Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Hesitating between 3 lens for Canon T3i

profile picture
B1kessk1s
Posts: 953 - Karma: 691
1. tokina 11-16mm f2.8

2. canon 70-200mm f4L

3. canon 24-105 f4L

already have the 18-55m (use the 18mm for follows) and the 50mm f1.8

i can have them used for the same price so wich one would be the best for skiing considering the 2 lens i already have.

Aug 30 2011 7:23AM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,329
I'd get the tele (70-200) seeing that you don't have anything in that range yet. I fucking love my 70-200, such a bomb focal length
Aug 30 2011 8:01AM
0 0
profile picture
B1kessk1s
Posts: 953 - Karma: 691
do you have footage with this lens? and even if it is the non IS version, does the image looks fluid on a tripod.....
Aug 30 2011 8:45AM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Jamie has the f/2.8, so it's not really comparable. Check out the thread on the 70-200 Canon's. There's some examples of the f/4.
Aug 30 2011 11:26AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61648 - Karma: 123,472
Yes, its on a tripod.
Aug 30 2011 12:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Galin
Posts: 2342 - Karma: 3,940
I use the 2.8 non IS a fair amount. You're going to want a pretty decent tripod and the collar mount for the 70-200 so there's better weight distribution on the tripod. You're not going to be shooting freehand with that lens for the most part but it's real perdy on a tripod.
Aug 30 2011 12:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Jeff_Lo
Posts: 5809 - Karma: 263
I'm selling the IS Version!  And also have footage samples.  70-200 that is.
Aug 30 2011 7:04PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
you got 3 very good lenses there OP. Here's the order I'd buy them in, unless you have money for all 3:

70-200. I'd get an f/4 IS version.
11-16. Lens is fucking amazing on a crop sensor
24-105. Good lens, but I'd much rather have the f/4 IS 70-200
Aug 30 2011 7:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
In my opinion get the 24-105, one of the sickest lenses.
My setup is almost complete I purchased the 11-16 the other day and all I need now is a 70-200 and Im set.
Aug 30 2011 7:17PM
0 0
profile picture
S.C
Posts: 3068 - Karma: 2,285
selling a 70-200 currently in my thread, look and buy! cheap!
Aug 30 2011 7:21PM
0 0
profile picture
andstuff
Posts: 1118 - Karma: 61
If you already have an 18-55, getting the 28-105 would be redundant. Remember that 3 lenses is a full kit, and with an 11-16, 18-155, and 70-200 you will have all your bases covered.

In any case, the best lens out of those three is the 11-16 (optically speaking). 70-200 is meh; works well but overpriced as hell.
Aug 30 2011 8:27PM
0 0
profile picture
B1kessk1s
Posts: 953 - Karma: 691
one of my friend ( professionnal photographer) told me to get the Tamron 17-270mm f3.5-6.3 VC PZD. he says i cant have something better for the price (500$).....

now my question is:

tamron 17-270mm f3.5-6.3 VC PZD

Canon 70-200 f4L non IS

i already have the kit lens(canon 18-55mm) but there is space between the focus rig and the zoom.. so when i zoom out or manually focus, it gives the impression that i dont use a tripod.(shaky)
Aug 31 2011 10:34AM
0 0
profile picture
sector_6_films
Posts: 144 - Karma: 75
film with my 70-200 i use a homemade shoulder mound for my camera it works really well

Aug 31 2011 10:39AM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,840
Don't get that tamron. I can't claim to have ever ever used it, but there are a couple issues I can see with it. Many superzooms like that will suffer from some sort of image problems, and variable aperture is the worst obstacle to deal with as far as DSLR filming goes.
Aug 31 2011 1:53PM
0 0
profile picture
andstuff
Posts: 1118 - Karma: 61
As a general rule, the larger range a lens has, the more optical flaws it will have.

Also, you don't have to cover every focal length. Right now I have an 11-16, 50mm, and 70-200, and I have "full coverage" (although a 28mm is handy sometimes).

Plus, the Tamron doesn't have a constant aperture, so I definitely wouldn't recommend it. For $500 you can do better.
Aug 31 2011 2:22PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61648 - Karma: 123,472
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. I would slap the shit out of your friend if i ever saw him.
Aug 31 2011 2:28PM
0 0
profile picture
B1kessk1s
Posts: 953 - Karma: 691
ahahha he was suggesting it because he tried it once for photography and liked it from 50 to 200mm
Aug 31 2011 2:44PM
0 0
profile picture
B1kessk1s
Posts: 953 - Karma: 691
finally im just gonna wait and get the Canon 70-200mm F4L IS
Aug 31 2011 5:01PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,329
Meh, if you're doing almost all video and have a tripod collar I don't see why you will need IS, it might be better to save your money. I hope you will exclusively be using that lens on a tripod.
Sep 2 2011 2:03AM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
If you're shooting on a sub $1k tripod, its not gonna be very fluid. Especially on a telephoto lens because the shakes will really stand out. IS really makes all the difference
Sep 2 2011 2:10AM
0 0
profile picture
andstuff
Posts: 1118 - Karma: 61
A camera is only as good as its support. Shooting telephoto on a cheap tripod will be quite the brownfest.
Sep 2 2011 4:22AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)