Good L series wide angle? [Archive] - Reef Central Online Community

IPT

11/29/2008, 01:27 PM

Okay, I am just throwing it out there because it is wide, and right at your price range. The 24-105mm F4 L lens. I have been real happy with this lens even on a high resolution camera (actually I only use my 24mm F1.4 for the northern lights and that is just because I want the speed). It's a zoom, but pretty sharp. I am willing to lose a tad of shrpness for the convenience of having just one lens to tote around. Probably making it more confusing for you but read a lot of reviews and really try and decide what the purpose of the lens will be. When will it be used, where? Will you be going long distances having to carry your gear, or car shooting?

Here'e the 24-105mm in action.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/_MG_6622.jpg

BlueCorn

11/29/2008, 03:16 PM

While I agree, with Louis, that the 24-105 is a nice lens, if you have the kit lens it's even longer than what you already have. Since Louis has a full frame camera that lens seems wider than it would on your crop body.

Here's an illustration of what the same image would look like using 24mm on a 1.6x crop:

http://images.hopdog.com/1.6.jpg

If you want wide, you should be looking for the 10-12 range.

IPT

11/29/2008, 04:12 PM

Agreed - 24mm on a body with a 1.6 crop factor ends up effectively being a 38mm lens ( I didn't see anywhere what body you use but maybe I just missed it). Maybe that is wide enough for you? I don't know what your intended purpose is.

I used a 28-135mm on a 10D for a long time (had a 1.6 crop factor). After a while I wanted more so I ended up buying a Sigma 18-35 (before I was willing to shell out for good glass - which BTW is a good idea on your part. Do it right the first time. Good quality lenses make a difference in image quality).

So if you truely want a "wide" angle view, and have a body with the crop factor, than you should check out the lens Doug mentioned. I am not familiar with it myself but he appears quite knowledgeable about gear. Do a Google search or look on www.photo.net which has some excellent forums and information.

dendronepthya

11/29/2008, 04:19 PM

There is a new 24mm f/1.4L coming out that I am going to be taking a look at. They reworked all the optics to keep up with the 5D and 50D cameras. It may be a bit more than your $1000 price limit though.

t5Nitro

11/29/2008, 06:25 PM

Well, just figure even a few hundred over 1k could be in my range. I want to buy a good lens to start out with. What I have now is a 100mm f/2.8 macro and then the lens that came on it (28-135mm). That lens is decent, but it sucks in the same respect? lol...

As for photos, even your "every day" shots I'd like to have even more clear than the 28-135 offers. I do have a macro, and the 28-135 if I need it, so the main thing I thought it would be cool to have a wide angle lens. Would I use it a lot? Probably not, we don't have anywhere around here that I could even use it much for. But for trips etc might be cool.

So, I have a 30D, I don't think that lens above would be a great choice. Possibly to go up top on the "mountain" or hill you may call it here which is our mountain (ha) and snap some shots over the city, or across the lake looking at the mountain. Being on trips shooting out over the ocean or coastline. You get the idea. So, with a 30D, what would be the BEST lens you could buy, say 1300-1400$. Either it be L series or another brand. I want the quality of L though.

Thanks again.

BlueCorn

11/29/2008, 06:35 PM

What I did for a long time, with that same camera, was a 24-70L, (that I bought used) and the Tokina 12-24. That'd fit in that budget, especially if you sold the 28-135 (that was the happiest memory that I have of that lens) The 24-105 would be an even better choice in terms of range.

It really depends on what style of shooting you wind up gravitating to.

t5Nitro

11/29/2008, 06:51 PM

beerguy, what you shoot is what I would like to do. To put that into perspective I guess. I like macro, but I already have a lens for it. Basically what you're doing with the nature shots is what I wanted to do. The 28-135 sucks for that ha ha. Is there a site you can list it for sale?

You would use the 24-105 though as a walk-around and obviously the 12-24 as a wide angle?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/360349-REG/Tokina_ATX124AFPROC_12_24mm_f_4_AT_X_124AF.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/264304-USA/Canon_8014A002_Zoom_Wide_Angle_Telephoto_EF.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397662-USA/Canon_0344B002AA_24_105mm_f_4L_IS_USM.html

I guess I need some pointers here. Do you have any pictures of when you used the 12-24 tokina on the 30D? And the 24-70 is a 2.8 and the other a 4? Is it worth not getting extra zoom for the better aperture? I guess pick one for me ha. I know those L series lenses should be fine, I guess I'm game to buy either, so if you could pick one for me based on what I like shooting, go for it. The other lens, any pix you may have shooting with the 30D would be much appreciated. It just seems to cheap to work great, but I'm sure I'm wrong. :D

TitusvileSurfer

11/29/2008, 06:55 PM

Mmmm I was just spending some quality time in the woods with my own 24-70L a few hours ago before the Florida/Florida State game. It isn't "wide angle", but it is amazing.

BlueCorn

11/29/2008, 06:57 PM

Like everything, it depends.

When I'm shooting landscape stuff I rarely am anywhere near 2.8 so that's no big deal. It does come in handy sometimes but you pay for it in weight and bulk. I'd go with the 24-105; I've got a friend who does really well with it.

I've had good luck selling on Fredmiranda.com but you have to become a paying member to do so. I'll have to take a look at my images to give you examples.

t5Nitro

11/29/2008, 07:07 PM

Ok, thanks. I'm just wanting lenses that in the long run will still be good lenses. Like the above picture still looks great. The 24-70 isn't going to "look" any better is it? Assuming the same person is behind both lenses.

