Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › *Post Lens Comparison Photos* (Previously) I had no idea Camera (Canon DSLR) lenses were that expensive!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*Post Lens Comparison Photos* (Previously) I had no idea Camera (Canon DSLR) lenses were that... - Page 2

post #16 of 97

My Zeiss lens for my Sony camera cost more than the camera body.

post #17 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by s30l28 View Post

I agree that the 17-55mm 2.8 is a great lens for APS-C cameras, but it seems that you tend to lean more towards the UWA/WA range. Do you shoot FF?

Not everyone does. Not everyone enjoys FF either. To say that one sensor size is more useful than the other is complete hogwash. Each sensor size has it's purpose, and that's a fact. People shoot at different focal lengths. This is the overly simplified explanation of why Canon produces lenses in multiple ranges.

 

Also, think about this for a second now. You think that the 85 1.2 is pretty great, right? The bokeh produced with it on a FF body is pretty nice, right? Mount that on a 1.6x crop and the bokeh will improve. Why? A longer focal length will produce more bokeh. On a 1.6x, that gives you a range of 136mm. I'm sure you know what the 135mm is capable of - imagine that at 1.2. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself.


I shoot in crop format, and yes, I mostly play in the wide angle range, so for me, fast 16 or 17mm zooms are much more useful than 24 or 28mm zooms. If I had a FF camera that would be different. My lens suggestions have been about crop and not FF, but in any event I may be biased in suggesting that the wide angle zooms are more useful for crop cameras. For me they are, but I suppose for some people, 39-112mm could be just what the doctor ordered. 

 

It would also probably different for me if I had a lot more cash to spend, and size and weight were a non issue. On the Nikon side, the insanely good 14-24mm F2.8 paired with the 24-70mm F2.8 would be extremely useful for me in crop format, but that's a lot of weight to carry, and closing in on $4,000 worth of glass. Yikes. On the Canon side there really isn't an equivalent, the 16-35mm L isn't even on the same planet performance wise as that awesome Nikkor. It will be interesting to see if Tokina's new 16-28mm F2.8 can shake things up. Certainly the $850 price is a lot easier to swallow, but it's still awfully heavy.

post #18 of 97

I've two great lenses: the 24-70 F2,8 ED and the 70-200 VR II. Both cost around 2000$ and my body, a D200, cost as much as 1500$ about 4 years ago when I bought it. I love all three tools, but I often use a Sun 28mm f2,5 lens that you can pick up for 15$ on eBay. It is light, made well, has great contrast, and small.

 

My 24-70 and 70-200 are huge and heavy and tiring. Pull them out and people look you you. Pull out the sun and the D200 and you look like a a casual artist and people ignore you.

 

Buy what you want. Go to shops and try things out. Don't spend bookoo bucks because people on a headphone forum told you to. Think about your purposes and see if you can get the best of what you think you need. As I said, the 28mm that costs about 15$ now (used - it's about 30 years old) is my most commonly used lens except for product shots - it isn't sharp. 

post #19 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post

I've two great lenses: the 24-70 F2,8 ED and the 70-200 VR II. Both cost around 2000$ and my body, a D200, cost as much as 1500$ about 4 years ago when I bought it. I love all three tools, but I often use a Sun 28mm f2,5 lens that you can pick up for 15$ on eBay. It is light, made well, has great contrast, and small.


I'm curious if you're interested in Nikon's new pro grade primes for this year. It seemed like for awhile they weren't particularly interested in competing with Canon here, particularly in the wide angle department, but now they are hitting back with the AF-S 24mm F1.4G which I understand is very good, and the upcoming 35mm and 85mm 1.4Gs.

post #20 of 97
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post

Tokina 11-16mm F2.8, Canon 17-55mm F2.8, or as a more affordable alternative Sigma 17-50mm F2.8, and then try to find a Tokina 50-135mm F2.8, as I think its a much better lens than Sigma's 50-150mm 2.8. Canon's 55-250mm is surprisingly decent for $200 or so, but of course it's considerably slower than the Tokina.

