[roastpuff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those medium telephoto zoom lenses are for crop cameras only. That made them of limited use for me. If you're going to stick with the crop cams for a while, it's a worthwhile investment though.

Yup. I don't see myself moving to FF anytime soon, or at all. I'd probably stick with the 40D equivalent line as my camera of choice if I upgrade from my 450D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkninja67 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah the Sigma 30mm is something I may add a lot later on. Heard it is sweeter than it's 50mm brother. Also will go with a zoom for the tele end. Macro will be the Canon 100mm f2.8 or the Sigma 150mm. Definitely will grab the Canon 85mm f1.8 though as I loved that lens.

Yeah, those two macros are on my list, or the Tamron 90mm. The 100mm f2, brother lens of the 85mm f1.8, didn't sit with me very well.

I'm still wondering why you'd get the Sigma 50mm since the Canon 50mm is cheaper and probably better IQ.

 

[nineohtoo]

^People equated the Sigma 30mm image quality, to that of the Nikkor 85mm 1.4. Creamy bokeh(most of the time), sharp wide open, and little to no other sort of distortions wide open. So good that people even used it on Canon mount. Nikon shooters were hoping for Sigma to release a 50mm or 85mm that was similar. Nikon's 50mm 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4, the 1.4 has CA wide open. At costing more than Nikon and Canon's versions, I think I'll pass. 50mm fov sucks on crop cameras anyways imo.

I shot The Subways last night and had an awesome time(more pics at Flickr: nineohtoo's Photostream). Everything with the 30mm 1.4. Is using the dial the only way to control AF area on a 350D? I much preferred pressing the arrows on my D50, despite having less areas.

Since I can get by with this lens, Instead of buying a Sigma or Tamron 2.8 wide to mid, I think I might wait for a Canon one. I think the bokeh from that is much smoother, and I've begun to see them around 600-700 used. Might as well pay the extra 2-300 and get the better Canon build, and creamier bokeh. Anyone wanna talk me out of it so I can spend my money on my JDM front conversion for my car lol?

 

[roastpuff]

Dial is quickest way, you can use the arrow keys on my 450D I think. Don't have it on me to check but when I get home I'll test it out.

Dude, photos look awesome. Any flash at all?

 

[darkninja67]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roastpuff /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yup. I don't see myself moving to FF anytime soon, or at all. I'd probably stick with the 40D equivalent line as my camera of choice if I upgrade from my 450D. Yeah, those two macros are on my list, or the Tamron 90mm. The 100mm f2, brother lens of the 85mm f1.8, didn't sit with me very well. I'm still wondering why you'd get the Sigma 50mm since the Canon 50mm is cheaper and probably better IQ.

I would actually want the Sigma 30mm as their 50mm seems to be hit or miss.

 

[laxx]

I'm re-evaluating my lense lineup. I currently have...

Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Canon 85 f1.8
Canon 70-200 f4
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS

I'm selling the 70-200 f4 to my friend, which frees up a bit of money. I really want a macro, but like roastpuff, it doesn't sit well with me to have an 85 1.8 and 100 f2.8 (or similar macro). The focal lengths are too similar. But at the same time, I don't want a 50 macro, nor do I have the money to go for a 180 macro, lol.

I'm not much of a wide shooter, but I've been debating on trying out the 17-55 IS to replace my 28-75. I'm not entirely sure yet though.

 

[darkninja67]

Quote:

Originally Posted by laxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm re-evaluating my lense lineup. I currently have... Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Canon 85 f1.8 Canon 70-200 f4 Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS I'm selling the 70-200 f4 to my friend, which frees up a bit of money. I really want a macro, but like roastpuff, it doesn't sit well with me to have an 85 1.8 and 100 f2.8 (or similar macro). The focal lengths are too similar. But at the same time, I don't want a 50 macro, nor do I have the money to go for a 180 macro, lol. I'm not much of a wide shooter, but I've been debating on trying out the 17-55 IS to replace my 28-75. I'm not entirely sure yet though.

Keep the 85mm and try the Sigma 150mm Macro. Supposed to be excellent.

 

[darkninja67]

Beach Camera is awesome. Ordered this yesterday late and got it at noon today. Tokina 50-135mm f2.8. The image quality is excellent so far even wide open, AF is a bit slow but not bad at all, build quality is great as it weighs more than Canon's 70-200mm f4L IS lens. Impressed so far and it is sweet at the $588 price I paid.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

I've been having an equally good time with the Sigma 50-150, albeit on a Nikon D200

It sounds like these are two lenses it would be pretty hard to go wrong with. Although I really like the feel of the Tokina build quality, I went with the Sigma, mostly because I already had two Siggy EX lenses that I really enjoy in the 10-20 and 24-60. The 50-150 is a pleasure to shoot, due to both how it handles and what it produces.