Putting it in that perspective, say I'm using the 24-70 OR 24-105 as my walk-around lens, which would you buy, assuming I'd pick up the tokina for the wide angle? Again thanks for looking for some pics for me to see what it would look like. I'm sure yours would > by far over mine. Just the person behind the camera. :lol: At least I'd know the capabilities anyway.

IPT

11/29/2008, 07:52 PM

Between the 24-70 and the 24-105, I'd go for the 24-105mm F4. I don't think the 24-70 F2.8 will have much more sharpness, if any (except maybe if you shot both at F4 - the F2.8 would be closed down one stop and may, possibly, have a slight, tad bit more shaprness. In this day and age with digital it is easy to bump up one stop of speed if you really need it. The 24-105 is longer if you need it (like to isolate a sunset), still has the same wide angle, and is lighter.

Like Doug said, usually with Landscape your not shooting wide open anyway so unless it's wildlife or people (action) I don't see how the F2.8 would be an advantage (on your camera at least. Some of the higher end cameras will enable extra focus points or use horizontal and vertical sensors on a F2.8 lens that are not activated with an F4 or slower lens).

t5Nitro

11/29/2008, 10:04 PM

That's what Doug was pointing out I think. I wouldn't use the 24-70 or 105 for landscapes. That's why he pointed out the tonika 12-24mm. Which in that case, for an every day walk around lens, for shooting people even, a 2.8 would be cool. Just the fact that it's not a full frame camera sucks. :lol:

Looks like the 105 might be better off then because of that.

IPT

11/29/2008, 11:34 PM

Well, that depends on your shooting style. You might use the 24-105mm a lot more than you think. Personally I probably stay at the mid to telphoto range for a lot of my landscape stuff (click red house to see some stuff). That's not say I don't go wide, I do, but not as often as I do the others ranges. It's not uncommon for me to take landscape images at 200mm to isolate a part of the scene that I feel is the most powerful. That's just my style though. I'm sure Doug will chime in with his thoughts once he's online again. He may shoot differently than me. Like he said before though "it depends".

Here is a good example, my g/f and I on a ridge looking out at the Alaska Range with our tent in the foreground. This was shot at 50mm.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/Kesugi.jpg

t5Nitro

11/30/2008, 12:14 AM

Ok, nice. Just was curious between the two because you always here raving reviews about the 24-70, and never about the 24-105. At least not as many, on this site anyway all I've read about is the 24-70 and how good it is. Thanks for the info.

TitusvileSurfer

11/30/2008, 01:58 AM

I knew I was going to get a 24-70 or a 24-150. I researched each every night for about 6 months weighing out every minute pro and con of each I could think of before making an expensive decision I knew would follow me for decades. I chose the 24-70 for many many many reasons, but the most powerful 2 were as follows:

1) The 24-105 has IS, which is nice but especially at the wide half of the lens I couldn't decern any real world need for it. IS will help with the blur associated with your hands, but it won't increase your shutter speed. f/2.8 also offers more creative options with DOF. I decided an extra stop of light beat the IS any day and extensive use of the lens has only proved my hypothesis to myself.

2) I knew I was getting one of the coveted 70-200mm lenses, eventually I ended up with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. So the extra 105mm was a moot point in my case as I have every focal length between 24-200 covered with the two lenses...and they both achieve a magical f/2.8 aperture which I have found shot-saving uses for over and over and over and over again.

IPT

11/30/2008, 02:59 AM

The 24-70 is an amazing lens, no doubt.

I have too many lenses...a borrowed 300 f2.8 (a beast of a lens), a 300 F4 IS, 70-200 F4 IS and 70-200 F2.8 IS, 24-105 F4 IS, 24 F1.4, you get the point. There is a time and a place for everything. I do a lot of my shooting while out hiking, snowshoeing or MTN biking. I'll take lighter (weight) more often than not because I can make up one stop of speed bumping ISO. I'll often just take the 24-105. If I think I'll find wildlife I'll take a 1.4 tele and the 300F4. Northern lights? I'll take the fast primes.

As you can see from the last post and mine, priorities differ. I rarely shoot wide open if I can help it, but I don't do portrait or sports type stuff (where you want shallow DOF or need a super fast shutter speed). I like the IS since it usually allows me to leave the tripod at home. I usually like to stop down for increased depth of field (plus almost every lens made performs it's best somewhere in the middle of it's F stop range anyway). That kills my shutter speed so I like IS.

As for quality, the 24-105 is a good lens. Good enough? Yes, I think so. I've had images published that were taken with lenses not even that good. Still concerned? Here is a direct comparison for you: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

LOL, decisions, decisons...you can't go wrong with either lens. There is a tool for every job. You just need to figure out how and for what you plan on using this tool for. Then you'll know which is better to get the job done.

t5Nitro

11/30/2008, 09:34 AM

That's a good article. I'll probably go with the 24-105, maybe just because that author liked it more. :lol: I would really like the 2.8 lens for shooting people or any action shots, but the IS might be nice. He states he's a nature photographer, which is what I wanted a better lens for, but that's why I was looking into the wide angle also. The IS you said you rarely bring a tripod along, so that might be a winner right there. Also, like he says, the lenses are almost identical when you get to 35mm or higher.

dendronepthya

11/30/2008, 10:54 AM

For a 30D you may want to consider the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. It would get you closer to the wide angle and although it is not technically an "L" lens, many reviewers say it is on par or better. It is an EF-S though, so if you ever decided on a full-frame body rather than a crop body you wouldn't be able to use it. Still, it is about a $1100 lens with both great image quality and image stabilization.

TitusvileSurfer

11/30/2008, 05:10 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13844173#post13844173 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
He states he's a nature photographer, which is what I wanted a better lens for, but that's why I was looking into the wide angle also. The IS you said you rarely bring a tripod along, so that might be a winner right there.

