[Jon L]

Very nice.  Is the Tokina pretty sharp wide open at F/2.8?  Again, I'll be doing much more dim indoor shots than outdoor ones..

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Very nice.  Is the Tokina pretty sharp wide open at F/2.8?  Again, I'll be doing much more dim indoor shots than outdoor ones..

Yep. DOF will still be very narrow at F2.8, but what's in focus should be extremely sharp. Remember that if you want shots like this, you won't get it F2.8. You'll need to use long exposures, and if you're taking shots of people, lights, lights, and more lights. Bouncing your flash off the ceiling is the cheapest and easiest way to go, but it's tough to get good and even results with just one flash. You may need multiple wireless flashes and some softboxes, or a continuous lighting setup.
 

 

[Jon L]

My Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX AF 11-16mm F2.8 is here.  Took a few quick snaps on flashless auto.  Cloudy and dark day just before the sun went down.  
 
f/2.8 1/40 sec ISO 125 16mm

 
 
 

 
f/2.8 1/30 sec ISO 640 16mm

 

[alphaphoenix]

Quote:

My best lens costs about $800 on my $500 camera body. The costs add up.
 
That said, a worse body with better glass is better than an expensive body with cheap glass.

The last sentence was once said by my photographer instructor many, many years ago.   He made an comparison that the lens is like the human eye, and the camera is the brain, but it doesn't take a lot brains to bring objects into perfect focus.

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

The last sentence was once said by my photographer instructor many, many years ago.   He made an comparison that the lens is like the human eye, and the camera is the brain, but it doesn't take a lot brains to bring objects into perfect focus.

It's more true now than ever. The differences between the Rebel T2i, 60D, and 7D have a lot more to do with the viewfinder, AF system, build quality, and FPS capability than the sensor and image processor, which are nearly identical. The T2i with a great lens will easily beat the 7D with an average one.

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

My Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX AF 11-16mm F2.8 is here.  Took a few quick snaps on flashless auto.  Cloudy and dark day just before the sun went down.  
 
f/2.8 1/40 sec ISO 125 16mm
 
 
 
 

 
f/2.8 1/30 sec ISO 640 16mm

This is a nice photo, and a prime example of something that could be improved with HDR. There's a lot of dynamic range here, and you're losing some detail in those deep shadows. Brightening the complete image though risks blowing out the strong highlight at the top center. With exposure bracketing and HDR processing, you could get a really great final image.

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

This is a nice photo, and a prime example of something that could be improved with HDR. There's a lot of dynamic range here, and you're losing some detail in those deep shadows. Brightening the complete image though risks blowing out the strong highlight at the top center. With exposure bracketing and HDR processing, you could get a really great final image.

I haven't even installed the Canon CDR yet.  Which program do you prefer for HDR processing?  Do you shoot RAW? (I would hate to get into that as I don't usually print my photos).

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

I haven't even installed the Canon CDR yet.  Which program do you prefer for HDR processing?  Do you shoot RAW? (I would hate to get into that as I don't usually print my photos).

Photomatrix is the gold standard for HDR processing, but Photoshop has a built in tool that works pretty well. Most HDR photos that you see on the internet look like cartoons or paintings, which I guess is fine if that's the effect you're going for, but I think they tend to look rather silly. Used in the right circumstances and with more restraint in processing though, HDR can produce excellent results. Here's a perfect example. This shot is nearly impossible to work with as a single exposure. There's just no way to capture any detail in the room without the light outside completely blowing out. HDR solves the problem. Here's the standard metered exposure:
 

 
And here's HDR applied:
 

 
I pretty much always shoot RAW. It gives you more dynamic headroom, and frees you from the constraints of the camera's JPEG engine which means less noise and a lot more control over noise reduction, color temp, and a ton of other factors that are limited with JPEG.

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

Photomatrix is the gold standard for HDR processing, but Photoshop has a built in tool that works pretty well. Most HDR photos that you see on the internet look like cartoons or paintings, which I guess is fine if that's the effect you're going for, but I think they tend to look rather silly. Used in the right circumstances and with more restraint in processing though, HDR can produce excellent results. Here's a perfect example. This shot is nearly impossible to work with as a single exposure. There's just no way to capture any detail in the room without the light outside completely blowing out. HDR solves the problem. Here's the standard metered exposure:
 

 
And here's HDR applied:
 

 
I pretty much always shoot RAW. It gives you more dynamic headroom, and frees you from the constraints of the camera's JPEG engine which means less noise and a lot more control over noise reduction, color temp, and a ton of other factors that are limited with JPEG.

