motoring|underground  
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Blog

The Exhibit Hall A place to display your photography and art.

Go Back   motoring|underground > The Overlook > The Exhibit Hall
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1786  
Old 02-11-2013, 04:07 PM
VicSkimmr's Avatar
VicSkimmr VicSkimmr is offline
μ
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 10,218
Default

Those of you with full frame cameras, would you suggest I replace my 10-22 with a 17-40 wide angle? The reason I ask is because my new camera came with a 24-105 f/4L and I'm not sure I'd really get much use out of a wide angle on top of that.

The only thing I really used my wide angle for was for rolling shots, and they were nearly all taken at 17mm, which on a full frame body equates to about 27mm, so I'd already be covered there. I feel like 24mm is plenty wide for just about anything I could want to take pictures of. Thoughts?
__________________
Jason
flickr
Reply With Quote
  #1787  
Old 02-11-2013, 05:21 PM
ShadowGLI's Avatar
ShadowGLI ShadowGLI is offline
Y Rated - 186 mph
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Leominster, Ma
Posts: 3,720
Default

You could get a 16-35L if you got some cash as its a gorgeous lens, but if I was dropping that cash, I'd make sure you already had a 70-200 or even a 70-300. 24mm on Full frame is pretty dang wide already.
__________________
Click the image to open in full size.
Reply With Quote
  #1788  
Old 02-11-2013, 05:34 PM
cristo cristo is offline
Y Rated - 186 mph
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: York, PA
Posts: 261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cristo View Post
Anyone have an opinion on a good ultrawide dx lens for Nikon?

Thinking about (in roughly this order from most to least coveted)

Tokina 11-16 2.8 dxii (have a d3100, so need the dxii version)
Sigma 10-20 4-5.6
Nikon 10-24 3.5-4.5
Sigma 10-20 3.5
Tamron 10-24 3.5-4.5
Sigma 8-16 4.5-5.6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konstantinos View Post
I have the Nikon 10-24 and it is AMAZING. I love it. I can not compare to others, however, as I have not used any of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by batou View Post
I'm picking up a 11-16 tokina 2.8 sometime this/next month. Seems to be pretty good for the money!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGLI View Post
I've used the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 on a Canon 1.6x crop and it was really awesome. Sharp and fast autofocus. Good color and clarity.

I liked the Canon 10-22 but the Sigma is smaller and cheaper. if it was my money. I'd probably do the Sigma, mostly because it has the extended range over the Tokina. the added aperature is huge but unless you have a 16-35/17-50 already, I'd buy a f/2.8 before a "super wide" imho.
Quote:
Originally Posted by werD View Post
Have the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 and it is a wicked nice lens.

However, Sigma can be spotty on consistent quality.

Given the opportunity (and budget), I'd score the Nikkor 10-24.
After looking at a bunch of reviews and tests, I think I'm going to go with the
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 dxii after I get my tax refund in a month or so.
Other lenses in my bag include the Nikon 18-55 VR f3.5-5.6, the Nikon 55-200 VR f4-5.6,
the Nikon 35 f1.8, and the Nikon 85 f3.5 VR Macro.
The two kit lens zooms listed above are actually much better than they deserve
to be for their price. If they weren't, I would be looking at the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS to
replace the 18-55, and the Sigma 150 2.8 Macro OS as a faster tele eventually, but I
can't justify either of those anytime soon anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #1789  
Old 02-11-2013, 06:17 PM
VicSkimmr's Avatar
VicSkimmr VicSkimmr is offline
μ
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 10,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGLI View Post
You could get a 16-35L if you got some cash as its a gorgeous lens, but if I was dropping that cash, I'd make sure you already had a 70-200 or even a 70-300. 24mm on Full frame is pretty dang wide already.
That was pretty much my reasoning too. Once I started playing with the 24-105 I realized it alone had just replaced 2 of my previous lenses (10-22 and my 28-135). I might be able to pay this camera back a hell of a lot quicker than I thought.
__________________
Jason
flickr
Reply With Quote
  #1790  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:11 AM
Konky's Avatar
Konky Konky is offline
μ
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 44,582
Send a message via AIM to Konky
Default

I replaced my 10-22m for the 16-35L when I went full frame. It was pricey, but is amazing.
__________________

Click the image to open in full size.
Reply With Quote
  #1791  
Old 02-20-2013, 08:50 AM
XxThalakosxX XxThalakosxX is offline
N Rated - 87 mph
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Western MA
Posts: 16
Default Love my Canon

Currently shooting with a 5D Mark II and have been using a 24-70L. But I gotta say I love some fun time with the 100mm macro or the 50mm f/1.2L.