I think Nature photography is one of the most tripod demanding genres there is. You should be buying one of the best tripods you can afford and using it IMO.

BlueCorn

11/30/2008, 05:13 PM

It all depends on your style of shooting.

I never take a shot without a tripod. Also many of the ones that I do take would be impossible without one. That makes IS something that I really couldn't care less about. If you're going to be hand-holding the camera at least part of the time it might be important to you. That's one reason why I recommended the 24-105 over the 24-70. ;)

TitusvileSurfer

11/30/2008, 09:25 PM

Yeah I wouldn't think IS would be a very big deal to a nature guy. Tripods are everything in nature photography. Tripods are everything in reef photography. I think you should buy a very nice tripod and plan on using it!

t5Nitro

11/30/2008, 09:47 PM

Oh, man, I'm still torn between the two now. :lol: What I wanted to get into was nature photography, however, places around here aren't really worth anything to take a picture of. :lol: That was what I wanted the wide angle lens for, and Doug recommended the 12-24mm tonika. If anyone has any example shots of it on a crop body camera it'd be much appreciated. I think the wide angle I will go with the tonika, but maybe if I wasn't exactly clear, I am probably willing to go with both a wide angle lens and replace my 28-135mm lens for an L lens. A lens that would be mounted 80-90% of the time as a carry-around. So if anyone could convince me with example pics the 12-24 tonika would be an awesome choice, I'll definitely go that route. As for replacing the 28-135 for a main usage lens, now I guess I'm back and forth between the two again.

I do want to do some nature shots I guess, and I thought the tonika was all I really would need for that, and crop if needed. But possibly not. I have some sunpaq or whichever company tripod I got as a gift. $70 tripod. I really don't want to buy anything better. Before spending hundreds on a tripod, I would rather invest that into an L lens such as the 24-70 or 24-105.

So just so I get this straight, since I really don't know what I'm talking about yet, the 24-70mm is obviously less zoom. According to the article, it is almost identical to the 24-105mm as far as quality goes.
If I take pictures of people, wildlife, and I guess what you would call your "every day" shots.
People could be either portraits if I ever get into that more or action shots. Maybe someone on a bike riding along or snowboarding etc. Just taking a lens on vacation shooting pictures like a point and shoot, with more artistic value put into framing it up. Even as far as tripods go, I do want to do more of the scenery shots, and I could use my tripod. We have very little areas around here I would even use a lens to shoot scenery. But for those, I figured the wide angle lens would be nice.

So based on the above, I hold the camera or use a tripod, but mostly I would carry it around with me. I guess main reason is, I'm probably more of a grab and snap instead of setting a tripod up all the time. I guess I want a lens that will do what I've seen in the 24-70mm. It appears according to that article and your picture, it is capable of it.

Based on the above, just the fact that I carry my camera around majority of the time without a tripod, the 24-105mm is auto a winner?

Oh, and one more thing, that polar bear picture on the previous page wouldn't look like that coming off of the camera, would it? It isn't even that in focus after the crop, or is it just that way because it may be a smaller file now like jpeg for the internet and then cropped again?

As long as the quality itself looks like the original picture before the crop, I'm set, I think. :D

TitusvileSurfer

11/30/2008, 10:15 PM

the quality is crappy directly because it was resized to what it should be...and then croped. No other factors there.

IPT

11/30/2008, 10:42 PM

No doubt, using a tripod is a critical factor for getting tack sharp images. A tripod is probably the single most important tool there is for getting razor sharp images, or serious DOF.

That being said, I don't always use one. Sometimes I like to just go light and unencumbered (even my tiny 2lb gitzo is sometimes a hassle), or I just plain don’t have time to setup the tripod (like for this moose shot. She was gone long before I’d of had time to set up a tripod. I barely got the camera out). That is where IS shines for me. It gets me more (sharper) images than I would have gotten if I didn’t have it. Sometimes it is just impossible to use one, like that Polar Bear shot when I was leaning out of the vehicle. I will admit though, 90% of the shots I took on that trip were with the camera mounted on a good, large tripod. It took me a long time to spend 1K on a good tripod and ballhead, but I did ultimately do it.

Here is a crop and the original Polar Bear shots. Web viewing is very different than printing in terms of quality though. I am no master at sharpening either :)

You are gonna be happy either way. Both of these lenses will hold most of their value should you decide to sell and change. You could also rent them and experiment. I have a lot of lenses but the one that is on the camera the most (except if I am looking for wildlife) is the 24-105. For me, having that extra 35mm of zoom is nice (and the IS). Your mileage may vary. Flip a coin and just take the plunge :)

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/snow-moose.jpg

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/polar.jpg

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/polar---close.jpg

IPT

11/30/2008, 10:48 PM

Oh yeah, I'd still get the wide angle Doug recommended. It is fun to play really wide, and there may be times you "need" it. If for nothing else to get the distortion and odd perspective it can create! For just a large panoramic, or vista type scene you can always stitch frames together in PS.

t5Nitro

11/30/2008, 11:21 PM

Ya, I think I'll go the Tokina and 24-105mm then.

Tripods are still not "good" for me. I hate using them. Annoying almost setting them up.

Thanks for all the info.

TitusvileSurfer

12/01/2008, 12:55 AM

Respect the tripod...Use the tripod...Love the tripod...

t5Nitro

12/01/2008, 04:13 PM

I refuse! :)

I'll only use it for macro shots of my tank and possibly next summer I'll take it down to some rapids. Otherwise I hate the thing. Maybe 800$ ones are nicer and easier to use, but I'll buy another lens before that.

