New Lens
- This topic has 22 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated Oct 26, 2010 at 2:16 am by
.
-
Posts
-
If your looking for a wide angle .. You might want to throw the Tokina 11-16 into the mix. Not as much zoom range, but its a 2.8 … I went with the 10-22 and like it for the range.
Lots of good reading that compares these lenses.
http://tinyurl.com/37av3w3Was going to mention the 11-16mm as well Corey.
Not sure how often you’d open the lens on an 11-16mm but it’s always nice to have the choice. Kyle are you looking to “upgrade” or add something different to what you have thats of better quality?
If your simply looking to upgrade, Id look hard at the 17-40mm F4 L. If you want an uwa w/o spending 1500+ both Tokina’s are worth looking at. All 3 ( 17-40, 10-22, 11-16) are within the same park price wise.
Replacing the 55-250 Id look at one of Canons four 70-200’s. F4 or F2.8 IS or no IS. The 70-200 f4 L (non IS) is extremely good, especially for the price.
if you want reach to add to your existing kit theres lots of options, you could add reach, specialty (macro), a fast prime for low light ( 50mm f1.8 or similiar for example). Would depend on your needs, interest and budget.
John-
I just want more options.
Budget I def would like to stay under a Dime and hopefully in the 500-800 range if possible. I think a wide angle could be cool for landscapes and up close fish shots.
My 2c
add to what you have by getting a 3rd lens that fits a specific need and has more than one application. Expand your kit (options) and then after adding 1 or 2 application specific lenses upgrade your existing lenses.Theres nothing wrong with upgrading at this point and you will notice a difference. However at the end of the day you will still have *for the most part* what your have now…and thats coverage from 18-250.
some possibilities under or around $1,000 retail (Canadian)
a) 100mm f2.8 Macro (doubles as a portrait lens and borderline low light lens)b) 85mm or 50mm f1.8 great portrait lenses, fast glass for shallow DoF,
I just picked up a sigma 50mm 1.4 last week and I cant wait to get out and shoot this weekend, Hopefully in a slam dunk bass hole. I will try to post some pics if i get out.
A buddy of mine that i fish with some Just picked up the sig 50mm 2.8 macro and it takes some killer shots! here are a few examples http://www.slick-stream.com/2010/10/10-16-10.html
Like others said the 10-22 is great!
I really love the Tokina 12-24 F4 also. It is around the 500 mark, but it is a fantastic lens , very sharp.
It also occurred to me that if are into primes .. The sigma 30mm 1.4 is a damn nice lens. I picked one up a few months ago. If you really want to throw-down you could put the canon 24mm 1.4 on that list.
…another vote for the Tokina 12-24. I never thought I’d buy a 3rd party lens until I did some research. This lens gets excellent reviews and is a great bang for the buck. The build quality is top notch and doesn’t look or feel cheesy. I picked a used one up in mint condition off craigslist for 400 bones.
Kyle..here’s a few with the 12-24 on the wide end. My skills probably don’t do the lens justice. Given the lenses you have now….you might want to spring for the 11-16mm as previously mentioned.
The IA member testimonials here have me so pumped I have to buy this Tokina 12-24 lens too, which means more SR filters too.
John any fast lens will do for indoor sports, problem will be focal length. Unless your right beside them its going to leave them distant, not frame filling…..not the end of the world.
depending on the sport and lighting I find f2.8 “borderline”. It wasnt fast enoguh for my daughters gymnastics (brutal lighting) barely fast enough for volleyball.
If all your looking for is reference. Heres a couple 85mm f1.2 shots of volleyball.
from back right corner so guessing 50 feet, lens wide open at f1.2, ISO 1,000 SS 1/1250th
same shooting positon so guessing 25 feet
ISO 1250, f1.2 1/1600th
and from beside the refs booth (basically courtside), so cross court maybe 25 feet
ISO 2000, f1.2 1/2000th
unless my math escapes me at the moment f2.8 would 2 2/3s stops slower. So top to bottom your f2.8 equivalents would be shooting at
ISO 1,000 1/200th
ISO 1,250 1/250th
ISO 2000John, those VB photos look a lot better than the action shots I tried during my daughters volleyball games last year. The indoor lighting wreaks a lot of action photos for me. Only a few shots came out great That was with a Tamron 28-80 mm lens. It was way too slow for action sports shots. Most action shots with the Tamron lens were way too blurry.