As far as everyone arguing about which brand to shoot, it's all personal preference. They both have pros and cons. I love my Canon but I know that some of the similar features are more accessible on an equivalent Nikon. I also find that there is a lot more used glass readily available for Nikons.
Reply With Quote
  #1792  
Old 02-20-2013, 01:07 PM
VicSkimmr's Avatar
VicSkimmr VicSkimmr is offline
μ
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 10,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konky View Post
I replaced my 10-22m for the 16-35L when I went full frame. It was pricey, but is amazing.
The 16-35 is probably out of my realistic price range :o/

I've noticed the 24-105 produces some heavy vignetting on my 6D. Not sure what's going on there.
__________________
Jason
flickr
Reply With Quote
  #1793  
Old 02-20-2013, 03:54 PM
ShadowGLI's Avatar
ShadowGLI ShadowGLI is offline
Y Rated - 186 mph
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Leominster, Ma
Posts: 3,720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XxThalakosxX View Post
I also find that there is a lot more used glass readily available for Nikons.
I always feel like the opposite, and I feel like high end glass can be had more inexpensively.

I will say that currently I think Nikon has the better IQ, I am reading that Canon is going to do the leapfrog on sensor tech this upcoming year with the 7DII and the 70D so *fingers crossed*

its a game of cat and mouse, they will go back and forth, at the end of the day, either is really awesome.
__________________
Click the image to open in full size.
Reply With Quote
  #1794  
Old 02-20-2013, 07:49 PM
Konky's Avatar
Konky Konky is offline
μ
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 44,582
Send a message via AIM to Konky
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VicSkimmr View Post
I've noticed the 24-105 produces some heavy vignetting on my 6D. Not sure what's going on there.
If you're using photoshop and a version cs3 or higher, you can fix that under "lens correction"
__________________

Click the image to open in full size.
Reply With Quote
  #1795  
Old 02-20-2013, 07:58 PM
VicSkimmr's Avatar
VicSkimmr VicSkimmr is offline
μ
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 10,218
Default

yeah, and I do. It's just weird to see so much of it out of the camera.
__________________
Jason
flickr
Reply With Quote
  #1796  
Old 02-20-2013, 08:16 PM
Konky's Avatar
Konky Konky is offline
μ
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 44,582
Send a message via AIM to Konky
Default

Is this Lens new too? Did you use it with your 40D and see a lot of vignetting?

The vignetting usually occurs from the amount of light coming into your camera that hits your image sensor, so usually if you shot at 2.8 or lower the less you'll see it. Especially on wide-angle lenses.
__________________

Click the image to open in full size.
Reply With Quote
  #1797  
Old 02-20-2013, 08:18 PM
VicSkimmr's Avatar
VicSkimmr VicSkimmr is offline
μ
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 10,218
Default

yeah it's the kit lens that came with the 6D. My 40D is totally shot, the shutter button is completely non-functional, so I never got to try the 24-105 with it, but I'll try it with Krista's XSi tonight to see.
__________________
Jason
flickr
Reply With Quote
  #1798  
Old 02-20-2013, 08:24 PM
VicSkimmr's Avatar
VicSkimmr VicSkimmr is offline
μ
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 10,218
Default

ah, I did a bit of research (should've done this first)

The vignetting is normal for that lens on a ff body. The reason I was questioning it was because with the on-camera LCD preview it wasn't there, but that's because the picture shown is a jpeg thumbnail and not the RAW capture, and I guess the camera automatically corrects it in jpeg form. Or something like that.

Either way, I guess it's normal and I'll just continue to correct it as I have been.
__________________
Jason
flickr
Reply With Quote
  #1799  
Old 02-21-2013, 02:34 AM
AllBlack05S's Avatar
AllBlack05S AllBlack05S is offline
Y Rated - 186 mph
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bartlett Il
Posts: 6,322
Send a message via AIM to AllBlack05S
Default

ok thought I was nuts since I have been using the 24-105 on a 5D and noticed it on some shots. I had chalked it up to inexperience with the camera
__________________
—Eric
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardingsan View Post
why do i have a feeling that's gonna make it into someone's sig...?

I have neither of these cars anymore. 2014 Jetta Hybrid, 2014 Countryman All4 S now.
Reply With Quote
  #1800  
Old 02-21-2013, 06:41 PM
Konky's Avatar
Konky Konky is offline
μ
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 44,582
Send a message via AIM to Konky
Default

yep it's normal and like I said you'll notice it more with wide angle lenses
__________________

Click the image to open in full size.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


CURRENT MOON

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2005 motoring|underground, all rights reserved.