BlueCorn

12/01/2008, 04:21 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13853460#post13853460 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
I refuse! :)

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13841119#post13841119 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
beerguy, what you shoot is what I would like to do

Something to keep in mind. Much of what I shoot isn't possible without solid camera support; i.e. a tripod. I routinely shoot at 10, 15 or even 30 seconds (sometimes even longer) if necessary to get the depth of field or effect that I'm after.

Trying to hand-hold in those situations, if even possible, forces you to make changes to the exposure that comprise your artistic input. Tripods aren't practical for all kinds of photography but they're darn near essential for nature/landscape work.

Cheers

TitusvileSurfer

12/01/2008, 04:44 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13853460#post13853460 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
I refuse! :)

I'll only use it for macro shots of my tank and possibly next summer I'll take it down to some rapids. Otherwise I hate the thing. Maybe 800$ ones are nicer and easier to use, but I'll buy another lens before that.

You can buy all the lenses you want but they will never replace a tripod. This makes as much sense as saying you want to build a race car. You think tires are overrated and only want to upgrade the engine. Well that is grand, but my 2.2 I-4 98hp S-10 would easily beat your 8.0 V-12 900hp BMW if you don't have tires. Heck I wouldn't even have to shift out of 2nd gear.

t5Nitro

12/01/2008, 06:12 PM

:lol: I knew that was going to pop up. Not saying that I won't use it. The one I have I hate it though. Just time consuming I guess. When I'm going somewhere where I know I would need a tripod, I probably wouldn't care and have fun with it. Indoors for cat or dog pictures isn't as fun. :) I want to head out to these rapids next summer and try something I've never done. That would be taking the tripod with me and setting either Av to a high number or trying a really slow shutter speed.

This would be cool with the tokina lens I figured.

IPT

12/02/2008, 12:11 AM

Sadly Tripods are a PITA no matter how good they may be or not. Some setup faster than others, and some are lighter than others. Still, like those guys said, they are a big part of photography if you want to get high quality professional quality images. As you get more serious and realize the limitations of not using one your feelings toward them will change.

Sure, people have publishable work from handheld shots - still if you talk in circles of people who are "really" into it, you're gonna find out Tripods are a staple in serious photography (no matter what type - even photojouranlists will use at least use a monpod to gain some stability and improve the number of sharp images they get). Like Doug said, some shots are just plain impossible without it. If you want silky flowing water pics you better bring that tripod :).

IS is great, but it will only get you so far (and sometimes that may be far enough :)). All this stuff got me thinking about this and I am going to start a poll thread for the heck of it.

IPT

12/02/2008, 12:47 AM

Just thinking....you do have a quick release on your tripod, correct? If not it'll make your life a whole lot nicer (and faster).

ngn8dogg

12/02/2008, 01:10 AM

whats a good tripod at a reasonable price?

IPT

12/02/2008, 01:20 AM

Doug wrote some good stuff here: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1501841

After messing around over the years and not wanting to break the bank I finally gave in and upgraded my flet to Gitzo, Carbon Fiber. My tall Gitzo with the ballhead is about the same weight as my shorter Bogen without a ballhead. Worth the $ to me.

ngn8dogg

12/02/2008, 01:41 AM

Which Gitzo did you buy?

IPT

12/02/2008, 01:49 AM

The Gitzo 3540XLS (that took some serious justifying to myself to drop the $ - but I am 6'3 and tired of leaning over, or extending my center column and making my tripod into a monopod.

I also bought the Gitzo 1540T which is small and light (but a lot shorter). It's light enough that I'll take it more often on active outtings where the big one is generally reserved for when I am out specifically for photography or think I'll be using big lenses.

ngn8dogg

12/02/2008, 01:53 AM

what do you think about this one
http://www.adorama.com/BG190XP322RC.html
thanks for your help by the way

TitusvileSurfer

12/02/2008, 02:07 AM

I don't know about the grip, but I like the legs.

ngn8dogg

12/02/2008, 02:14 AM

what dont you like about it?

IPT

12/02/2008, 02:47 AM

Yeah, never used a grip/head like that. I may be worried that it would get in the way of me moving the camera where I wanted it. I prefer to use a ballhead with friction control and set my orientation holding the camera body itself vs using a lever like that appears to be. Not having hands on experience with it I can't say much. Legs would be nice though. I liked my Bogen, until I upgraded it served me well.

TitusvileSurfer

12/02/2008, 03:14 PM

I am just not a fan of joystick style tripod heads to begin within. Like IPT mentioned, I prefer a ball head style such as the 488RC2.

t5Nitro

12/02/2008, 04:10 PM

Actually what, besides lightweight, makes a 800$ tripod better than a $70 tripod. I know they can be made out of carbon fiber and possibly taller, but other than that, what?

My $70 tripod is really stable as far as holding the camera, and it will allow me to take great shots.

IPT

12/02/2008, 04:23 PM

you should read Doug's sticky on tripods. Weight is a lot of it (probably most of it regarding price). Ease of using leg clamps, abiltiy to absorb vibration, ability to get nearly flat to the floor, and did I mention light weight :)

Heck, using a timer and a little 6" tripod on the hood of your (not running) car could allow you to take shots you couldn't without it. I am sure as you said your tripod can get the job done. Start using bigger lenses (400mm+ especially if they are F2.8) and you may see it is more flimsy than what you need. Then again, any tripod (with a good head) and cable release will take you a long way.

