Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 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!

The Official "What lens for should I get" thread

profile picture
TaySwift
Posts: 3436 - Karma: 1,622
Seeing as i am in dire need of some new glass, and i see every now and then i see the WHAT LENS SHOULD I GET, so thought a thread for people to ask other people on what lens they should get would be better.
Please post in this format
WHAT CAMERA:
WHAT DO YOU NEED IT FOR?:
WIDE ANGLE/FISHEYE/MACRO/TELEPHOTO?:
PRICE RANGE:

FOR ME IT IS

WHAT CAMERA: Canon 60D
WHAT DO YOU NEED IT FOR?: A lens mainly for filming skiing, and just a nice sharp piece of glass.
WIDE ANGLE/FISHEYE/MACRO/TELEPHOTO? Wide angle most likely
PRICE RANGE: $250-$600



hopefully this kicks out. please anyone that has good knowledge of lenses try to help everyone out!
Dec 2 2011 9:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Rob.
Posts: 189 - Karma: 16
I'd suggest starting here: An (incomplete) list of EF lenses worth getting and lens buying guide
Dec 2 2011 9:48PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
Obvious answer is the tokina 11-16mm 2.8 unless you want the fisheye look then a sigma 10mm, simga 10-20mm, canon 15mm, rokinon 8mm or tokina 10-17mm would be a better choice. If you don't want a lens thats that wide and a little more versitile, a tamron 17-50mm 2.8 would be a solid wide-normal lens as is the canon 17-40mm f4L. Each of these lenses range in price and the prices reflect the quality for the most part.
Dec 2 2011 10:33PM
0 0
profile picture
TaySwift
Posts: 3436 - Karma: 1,622
wow, out of all my time lurking Media and arts, i have never seen this, thanks man

and the 11-16 was one i was thinking about, i need a good lens that will be a solid filming lens but will still take amazing photos, but i don't really want the whole fish eye shenanigans. What esle would compare to the 11-16?
Dec 2 2011 11:17PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
Nothing compares to the 11-16, big cinema companies have made put the 11-16 in a cinevised body its so good. Anything else as wide as the tokina will be a fisheye really...
Dec 2 2011 11:22PM
0 0
profile picture
the.cheat
Posts: 2859 - Karma: 171
i think you should add what do you already have? to the list of info, to help us.
Dec 3 2011 1:43PM
0 0
profile picture
HeadyTopper
Posts: 1170 - Karma: 97
Tokina 11-16.
Dec 3 2011 3:53PM
0 0
profile picture
HeadyTopper
Posts: 1170 - Karma: 97
anyone know when the 24-70L mk2 is coming out...?
Dec 4 2011 7:27PM
0 0
profile picture
chris.goodhue
Posts: 946 - Karma: 6,209
does anyone know anything about the sigma 10-20? need a wide angle but not looking to spend 600 for the 11-16
Dec 4 2011 10:15PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
The 10-20 is a solid choice if you want/are okay with some fisheye distortion. It's an overall great lens, very solid for the price. I will always recommend the 11-16 but if you can't afford it i'd say wait it out if you can. If you can't wait, get the 10-20.
Dec 4 2011 10:17PM
0 0
profile picture
Mkvackay
Posts: 1903 - Karma: 5,465
i have the 10-20mm. love it. but then again i did not do my research and do wish i would have gone with the tokina. still a really good lens for ~500
Dec 4 2011 10:32PM
0 0
profile picture
cwillygood
Posts: 6831 - Karma: 1,829
would it have the same amout of distortion as the canon EF-s 10-20??
Dec 5 2011 6:30AM
0 0
profile picture
EC-Skier
Posts: 3899 - Karma: 668
WHAT CAMERA: t2i
WHAT DO YOU NEED IT FOR?: skiing video and some nice pics also
WHAT DO YOU HAVE? kit lens, 50 1.8, takumar 135 3.5.
WIDE ANGLE/FISHEYE/MACRO/TELEPHOTO?: Probably telephoto
PRICE RANGE: At most i could probably do between 600 and 700
Dec 5 2011 11:52AM
0 0
profile picture
Ryan.246
Posts: 27 - Karma: 23
What Camera: 5d mk ii
What for: filming/ photographing skiing
What type: wide angle
Price range: 500-1300