 

For primes: the Canon 35mm F1.4, 50mm 1.4, 60mm F2.8 macro (a killer lens), 85mm F1.2 (just absolutely awesome, but $2000!), 85mm F1.8, 100mm F2, and 135mm F2 for telephoto.
 


I just saw some real estate internal shots with Tokina 11-16 F2.8, and that's half of my need, real estate shots.  They look very sharp and wide. Unfortunately, they seem to be running around $700 on eBay and at BH photo ($599) it's on manufacturer backorder frown.gif

 

Assuming I got the Tokina for internal real estate shots and close-up group shots, etc, what would be the second lens (assuming I'm only going to buy 2 lenses) for casual full-body shots, say from 15-20 feet away, preferably less-expensive prime lens?  Is 50 mm OK for that on APS-C?  If possible, would also love ONE sharp zoom lens that'll cover these 2 needs.

 

How do people feel about Tamron SP AF 17-50 mm?  Is that going to be wide enough for internal real estate shots? If you buy a new one from a Hong Kong store, am I stuck with import taxes into U.S.?  


Edited by Jon L - 10/23/10 at 12:28pm
post #21 of 97
Thread Starter 

Just checked eBay, and there was a new U.S. listing for the Tokina 11-16 with 3-year warranty for $579.99, so I grabbed it! Looks like they have multiple ones for those looking for one..

 

Internal wide angle is now covered, so what for the portrait, full-body at normal inside distances and some vacation full-body/scenery?

post #22 of 97

Hey all post some cool pictures with this great gear... ok?

post #23 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon L View Post

Just checked eBay, and there was a new U.S. listing for the Tokina 11-16 with 3-year warranty for $579.99, so I grabbed it! Looks like they have multiple ones for those looking for one..

 

Internal wide angle is now covered, so what for the portrait, full-body at normal inside distances and some vacation full-body/scenery?



Good deal! The cheapest I've seen the Tokina in stores is around $650 for the Canon mount, and most places are out of stock. The Tokina is a great lens. Its range is limited compared to Sigma's 10-20mm F4-5.6 and Canon's 10-22mm F3.5-4.5, but it's great wide open at 11mm, and absolutely excellent throughout the rest of its range. The Sigma isn't bad in the center, but the Tokina blows it away in the corners and is way faster, which really makes a difference indoors. The Canon has better corners than the Sigma, but it's just not as sharp as the Tokina and IMO not worth the nearly $800 price tag.

 

The Tokina is effectively covering 18-28mm for you, so your next step should probably be a couple of primes. Depending on where you need to shoot, the 24mm (39mm) F2.8 is decent. The Canon 28mm F1.8 and F2.8 primes both aren't so hot and should probably be skipped. Canon's 35mm F2 will put you at 56mm which may be where you want to be, but the Tokina 35mm F2.8 Macro is cheaper and IMO better. Beyond that, you should probably look at 50mms, and maybe an 85mm.

 

I would not recommend the Tamron 17-50mm. Both it and the Sigma struggle a bit at F2.8 especially in the corners when compared to the Canon 17-55, but the Sigma delivers superb results right in there with the Canon when stopped down a bit, and the Tamron doesn't.

post #24 of 97
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post

Tokina 35mm F2.8 Macro is cheaper and IMO better. Beyond that, you should probably look at 50mms, and maybe an 85mm.

 

 


So 35 mm on APS-C is kind of like 50 mm "normal" on Full frame, i.e. good for body shots, 2-3 people shots, etc inside normal houses?  Is 50 mm on APS-C too long for such purpose? I don't mind walking back or forth to find the frame..

As for Tokina 35 mm Macro, what really is the difference between non-Macro and Macro lens if you're not actually shooting anything really close? Could I be paying more for the Macro function which I don't really need (well, maybe I *will* need it once I use it) 


Edited by Jon L - 10/23/10 at 4:36pm
post #25 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon L View Post




So 35 mm on APS-C is kind of like 50 mm "normal" on Full frame, i.e. good for body shots, 2-3 people shots, etc inside normal houses?  Is 50 mm on APS-C too long for such purpose? I don't mind walking back or forth to find the frame..