Height was a big factor for my upgrade. Though I was very happy at the weight reduction too. Lighter weight, smoother operation = more likely I will take and use it.

ngn8dogg

12/02/2008, 04:47 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13860453#post13860453 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
I am just not a fan of joystick style tripod heads to begin within. Like IPT mentioned, I prefer a ball head style such as the 488RC2.

would it be better to buy a ballhead like the one you suggested and legs seperate?

t5Nitro

12/02/2008, 04:50 PM

See, for how much I use it, I could care less about weight. I have to reach down and "unclamp" 3 legs and adjust the height, but that's about it. For the lenses I use right now anyway, my tripod will hold it in place easily (100mm f2.8 and 28-135mm for now). I don't have a cable release, which I want to get, but I do set the timer.

Speaking of cable releases, is there one made specifically for the particular camera or for instance is one made specifically for canon etc.

IPT

12/02/2008, 04:52 PM

It is what I ultimately did. In my beginer years I bought an all in one. It served me well. Liked it enough that when I broke it, I bought another one. Finally I got sick of leaning over to it all the time though. Over the years I have gotten more serious and upgraded along the way. I like the RRS (really right stuff) ballheads. Expensive, but real nice.

IPT

12/02/2008, 04:56 PM

T5nitro - depends on the camera. Not for sure on that. Look at B&H. I bought a simple cable release (like $40 I think) and then got a fancy one that had a timer built in could take mulitple exposures (like $150). I believe both were made by Canon.

Used to be these things were mechanical. Now with digital it is a little more sophisticated. I'd just look on B&H and search "cable release" and go from their. Timer works good too, though if you want to be in recise control of the time of the exposure it may not do the job.

ngn8dogg

12/02/2008, 05:00 PM

IPT- This is off subject but, What bulbs are you running on your TX5? I have the same fixture and am thinking about changing bulbs. I have blue plus,superactinic. aquasun,blue plus. and aquablue . I think the aquasun makes it look alittle too pink?

IPT

12/02/2008, 06:19 PM

Yeah, I just upped the anti (PAR). I ditched the Actinic and the Mid-day. Now front to back it's:

B+
AB
B+
B+
AB

I am still getting used to it. Don't miss the actinic at all. I had replaced that with a B+ a while ago. It got a little brighter but it didn't lose any "pop". I am thinking about swapping a B+ to an AB. I didn;t mind the crisp white with blue look. Now it's blue overtone all the time. Not too harsh, but after losing the Midday it seems "blue". Giving it time for me to get used to it before I decide to swap it to an AB.

hypertech

12/05/2008, 08:54 PM

I know you said L, but the Tokina 11-16 is one of the best wide angle lenses on the market - IMHO.

t5Nitro

12/05/2008, 10:31 PM

Wow, didn't know they made that. That looks like a lot better lens.
Check the comparison. Even a 2.8 compared to a 4. Worth 70$ more? (probably?)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/360349-REG/Tokina_ATX124AFPROC_12_24mm_f_4_AT_X_124AF.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554035-REG/Tokina_ATX116PRODXC_11_16mm_f_2_8_AT_X_116.html

What's everyone else's opinion between these two?

IPT

12/06/2008, 02:13 AM

Don't know much about either honestly and I am suprised the weight is the same between the F2.8 and the F4. All things being equal (image sharpness wise), for the extra cash I'd go for the wider faster F2.8 lens.

d4a2n0k

12/06/2008, 11:01 AM

It has already been mentioned but you should take a look at the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS. While it doesnt have a red ring, the glass is superb and IMO on par with L glass. This lens is on my camera 95% of the time and Im always surprised by the pictures Im able to take with it.

The downside is that it wont work on full frame cameras if you are looking to upgrade in the future.

IPT

12/06/2008, 05:27 PM

To me spending cash on a good lens that couldn't follow me on on upgrade wouldn't sit well. Glass is usually the big buy you stick with (for me at least). Plus, as good as that 17mm lens is if he wants "wide" with the crop factored in it is a 28mm verse an 18mm (with the 11mm) - that is a big difference in that arena.

t5Nitro

12/07/2008, 12:23 AM

Yeah. I will upgrade to a full frame camera down the road for sure.

I'm suck at the moment. I was pointed in the direction to go with the 24-105mm L lens and BH offers the 5D mark II and the 24-105 on it for like 3599 or so? If I did that, I'd save $100 or $200 on the lens. Man, wish I had $$$$$$$. :lol:

As for the wide angle, I am looking for wider the better, so I think for now the 11-16 tokina sounds good about now, especially being f2.8. That'll be rocking too if I ever get the chance to get a full frame. :)

TitusvileSurfer

12/07/2008, 01:51 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13891197#post13891197 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro

especially being f2.8.

The Tokina 11-16 is a great lens, but will you ever really use f/2.8 on a wide angle? I would think 90% of your shots would be between f/5.6-f/11, the other %9.5 less than f/11. I do think the Tokina is the way to go from what I have heard though.

IPT

12/07/2008, 02:30 AM

Hum - well you got me thinking that it might be cool to have a really wide F2.8 lens for the Aurora. Apparently it is only for the Rebel series, 20D, 30D, and 40D. Just so you know.

TitusvileSurfer

12/07/2008, 02:36 AM

Yeah that might be 1 application what it could make sense. I have never seen a Aurora but I would guess high shutter speeds could be a plus. Hand shake is pretty much a moot point, as you could hand hold at 1/20. If you are shooting a fast moving object...er...phenomenon in the dark, it might help you there.

IPT

12/07/2008, 04:09 AM

Oh man, it's amazing! Yes, faster shutter speeds really help keep the details in the individual rays. Somehow I doubt T5Nitro will be shooting Aurora, but you never know :).

