky hands, but then the f2.8 lets in twice as much light while being able to produce a more blured background. decisions decisions decisions...

[Senna4ever]

I would keep the 24-105 for now and wait until the new (rumoured) 24-70 f2.8 IS comes out possibly next year.

The 24-70 is sharper than the 24-105 (although both are not as good as Nikon's equivalent lenses), but heavier. The problem with the IS in the 24-105 is that at the wider focal lengths, the IS is actually detrimental to image quality - the corners get soft as the image circle isn't very wide at wide angles. This is why you don't see any wide angle lenses with IS/VR - the Nikon 16-36 VR being the notable exception.

If you just use the lens as a walk around, the 24-105 is probably better suited for you. If you need a lens for professional use, the 24-70 is the better choice.

[!MiKrofT]

Anyone know where I can get a good deal for a Tokina 11-16 F2.8 for Canon? Bccamera's sold out.

[Osaka]

Anyone know where I can get a good deal for a Tokina 11-16 F2.8 for Canon? Bccamera's sold out.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=972789&highlight=tokina

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=975129&highlight=tokina

[N.V.M.]

haven't bought the long zoom yet, but picked up a Sigma 50mm 1.4. only fired a couple test shots so far, but will take a few keepers in the next couple days.

http://members.shaw.ca/northvanmike/skeleton/50mm.jpg

[Euro7r]

Currently I shoot with a D80 and only have 50mm 1.8. I've been eying the Tokina 11-16 2.8 a long time, as I want to shoot landscape/architecture, but haven't been able to pull the trigger yet. However, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 came across my mind as this lens would be more versatile for a good purpose lens since I enjoy shooting portraits as well and the benefit of a zoom that the 50mm 1.8 doesn't offer. It would cover a good range since I'm using a crop.

So, now I'm kind of stuck in a dilemma between the Tokina vs. Tamron. Would the Tamron be able to take nice sharp landscape/architecture photo's?

[ddr]

well i mean the 11-16 is one of the best wide-angles for the crop, and even FF's @ 16mm (other than the 14-24 for nikon's i guess). you should search up photozone.de 's reviews and see how much sharpness the tamron has @ 17mm and at apertures you see yourself using. i've owned it before and corner sharpness is not one of its forte's (if that's important to you).

the tamron is okay at what it does and it's a good price/performance ratio. and since you mentioned portraits i'd say ur 50mm f/1.8 is sharper than the tamron @ f/2.8. the tamron's just something you would sell in the long run imo, but not the tokina if you keep shooting on crop bodies (or even FF @ 16mm).

[aznrsx1979]

Currently I shoot with a D80 and only have 50mm 1.8. I've been eying the Tokina 11-16 2.8 a long time, as I want to shoot landscape/architecture, but haven't been able to pull the trigger yet. However, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 came across my mind as this lens would be more versatile for a good purpose lens since I enjoy shooting portraits as well and the benefit of a zoom that the 50mm 1.8 doesn't offer. It would cover a good range since I'm using a crop.

So, now I'm kind of stuck in a dilemma between the Tokina vs. Tamron. Would the Tamron be able to take nice sharp landscape/architecture photo's?

Those are the first 2 lenses I've bought. I got the Tokina 11-16 this summer and have it on my camera most of the time. Just bought the Tamron 17-50 in November. I find with both lenses I'm able to cover the range that I really want. I'm pretty much using them the way you're intending to, the Tokina for the landscape/architecture and the Tamron as an all purpose lens.

I'd recommend going down to Glazers to get the Tokina, granted they are hard to come by. I was able to get mine for about 600. The Tamron I picked up and Dunne & Rundle for about 500.

[N.V.M.]

price drop on the 17-40L:

http://www.bccamera.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=13_17&products_id=96

[gilly]

picked up a 35mm f1.8 for my nikon. loving it.

[moky]

Currently I shoot with a D80 and only have 50mm 1.8. I've been eying the Tokina 11-16 2.8 a long time, as I want to shoot landscape/architecture, but haven't been able to pull the trigger yet. However, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 came across my mind as this lens would be more versatile for a good purpose lens since I enjoy shooting portraits as well and the benefit of a zoom that the 50mm 1.8 doesn't offer. It would cover a good range since I'm using a crop.

So, now I'm kind of stuck in a dilemma between the Tokina vs. Tamron. Would the Tamron be able to take nice sharp landscape/architecture photo's?

there's a local one being sold for $550 for the tokina 11-16 nikon mount
http://www.bccamera.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4982

[gilly]

^ sucks how the tokina 11-16 won't AF with lower end cameras like D40,D3100,D5000

[m3thods]

looking for a place that rents out a tokina 11-16 (Canon) before I drop cash for one. Senna does Beau stock them for rent? If not does anyone know where else I could rent one locally?

[moky]

you can try leo's on granville if beau doesn't have em?

[N.V.M.]

looking for a place that rents out a tokina 11-16 (Canon) before I drop cash for one. Senna does Beau stock them for rent? If not does anyone know where else I could rent one locally?

there's one for sale on CL..$680.