50mm, 1/80, f/3.5, ISO400

 

[darkninja67]

The Sigma was something I was looking at too. I did not want to play the "good copy" game with Sigma so I went with the Toke. Also with the Toke I will have less overlap when I get my Sigma 100-300mm f4.

Funny how you posted a pic of the tree. My first shot outdoors was of tree bark to test sharpness.

 

[roastpuff]

I'm just going "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!" at the two of you because now I can't decide which one to get. Thank you, guys. Pricing is somewhat similar for me, with the Sigma being slightly cheaper in Hong Kong for the II version, while the Tokina is slightly more expensive ($40, probably bargainable~) but available NOW as opposed to FOUR WEEKS LATER when I'll be stopping by in Hong Kong on my way back to Vancouver.

If I could get more test pics it would be much appreciated though. How's that Sigma on the focus issue? It seems like Sigmas have a lot of problems there.

Also, darkninja, how useful is that tripod mount?

 

[darkninja67]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roastpuff /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm just going "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!" at the two of you because now I can't decide which one to get. Thank you, guys. Pricing is somewhat similar for me, with the Sigma being slightly cheaper in Hong Kong for the II version, while the Tokina is slightly more expensive ($40, probably bargainable~) but available NOW as opposed to FOUR WEEKS LATER when I'll be stopping by in Hong Kong on my way back to Vancouver. If I could get more test pics it would be much appreciated though. How's that Sigma on the focus issue? It seems like Sigmas have a lot of problems there. Also, darkninja, how useful is that tripod mount?

I choose the Tokina due to it being fairly issue free plus it had stellar optical quality. The AF clutch is not something I have used before but now I can see why they do it. Beats fishing for a small AF/M switch unless you have USM.

The bokeh is really buttery with this lens compared the the Tammy 17-50mm. I do not believe the Sigma 50-150mm is one of their best lenses but Dreamer is loving his. The Sigma roulette is not something I want to try out just yet.

The tripod mount is non removable but I palm it when zooming. I also use a huge Bogen RC4 plates which would overwhelm a small tripod mount like this.

I have been very impressed with the color and sharpness this lens possesses. Tokina: will buy again.

 

[roastpuff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkninja67 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I choose the Tokina due to it being fairly issue free plus it had stellar optical quality. The AF clutch is not something I have used before but now I can see why they do it. Beats fishing for a small AF/M switch unless you have USM. The bokeh is really buttery with this lens compared the the Tammy 17-50mm. I do not believe the Sigma 50-150mm is one of their best lenses but Dreamer is loving his. The Sigma roulette is not something I want to try out just yet. The tripod mount is non removable but I palm it when zooming. I also use a huge Bogen RC4 plates which would overwhelm a small tripod mount like this. I have been very impressed with the color and sharpness this lens possesses. Tokina: will buy again.

Well, Sigma's HSM also has FTM like USM... and I'm wondering how overblown is the bad focus quality of the Sigma brand is, because of their sheer sales volume.

What do you mean by palming your tripod mount?

I'm using RC2 plates with my 486RC2/190XPROB combo, and I'm probably going to grab a Benro CF monopod and stick a 484/234RC on it, too, so I'm just wondering how useful the mount is or how cumbersome it is when using it in hand-hold.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

I've owned three Sigmas thus far, and had zero QC problems. Is it luck? Is it that the problem is overblown? A combination of both? Neither? Hard for me to say. I appreciate the benefits of HSM, and have always been wary of the high level of CA reported in Tokina lens tests. That said, don't sweat the decision too much, as it seems like these are among the better lenses that both companies make.

To me the 50-150 is not too big to be a walk-around lens, and thus I appreciate the lack of a tripod mount. The Nikkor 180 I used to own was about the same size and also lacked such a mount, it just really doesn't seem necessary for a lens this size, unless using it for macro, IMO.

I have the second version of the 50-150 (designated II) FWIW.

Here are a few more samples from it:

80mm, 1/100, f/2.8, ISO1100

150mm, 1/250, f/2.8, ISO200

122mm, 1/80, f/4, ISO400

 

[devin_mm]

I just picked up a 70-200 f4L I can't wait to start playing with it.

 

[nineohtoo]

Just picked up an older Dine Macro Light today at a swap meet:

Yeah I know these aren't macro shots, but to be completely honest, I have no intention of using it for that lol. I like it for the effect it has on portraits. I'll probably also use it for low light events I end up at as opposed to using my 430EX, which I'm slowly wishing I didn't buy haha. This is just a lot more fun to use.