This was at F1.4 for 4 seconds. I've heard that the supper high ISO on the new Nikons is amazing. It will change the quality of Aurora Photography for sure. To bad I shoot Canon and after all the $$$ I've dropped lately I won't be upgrading for years :(

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/aurora.jpg

hypertech

12/07/2008, 08:45 AM

The Tokina 11-16 is really sharp and built like a brick. I use 2.8 all the time indoors because I mainly use the lens for real estate photography. Often, even with flash, it is necessary in rooms with poor lighting.

It is an EF mount so you could put it on a full frame camera, but there would probably be vignetting in the corners to crop off or deal with.

t5Nitro

12/07/2008, 07:13 PM

Yea, I'm just curious how much vignetting. I do think the wide angle lens (11-16 tokina) would be better than my 28-135mm lens from canon for indoor shots, too. I don't really need to worry about the vignetting anyway, since I won't be getting a full frame any time soon.

But mostly I would use it in the f11 range or so I think.

IPT, I can't even imagine walking outside, looking up, and seeing that overhead. Hard to believe it's even real. :)

TitusvileSurfer

12/07/2008, 07:36 PM

As stated I don't own the lens and can't deliver a hands on opinion, but from what I have heard its pretty bad on a FF camera.

IPT

12/08/2008, 02:19 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13895596#post13895596 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro

IPT, I can't even imagine walking outside, looking up, and seeing that overhead. Hard to believe it's even real. :)

When it really rocks like that, sometimes I can't believe it either. It literally makes the hair on my neck stand up (not from electric charge, but from that deep down sort of primitive awe).

t5Nitro

12/08/2008, 08:42 PM

I had a quick question. I'm waiting on my lens for now so I can see what Santa brings, ( :lol: ), but what about filters? In Doug's latest thread, he used multiple filters in front to get the effects that are shown. I didn't know about these filters. Say I'm shooting some rapids or whatever, what would some good filters be? I suppose it depends on the mood you want, but what would you guys go with? Or even some "over-the-lake" and looking at a mountain range. Any suggestions to filters to hold in front of the lens would be cool, too.

hypertech

12/08/2008, 09:14 PM

I have a UV on all the time to protect from scratches. After that, I would us a circular polarizer.

You can accomplish a lot with that. Filters can do much more if you really dive into them but my checkbook hasn't let me explore them yet.

Check out hvstar.net for filters.

t5Nitro

12/08/2008, 09:19 PM

Yeah, was looking into the higher end filters, although a polarizer would be cool, too.

By the way IPT, after looking at your avatar one more time, I realized I remember seeing that in my backyard before. It probably wasn't as intense as in your avatar, but I do remember seeing likes like that in the sky that were a rich red color. It was probably a really rare occasion for the lights to appear here.

TitusvileSurfer

12/08/2008, 09:46 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13903592#post13903592 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
Yeah, was looking into the higher end filters, although a polarizer would be cool, too.

By the way IPT, after looking at your avatar one more time, I realized I remember seeing that in my backyard before. It probably wasn't as intense as in your avatar, but I do remember seeing likes like that in the sky that were a rich red color. It was probably a really rare occasion for the lights to appear here.

The Earth's polarity is believed to switch from time to time. Eventually north will be south and south will be north. The Earth's magnetic field draws the solar winds into its poles which causes the auras. We currently have 2 predominant poles but as they switch, we could have 8 or 10 established polar regions for a number of months. Currently new polar regions periodically pop up for a very short amount of time as the north and south poles weaken. You may have witnessed such a phenomenon. Sometimes the aurora will expand passed the polar regions, and you may have seen a very large solar storm. I don't know I am no expert, just pure speculation.

t5Nitro

12/08/2008, 10:58 PM

Interesting thoughts. I knew that the poles switched from time to time based on lava rock investigation. Either way it was cool! :)

That stuff still amazes me. Outside one dark night and the sky lit up like day almost. Fiery comet blazed past overhead. I want to have that happen again, too! :)

Other than that, is there any in particular order you would stack some filters? If you wanted to go a sepia route, what's the best combination (or in your opinion)? Or even a full all out dark, rich colors. Anything at all that you could put on here (without getting majorly expensive) with a few filters to get really great effects on shooting landscape or rapids etc.?

IPT

12/09/2008, 02:36 AM

T5Nitro - You can see them that far south. In fact, there was a solar storm (maybe in the 60's) that was so huge the Aurora was seen as far south as Mexico! There is basically an auroral ring (like a crown with a fat rim that "sits" above the earth). As stated, it can expand or contract based on the activity. The more it expands, the more likely people south of the Northern Latitudes will see it. Red is rare, except at lower latitudes for some odd reason (I think because of the curvature of the Earth you southern people are actually seeing the higher altitudes of the atmosphere) and there is more of (oxygen, or nitrogen) gas that creates the red. Though, most of the ones seen from the southern latitudes will lack the distinct rays and curtains we get up here. Ends up being more of a diffuse area of color :)

Anyway - ah, filters. I only use a polarizer now a days (and I have a few lenses with UV filters as protection but I have slowly been removing them too). Polarizors are great for bringing out colors that are already there but masked by glare or haze.

I used to use a graduated ND filter when I was shooting film. What I always hated was that you get underexposed areas on anything that was over the horizon line that overlapped the brighter area you were tryingto hold back (like trees, or mtns). I attached a pic.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/filter-example.jpg

I drew the filter edge so you can see where it was. I moved the filter up and down slightly to hide the transition (even though it was "graduated already). Still, the trees in area "A" are underexposed vs area "B" even though they are int he same light and general exposure range). In some images its worse than others, sometimes it goes un-noticed (well, not really, but it's tolerable and an untrained eye may not even notice). With the digital era I prefer to take two or three seperate exposures (easily achieved with bracketing) and blend them in PS (though obviously you need the camera on a tripod). Many pros started doing this even when they were still shooting film and then scanning the images.