As for Tokina 35 mm Macro, what really is the difference between non-Macro and Macro lens if you're not actually shooting anything really close? Could I be paying more for the Macro function which I don't really need (well, maybe I *will* need it once I use it) 


For working indoors, going longer than a 35 (56) is probably going to be too cramped if you want to get group shots. The Tokina 35mm F2.8 macro gives you the ability to nearly touch the subject with the front of the lens and get beautiful shots, with no real downside other than it being a little slower than the Canon 35mm. It's $279 instead of $310 for the Canon 35mm F2, which won't do macro photography without an extension tube so there's no price penalty, and it will do portraits just as well as the Canon. For a thorough explanation of macro lenses and how they work, check out this page http://photo.net/learn/macro/

 

Also, this video will probably be a big help in showing how different lenses will look in crop on a 7D, and in full frame on a 5D MkII.

 

 

post #26 of 97
Thread Starter 

Choices, choices.  Assuming I'm able to step back and forth, what lens would have the sharpest picture with best colors?  Tokina 35 mm Macro, Canon 35 mm F/2, Canon 50 mm 1.8 II? Canon 50 mm 1.4 and  35 mm 1.4 would be nice, but too much $$

post #27 of 97

Well, I'm not a pro and won't get into the Pro programme. 4 years ago, I did a lot of sporting events for my town, but today, I just use the lenses for fun. If I drum up the opportunitiy again, believe me, I'll jump on making money with photography, even if it is just sports and events. For now, though, I just like playing around. Their new lenses are very nice, but again, since I'm no pro, I like playing with cheap but fun lenses like the 28mm Sun. The only other purchase I am thinking of (besides the 14mm 2,8 or its upgrade in the next couple of years) is a good tripod and eventually, the 50 1,2 lens. I shoot a lot manually (my sun is manual) and don't want to pay the autofocus tax if Nikon bring out a 50 1,2 AFS version. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post




I'm curious if you're interested in Nikon's new pro grade primes for this year. It seemed like for awhile they weren't particularly interested in competing with Canon here, particularly in the wide angle department, but now they are hitting back with the AF-S 24mm F1.4G which I understand is very good, and the upcoming 35mm and 85mm 1.4Gs.

post #28 of 97

I had the Tokina 11-16 2.8 before upgrading to 16-35L II. It was a great lens all around with my only gripe being the mechanism switching between AF and MF with no persistent MF. I guess debris got in the gap over time and eventually there was a slight grinding noise whenever I changed focus modes. Make no mistake this is almost a non-issue. Very solid indeed.

 

I would go for 50mm over 35mm for portraits since the 1.6x crop equates to ~80mm. I use the 50L on 5DmkII and sometimes I wish I had the 85L for portraits and headshots, especially from 15-20'. The 50L is just right on my 40D for portraits.

post #29 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon L View Post

Choices, choices.  Assuming I'm able to step back and forth, what lens would have the sharpest picture with best colors?  Tokina 35 mm Macro, Canon 35 mm F/2, Canon 50 mm 1.8 II? Canon 50 mm 1.4 and  35 mm 1.4 would be nice, but too much $$


I'd recommend the Tokina over the Canon at 35mm. It's more versatile, and the Canon is 20 years old at this point and is past due for a modern replacement with a USM AF drive. I also don't think it's all that great wide open, both in resolution and quality of bokeh, and it has vignetting problems as well. It's performance problems go away at F2.8, but at that point its lost its only edge over the Tokina.

 

My suggestion would be to use the Tokina as your main prime, and maybe carry the 50mm 1.8 II as a back up. Here's a comparison of the 50 1.8 and its brother the 50 1.4: http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

post #30 of 97
Thread Starter 

I've been reading some very nice reviews of the Canon kit lens 18-55 mm like these ones http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B000V5K3FG

One of my friends just told me he can't tell much difference in picture quality between his canon 18-55 mm and his Canon 50 mm F1.8.  Could this kit lens be good enough to actually use, at least for around 18-35 mm range, since it's supposed to go soft near 50 mm?  I can't really try my 18-55 mm that just arrived since I put it up on eBay as "new and unused" smily_headphones1.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › *Post Lens Comparison Photos* (Previously) I had no idea Camera (Canon DSLR) lenses were that expensive!