I don't know.  Although the first pic shows no detail, it still seems more natural to me than the second photo with HDR..  Then again, I also like tube amps.  
Anyway, I'm finding the wide angle lens to be tons of fun.  I know I should stop, but I shall indulge, only until I get a good "normal" lens.

 

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

I don't know.  Although the first pic shows no detail, it still seems more natural to me than the second photo with HDR..  Then again, I also like tube amps.  
Anyway, I'm finding the wide angle lens to be tons of fun.  I know I should stop, but I shall indulge, only until I get a good "normal" lens.
 

I know what you mean. HDR can often add detail at the expense of dynamic contrast, and it's dynamic contrast that gives depth to images and makes them interesting. There are many cases where I prefer the original exposure to one with HDR applied. I would still recommend trying it out though, as Photomatrix and Photoshop give you a lot of ways to control the final image and preserve interesting shadows or highlights rather than removing them entirely.
 
Those speakers would be a good candidate for the 35 2.8 macro. An ultra close up of the ribbons from an angle would be an interesting photo.

 

[Jon L]

 
Frustrated over the choice among Canon 28mm F/1.8, Canon 35mm F/2, and Tokina 35mm F/2.8, I just bid and won this little thing.  What the hell, the stock market was up...
 
Zeiss ZE Distagon T* 35mm F/2

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

 
Frustrated over the choice among Canon 28mm F/1.8, Canon 35mm F/2, and Tokina 35mm F/2.8, I just bid and won this little thing.  What the hell, the stock market was up...
 
Zeiss ZE Distagon T* 35mm F/2

Interesting choice. The Zeiss is a much better lens than either of the Canons, that's for sure. I haven't seen resolution test data for the Tokina to compare, but I imagine the Zeiss would more than hold its own. It's razor sharp from wide open which is what I like to see, and its peak performance at F2.8 is nothing short of superb. That said, the corners are a little soft until you get to F4, so you may want to consider cropping your image a bit. The Zeiss is also a good tool to help you learn to improve your photography, as it will not let you use auto mode as a crutch. You're on your own for focus and aperture.
 
Edit: I was thinking of the Nikon version, the Canon spec ZE's aperture can be controlled by the camera.

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

Interesting choice. The Zeiss is a much better lens than either of the Canons, that's for sure. I haven't seen resolution test data for the Tokina to compare, but I imagine the Zeiss would more than hold its own. It's razor sharp from wide open which is what I like to see, and its peak performance at F2.8 is nothing short of superb. That said, the corners are a little soft until you get to F4, so you may want to consider cropping your image a bit. The Zeiss is also a good tool to help you learn to improve your photography, as it will not let you use auto mode as a crutch. You're on your own for focus and aperture.

Yeah, I've been kind of enjoying manual focus of late, even with the super crappo Canon 50 F1.8 MF, and I don't shoot any moving objects.  I definitely think the Zeiss will force me to improve my skills; heck, I even bought my first real tripod.  Honestly, I was able to buy the Zeiss brand new at a very good price, lowest I've seen, so it's definitely worth it for me as opposed to $440 for Canon 28mm F/1.8 I almost bought.  
 
*Edit*
Looks like this Zeiss does talk to Canon body, so except for AF, one can still use Av, Tv, etc..

 

[Planar_head]

Very cool. Zeiss lenses are really something.
 
I've only seen one once so far, and used it only briefly, but the 50mm 1.4 lens was very impressive.
 
I've used manual focus lenses since I received my dSLR with no auto metering, and I found it really improved my skills. I have a very good grasp on the Sunny 16 rule (and it's relatives) and manual focus is much more natural to me than autofocus.
 
The Zeiss is made of metal, so it feels like a substantial piece of engineering, which I appreciate immensely.
 
 
Hope you enjoy it.

 

[Omega]

Can't get too hung up on lens resolution.  How often are you going to have a stationary target in full illumination and a tripod?  Rarely, if you shoot like I do.  Things like lens speed, focus, durability, focal length...these all directly impact your ability to get shots.  Resolution is undoubtedly nice, but beyond a threshold, it's only good for pixel peeping.  And with all the lenses discussed in this thread, we're beyond that threshold

 
That Zeiss is a nice lens, good find.  I often shoot a Pentax Limited 35mm f/2.8, which probably shares some DNA with the Tokina 35.  They're all great lenses.  35mm is handy focal length on a cropped sensor.
 
Regarding manual focusing...I find that with many things (fast moving children, sports, animals, adults) I am actually better able to frame a shot and get sharply focused subjects through the depth of field when I focus manually.  It takes some practice, sure.  But once you get the hang of focusing manually with a nice well-damped lens, I bet you will find the same!  A human can predict what will be in focus to make the shot, while autofocus mechanisms are always reactive.