Quantcast

Which lens next?

Damo

Short One Marshmallow
Sep 7, 2006
4,603
27
French Alps
I'm staring to build up my lens collection for mtb & snowboard/ski shooting.

I'm wondering what to get next:

1) Tokina 10-16 fisheye.
2) Sigma 24-70 2.8

I will be getting both lenses eventually, but which one first?

I want the fishy for the perspective, but I want to replace my sh1t kit lens (18-55) with something half decent.

So: Something new? Or something better?
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,029
7,549
i'd go with something new, the wide angle. frankly i'm not such a fan of the "normal lens" range except as the 50mm prime look.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
The fisheye is a pretty specialized lens, and is a little like dessert. It's nice to sprinkle in, but you don't want eat it all the time.

I'm with Toshi...the 24-70 on a crop camera is essentially a normal to tele zoom, and is great for shooting events outdoors, and is terribly boring the rest of the time. Look for a wide zoom.
 

Damo

Short One Marshmallow
Sep 7, 2006
4,603
27
French Alps
I have a 70-200 f2.8 already.
The only other lens I have is a crappy kit 18-55.
Realistically I should upgrade the glass before buying into flashy gadgets, but hell, I want a fishy...
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
24-70 f/2.8 on a crop is boring, but it's a go-to lens in 80% of the situations I'm in.

I love my (five times calibrated) Canon 24-70 f/2.8. Nearly as sharp as a super-fast prime but with some flexibility. I would like to supplement it with a wider prime or fisheye, but it'd suck to not have that range covered (unless I had a comparable wider fast zoom lens+50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8).
 

gonefirefightin

free wieners
24-70 f/2.8 on a crop is boring, but it's a go-to lens in 80% of the situations I'm in.

I love my (five times calibrated) Canon 24-70 f/2.8. Nearly as sharp as a super-fast prime but with some flexibility. I would like to supplement it with a wider prime or fisheye, but it'd suck to not have that range covered (unless I had a comparable wider fast zoom lens+50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8).
werd!!!!

I would love to have a
for wildlife and pick up a tilt shift just to tinker
 

Damo

Short One Marshmallow
Sep 7, 2006
4,603
27
French Alps
Yeah, its a boring lens, but one that would stay on the camera for 80% of the time...

I would like the extra 20mm it would give me in the 55-70mm range, that is a bit of a PITA with the kit lens, having to move to get closer.

What I hate is the fact that my 70-200/2.8 is the nicest glass I have, so I try to use that before anything else. This means moving far away...

"CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK. CAN YOU MOVE SLIGHTLY TO THE LEFT? THATS IT!"

Thank god the CyberSyncs have a good range.

I exaggerate, but you get the idea. A 24-70 would be spot-on, but a fish would be fun.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,029
7,549
What I hate is the fact that my 70-200/2.8 is the nicest glass I have, so I try to use that before anything else. This means moving far away...

"CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK. CAN YOU MOVE SLIGHTLY TO THE LEFT? THATS IT!"
are you on a crop camera or a 5D I or II?
 

moff_quigley

Why don't you have a seat over there?
Jan 27, 2005
4,402
2
Poseurville
Not worth the price of entry, IMO...

If Canon made an L-quality 17-55 f/2.8 that worked on a FF body, I'd be all over it. It'd probably cost $2k, given their pricing structure...
I agree the price is a high and an L version would be insanely priced (how about a 24-70 2.8 IS L?)....but for Damo, outside of the price, I think it would be a decent match. Doesn't sound like he'll be getting a 1 or 5 series body anytime soon.

Why have you had your 24-70L calibrated 5X? Have you had it that long or have you had problems with it? Got my wife's 16-35L and 28-70L cleaned and calibrated last year. Would get super pricey to send them (and the 70-200) in every year.
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
I agree the price is a high and an L version would be insanely priced (how about a 24-70 2.8 IS L?)....but for Damo, outside of the price, I think it would be a decent match. Doesn't sound like he'll be getting a 1 or 5 series body anytime soon.

Why have you had your 24-70L calibrated 5X? Have you had it that long or have you had problems with it? Got my wife's 16-35L and 28-70L cleaned and calibrated last year. Would get super pricey to send them (and the 70-200) in every year.
P/O did (and gave me all the documentation). He was never satisfied with the edge-to-edge sharpness until the last time Canon worked on it. I'm very pleased with it, it's all an L should be. I tried a 17-55 on my 20D, and wasn't impressed with it outside of the wider angle on a crop compared to the 24-70. The shots weren't as good, and the build quality left something to be desired - I like to be able to heavily use my equipment in all conditions.

I also plan to upgrade to FF (or back to Nikon) by fall, so that played a bit of a role in deciding...not too big, though. Reselling quality glass for what you paid isn't hard.
 

Damo

Short One Marshmallow
Sep 7, 2006
4,603
27
French Alps
Well, after reading a few reviews and searching a bit, I've decided on an older model (but still brand new) Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX DG.

It is half the price of a newer 24-70. The optics are the same, neither have IS equivalent (which does not bother me) but the best bit is the filter diameter is the same 77mm as my 70-200. The newer models went up to 82mm for some odd reason. The two lenses can share filters.