I do not use any colored filters for my images. You may want a 3-5 stop ND filter just to hold back light over the whole scene to blur moving water (forces a longer exposure). Sepia, and all that can be done in PS. Then you have more control over the tones, saturation, and areas it affects. Plus you still have an orginal without manipulation. Anyway, that is just my preference and style.

t5Nitro

12/09/2008, 04:40 PM

I'm not great with photoshop though which is why I asked. I don't even think elements 5.0 has sepia in it. Either way, I thought ND filters are pointless. All you need to do is lower the shutter speed to do the same thing or no?

Otherwise just a regular polarizer is good? At where I work we have some cheap brand that run $25 or so. Is there any better than another? And as far as bracketing, I knew how to do it once, but I forgot within the last year. :lol: Actually never did it on my 30D, so I'll play around with it. Same with blending them, I don't know if I can do that in elements 5.0 or I'm just again not a good "PS'er."

BlueCorn

12/09/2008, 04:53 PM

Get the best polarizer that you can afford. Everything that goes in front of the lens impacts the image. Some of the really cheap polarizers aren't actually neutral and alter color accuracy.

I use split neutral density filters a lot. They are a way to extend the dynamic range that your camera can see. In Louis' example, without using the filter (or a blend in PS) it would have been impossible to get both the foreground and the background exposed properly. Your camera can only "see" 5-6 stops of light. The eye can see roughly twice that. It's a personal choice. My preference is to get the exposure as close as possible in the camera but bracketing and blending works fine too.

It all depends on how you want to do things; there isn't a right or wrong answer.

With the exception of my gold-n-blue polarizer I don't use colored filters at all. With the exception of that filter, there really isn't a colored filter that can't be readily duplicated in PS. Colored filters can also play havoc with white balance settings.

IPT

12/09/2008, 04:58 PM

I am not familiar with the capabilities of Elements, so I don't know what it's capabiliites are. You may be able to pick up the last version of PS CS3 now that 4 is out (?).

ND filters are mostly used graduated to balance light differences as in the above scene. The solid ones? Well, there have been times that even shooting at ISO 50, with a polarizer, and at F22 that I could not get a shutter speed of less than 1/8th of a second. You can't always just get a really slow shutter speed (depends on the light and situation at hand). Often I may want a second or more exposure to really get a silky look to flowing water. Thus a ND filter of several stops (though to be honest I lost mine a long time ago and haven't really missed it except on the rare occasion).

People will argue about quality of filters needed. I've used the cheap Cokin filters and been fine with the results. One could argue that if you're spending a grand on a lens it doesn;t pay to put cheep filters in front of it. I can't really debate that point. Since I've been using better lens I've also generally stop using any filters. My Polarizer was like $75 (Tiffen I believe). You (I am pretty sure) want a "circular Polarizer" as it affects how the light enters and if it's not that type may mess with your cameras metering (at least that's the way it used to be). You will want to confirm that infomation though.

t5Nitro

12/09/2008, 05:06 PM

? haha. Well since I understood like a sentence out of both posts, should I just pop on a polarizer and go for deeper colors? And making the water that silky smooth look (which I want, also) use a ND? Whatever you meant by stops of the filters beats me. And if you told me I wouldn't know which to buy anyway. :lol:

IPT

12/09/2008, 05:06 PM

LOL - Doug posted as I was writting my response.

Doug - I am assuming you're stating that it would be impossible to get the forground and background properly exposed in one frame correct?

We differ on technique here. He likes to use the split ND filters. I used too, but have found that I often lose some details that way in forground intems that rise into the background areas. I now prefer to blend two properly exposed images (one for foreground and one for background) together in PS. I feel I get much better control of what is image parts are held back or not that that way.

Many ways to achompish the same goal. Either works. Blending requires more post processing but to me the result is worth it.

Doug - what brand of Polarizer are you using? Is that stuff still accurate about needing a circular polarizer?

IPT

12/09/2008, 05:11 PM

Sorry T5 - A polarizer WILL enhance colors if you are in a bright situation, there is a haze, or you are trying to darken the sky (and are at approx a 90 degree angle to the sun). "Yes", in many cases it will increase color saturation. If there was one filter I would (and do use) that would be it.

Yes, if you want to have blurred water I would get a 2 and also maybe a 5 stop ND filter (not graduated, solid. "Stops just means it will hold back 2 or 5 stops of light forcing you to use a longer shutter speed (or larger aperture))). Personally I would be comfortable buying a lesser brand (Cokin), but that is just me. I've had images published using this brand so the quality is at the least good enough.

As Doug pointed out though - one could argue buying the best you can get. Question is, how often as you are going to use it and is the marginal increase in qaulity enough for you to cough up the extra $? Your choice there.

BlueCorn

12/09/2008, 05:15 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13909102#post13909102 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
Doug - I am assuming you're stating that it would be impossible to get the forground and background properly exposed in one frame correct?

Si!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13909102#post13909102 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
Doug - what brand of Polarizer are you using? Is that stuff still accurate about needing a circular polarizer?

Since I shoot almost exclusively nature/landscape I have one on almost all of the time. I have two so I don't have to switch when I switch lenses. On my 24-70 I use a Heliopan and on my 100-400 I use a B+W. I usually, but not always, avoid using a polarizer on my 17-40 on any shot that includes sky. On a wide lens, you'll get a varied amount of polarization across the sky resulting in a dark blue "blob."