I am hoping my Canon 70-200 MM IS lens works much better for me indoors. It worked very well for action shots during outdoor soccer games this year. I know it is not for real close-ups for obvious reasons. Even for wildlife shots it was great for me this year.
If the Tokina 12-24 will work for close-up inddoors as well as wide angle outdoor shots, I would not hesitate to spend the money for it. I would even forgo another cane rod or another SxS shotgun for it. 🙂
The only real negative is I have to buy SR filters for another lens size.
BTW, are those photos touched-up with Photoshop CS5 or they the raw photos?
This was the best I could do with my Tamron lens…
volleyball by Wiflyfisher, on FlickrProcessed a bit.
White balance was corrected on some, standard sharpening, ( dont recal if theres any NR).rest of the shots here
http://jben.zenfolio.com/p553372392The problem your experiencing John is that your lens wasn’t “fast” enough. I’ve yet to shoot in a gymnasium (VB or gymnastics) that had even remotely decent lighting. If its the 70-200 f4, I wouldnt expect it to fare a lot better, all else equal.
In the absence of a “fast lens” (f2.8 and wider) your only recourse is to ramp up your iso. Depending on your body that may introduce unacceptable levels of noise. Most NR programs can do a good job these days of taming noise w/o destroying detail. If a little noise is present in your shots, some NR will clean it up, if theres a lot of noise you’ll have to decide between moderate NR or heavy NR which will start wiping out detail the more aggressive you are with NR.
Depending on the shots you want there are other things you can do. Time your shots so that jumpers are at their apex (hang time) and motion “slows” excluding their arms as they strike. etc, etc. If you work hard on tracking their torso you can “freeze” their body.Until your acheiving shutter speeds around 1/1000th and higher the ball and likekly limbs will suffer some motion blur.
1/1250th
regarding filters.
Its a good idea to buy filters for the largest lens you have, or think you’ll have. While the filter may be too big for smalled lenses, you can use step up rings with no problems.All my filters are 77mm (exlcuding a 4th cp thats 72mm). If I wanted to buy say Canons 16-35 which is an 82mm thread Id be replacing over 3 or 4 filters..At 350-450 each. Buying that lens today would cost me over 3g ( filters incl). It doesnt affect me because I havel little desire for that lens, however if it was on my “want” list every single filter ever bought would be 82mm and step up rings used to the 77mm lenses I own.
Last two questions….
1. What are “step up rings”?
2. How do you know if a lens is a “fast” lens for indoor shots?
What I hope to get is a wide angle lens that is also fast.
Thanks!
No problem.
Step up rings.
Are “rings” that fit one diamter (smaller) of lens on the male end and accept a larger screw in filter on the female end. They are adapters.All my filters with the exception of a B/W 72mm CP are 77mm filters. Most of my lenes are 77mm as well, except for a couple that are 72mm.
If I want to use a 77mm filter ( say my B/G CP) on a lens thats only 72mm, I use a 72>77mm “step up” ring. The ring fits on the end of th 72mm lens and the 77mm filter then screws in to the larger female end of the ring. As the filter is larger than the lens theres no issues optically. You cant for example use a smaller filter on a larger lens.
Step up rings cost about $15.Thus its best to buy the largest filters you think you need/want and if you want to use one on a smaller lens, you spend 15 bucks on the appropriate step up ring.
“Fast” enough.
Thats what Ive been trying to show 🙂f2.8 is “borderline” imo for indoor sports. Its useable but it will be hard getting above 1/500th in most standard gyms.
F1.8 is preferable. It will allow more light in resulting in higher shutter speeds all else equal. Good lenses are the 500mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8
As above at ISO 2000 and with a lens at f1.2 I was getting 1/1600th. Same lighting, same ISO; had I set the lens to f2.8 or used an f2.8 lens my SS would only have been 1/320th.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.