The fisheye will come later in the spring I hope (boat work allowing).
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
so people never use tripods for focal lengths less than 35mm?
It was a joke. You're getting grumpy in your old age :D

At the same time, what does VR get you at 20mm? Not very much. If I'm shooting shutterspeeds that slow, yes, I usually going to have a tripod, or I'm using rear curtain sync and I'm holding the camera steady enough.

VR on a lens that short seems to be the fetish of the same wankers who overly worry about sharpness and vignetting on their amazingly framed photos of brick walls.

Tell me if I'm missing something here...one of the guys I work for is a Canon shooter by the way, and I've never heard him complain about not having IS on his short zooms.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
63
behind the viewfinder
It was a joke. You're getting grumpy in your old age :D

At the same time, what does VR get you at 20mm? Not very much. If I'm shooting shutterspeeds that slow, yes, I usually going to have a tripod, or I'm using rear curtain sync and I'm holding the camera steady enough.

VR on a lens that short seems to be the fetish of the same wankers who overly worry about sharpness and vignetting on their amazingly framed photos of brick walls.

Tell me if I'm missing something here...one of the guys I work for is a Canon shooter by the way, and I've never heard him complain about not having IS on his short zooms.
IS is certainly more of an advantage on the longer end, but i wouldn't say it was useless at short focal lengths. i personally almost never use a tripod, so if IS can get me 3-4 more stops, i'm all for it. again, it depends on what you shoot. i personally rarely used my 5fps frame rate on my 30D, but for some people they want 7-10 fps.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
IS is certainly more of an advantage on the longer end, but i wouldn't say it was useless at short focal lengths. i personally almost never use a tripod, so if IS can get me 3-4 more stops, i'm all for it. again, it depends on what you shoot. i personally rarely used my 5fps frame rate on my 30D, but for some people they want 7-10 fps.
So, if you're shooting architecture and you don't want to use a tripod, IS on a short lens might be useful a very small part of the time?

:D
 
Last edited:

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,092
1,132
NC
So, if you're shooting architecture and you don't want to use a tripod, IS on a short lens might be useful a very small part of the time?

:D
I can't possibly imagine why you'd think IS wouldn't be useful on short focal lengths?

If you're shooting anything that will stay still for the duration of the exposure, why wouldn't you want that extra bit of reach into the darkness, or bump your ISO down a couple stops, or stop down the aperture to get better DOF?

As far as I'm concerned, image stabilization is useful at every focal length. It may be less useful at short focal lengths, but for night/dark indoor shooting, you can never have too much light.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
I can't possibly imagine why you'd think IS wouldn't be useful on short focal lengths?

If you're shooting anything that will stay still for the duration of the exposure, why wouldn't you want that extra bit of reach into the darkness, or bump your ISO down a couple stops, or stop down the aperture to get better DOF?

As far as I'm concerned, image stabilization is useful at every focal length. It may be less useful at short focal lengths, but for night/dark indoor shooting, you can never have too much light.
Like I said, if I'm shooting something that will stay perfectly still for more than half a second, I'm going to light it and/or have a tripod.
 

Damo

Short One Marshmallow
Sep 7, 2006
4,603
27
French Alps
Hey pirates, this thread is about ME!

ME !!!












Just kidding. I not going to pay extra dosh for IS or extra FPS.
I don't use FPS and rarely use IS.
That's not to say I don't want them, just I'm not adding another '0' to the price to have them. At least, not till I'm on jimmydean's wages...
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
I have a Tokina ATX 20-35/2.8 and it's a fantastic lens at a cheap price, and a very useful range on either a full-frame or a crop body. The Canon version seems like a good deal at $265-325 at KEH camera brokers. (Yes, I just pimped them even though they think I'm an African scammer...they're good people and my situation was indeed strange...)

I'm sure it doesn't focus as fast as newer lenses or have image-whatchamahoozies, but it makes a great clear image with a constant aperture through the zoom. My Nikon version is also built like a tank.
 

Damo

Short One Marshmallow
Sep 7, 2006
4,603
27
French Alps
I have ordered the Sigma 28-70 1:2.8.

As I said above it is handy it has the same 77mm filter diameter as my 70-200.

As for the fisheye, it looks like IH8Rice is bringing me a nice present when he comes over in June. Sa-weet!

On a new topic, I have a mint Nikkor 55mm 1:1.2 lens sitting here. It is old (probably 70's), but in good nick. I'm thinking an adapter so it can fit my eos is a good idea... It already has my filter-bodycap ghetto macro thingy attached, so it could be dual purpose. Would be nice to have a f1.2 prime...

Now all I need is a nice 10-?? superwide for the landscapes...

Don't tell the missus.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,029
7,549
On a new topic, I have a mint Nikkor 55mm 1:1.2 lens sitting here. It is old (probably 70's), but in good nick. I'm thinking an adapter so it can fit my eos is a good idea... It already has my filter-bodycap ghetto macro thingy attached, so it could be dual purpose. Would be nice to have a f1.2 prime...
ooh. manually focusing that thing without a split focusing screen will be a bit painful, tho.