It's also important to adjust the polarizer. Just having it on the lens isn't enough. Make sure that you give it a twist to get the effect that you're after.

My Gold-N-Blue polarizer and all of my split-grads are Singh-Ray. I also have a B+W 10 stop but that's not something I use often.

Yes. Digital requires a circular polarizer. Old style linear polarizers mess with your autofocus and metering. Virtually everything that you see for sale will be circular these days.

t5Nitro

12/09/2008, 05:41 PM

I guess showing is better than telling. The place with the water has more areas obviously with a little more flowing water which would be cool to do the "silk" look. So a 2 or a 5 ND filter for that. Ok.

So, as far as color goes, I put the CD into my computer quick and just did a quick increase of saturation just to see what happened. It did work pretty well. Again I'm sure I could get better shots if I used my tripod. Next summer I want to go back here and use the tripod with a better setting.

Before:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f249/t5Nitroz/IMG_2173.jpg

After saturation increase:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f249/t5Nitroz/IMG_2173_2.jpg

Then another shot (yes no tripod again):

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f249/t5Nitroz/IMG_1313.jpg

Especially that haze there is really apparent. Those were all taken with the 28-135mm kit lens.

IPT

12/09/2008, 06:04 PM

Not sure that water is moving fast enough or rough enough to get a blurr effect (at least not at that focal range). If you zoomed in on the faster moving stuff maybe.

From a quick look I think a Polarizer will defiantely help the color saturation of those pictures. That's where I'd start. Don't worry about the ND filters yet.

t5Nitro

12/09/2008, 06:16 PM

That's just a small area of it. At the beginning of it there are rock structures like the one seen in the picture and rapids go thru it.

I will grab a polarizer then. Alright, thanks for the tips, again.

Oh, I've also read on some articles that using a lens at wide open normally isn't best, that most have better quality when you get into the midrange of it? Is this true? I'll stop shooting at 28 (or probably more than 11 after my wide angle lens) if I can get better quality.

BlueCorn

12/09/2008, 06:23 PM

That depends on the lens. Generally when someone says "wide open" they're talking about aperture, not focal length. Most lenses will be at their sharpest somewhere in the middle of their aperture range. For most lenses, that sweet spot is around f/8-11. You should also avoid going much above f/16 as diffraction can make your images soft as well.

IPT

12/09/2008, 06:34 PM

^ like the man said :)

t5Nitro

12/09/2008, 06:51 PM

Ok, good to know. Lately, when using a tripod, I've been using f11.

Thanks.

IPT

12/09/2008, 07:03 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13909842#post13909842 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
Ok, good to know. Lately, when using a tripod, I've been using f11.

Thanks.

Tripod? From the man that wasn't into using one? Good deal :) I'll bet you like the sharper images.

t5Nitro

12/09/2008, 07:49 PM

Well, so far I've only used it on tank shots, since my coral shots before were HORRIBLE! Yes, they are much better, except still dark compared to what most people have. Color is great and the sharpness rocks, but they're too dark. I could bump the ISO up and see what happens.

I should stop looking at BH though before I push the button on 4 grand. :lol: Gitzo, 5DII, L lenses, flash, etc... :)

Someday...

What I've noticed on my tripod since using it more is that when you tilt the camera on its side, it seems like it always loosens up and then falls forward. As far as sitting upright it's fine.

BlueCorn

12/09/2008, 07:57 PM

:lol: - It's not hard to do. I've got over $1K in filters alone.

If your tripod has a removable head you could improve it by replacing just the head with something like a Manfrotto 486RC2. It's cheap, light and pretty stable.

IPT

12/10/2008, 12:34 AM

Dude - I so remember the days of flopping cameras and slipping ballheads. I had to aim a few inches high because I knew it'd droop down after I locked it in :) Check out that ballhead Doug mentioned. It could make a big difference for you on the frustration level (though I am not familiar with it).

You could bump the ISO up to brighten the images. Also, since your on the tripod (and have the tank pumps off so there is no polyp motion?) you could also just use a longer shutter speed.

If your getting a lot of noise try "neat image" (.com). It removes noise, and it's free. I forgot about it but saw it mentioned in another thread. It does a great job.

TitusvileSurfer

12/10/2008, 01:13 AM

Neat image has my endorsement.

t5Nitro

12/10/2008, 03:35 PM

It's not the whole head doing it. It's the quick release area. Like the camera loosens on it and then flops down when I have it sideways etc.

It should be alright for what I do anyway.

Neat image? Thanks. I will have to try that out since I have a really cool shot I took lately (with tripod); it just needs to lose the grain from low light and high ISO. :)

IPT

12/10/2008, 11:23 PM

T5 - I gotta ask, is that cat's eyes for real?

t5Nitro

12/10/2008, 11:41 PM

Yes, I entered it in the Drs. Foster and Smith photo contest a few months ago for the cat entry. One of the professional photographers around my area said he thought it would win. It didn't place even top 15. So leads me to believe that it's a biased contest or the fact the cat's eyes look like that.

It says specifically no major editing. One would be changing colors.

She's a lynx ragdoll. Cost like $1500 at the time. :)

We call her Ms. Priss because she, at the time that we had the male, never let you touch her fur. If you did she'd blast off and go wash it. It's cool... her fur is something no other cat I've found feels like. Probably because she grooms it so much.
Real name: Dixie.

Here's a few more:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f249/t5Nitroz/IMG_2159.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f249/t5Nitroz/IMG_2118.jpg

When she was younger she used to have those tassels or whatever you want to call them on the tips of her ears like real lynx. It was pretty cool.

She's a blue-eyed lynx ragdoll.