Dec 5 2011 2:12PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
I'm guessing they'd be quite similar you might be wise to just search google.
Dec 5 2011 2:13PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
Sounds like a canon 70-200 f4 is what you need... unless you want a higher quality wide-normal zoom then a tamron 17-50 would be a good choice too.
Dec 5 2011 2:14PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
Oh lord, you have so many good options. At the top of your budget, but definitely one of the best canon lenses ever is the 24mm 1.4L you could also look at the canon 17-40mm 4L or even the canon 24-70. I'm not sure if you want wider than 24mm or 17mm (which is wide on full frame) but i think then a canon 15mm would be a good wider choice or the 16-35mm. All these lenses are pretty expensive, but you seem to have the budget for one fo them. I think the 16-35 might be the best wide range for you, i believe its much better than the 17-40 but the price reflects that. I don't know a ton about these lenses on the 5d, which is why I recommended so many but i know a couple 5d users are on here and they can add to what I have said.
Dec 5 2011 2:18PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,232
16-35 2.8L II

possibly the tokina 16-28 2.8, it's relatively and haven't heard much about it, but it's supposed to be nice.
Dec 5 2011 2:19PM
0 0
profile picture
kyleoutside
Posts: 103 - Karma: 95
on a similar topic... whats the difference between ef and ef-s mounts? I know it has something to do with distance from the sensor, but how does it effect the image?
Dec 5 2011 5:43PM
0 0
profile picture
123+ski
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
EF-S lenses are only for crop sensors. The flange distance is the same, but you are right that they also can get closer to the sensor. Haven't heard much of how they affect the image, but my guess is that it is on an individual lens level.
Dec 5 2011 5:53PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
ef-s lenses can cover a full frame sensor, they would vignette. They're usually cheaper lenses and have much smaller front/rear elements because of that. It does not effect image quality, the tokina 11-16 is an efs lens and its probably the best ultra wide angle on the market right now.
Dec 5 2011 5:55PM
0 0
profile picture
kyleoutside
Posts: 103 - Karma: 95
ok so for example, what would the difference between be between an 30 mm ef and 30mm ef-s, if any? (on an aps-c sensor, specifically the 7D)
Dec 5 2011 7:09PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
The 30mm ef-s could not be used on a 1d or 5d, the build will be different but the image will be similar. They both will have the same field of view, 30mm or ~48mm FF equivalent on a 7D.
Dec 5 2011 7:13PM
0 0
profile picture
kyleoutside
Posts: 103 - Karma: 95
so essentially the image will be the same? just the build, cost, etc...will be different? +k, thanks for the help
Dec 5 2011 7:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Jacuse
Posts: 1792 - Karma: 1,549
WHAT CAMERA: Canon 60d

WHAT DO YOU NEED IT FOR?: 70% video 30% photo, video is of skiing and short film type stuff...I'm a communications/film dual major. Also may try to do a few freelance type jobs in boston next semester.

WIDE ANGLE/FISHEYE/MACRO/TELEPHOTO?: In need of a telephoto, currently have tokina 11-16, tamron 17-50, and a nikon 50 f/1.8

PRICE RANGE: 700

I guess my big question is, 70-200 f/4 non IS or 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS? I know optically the 70-200 is better but considering that i will use it mostly for video is it worth it to get the 70-300 for the image stabilization? or do I go a totally different route?
Dec 5 2011 7:24PM
0 0
profile picture
TaySwift
Posts: 3436 - Karma: 1,622
17-40L or 11-16 tokina? Pros cons? Which one is better for filming/photography
Dec 25 2011 3:58PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
i mean your comparing apples and oranges. it depends on what your looking for. if you wan a really wide look, then the 11-16 is your lens. if you want more of a walk around lens that does a little bit of everything, then get the tamron 17-50 and save your money. I have heard that the tamron is a nicer lens then the canon 17-40 in many aspects.
Dec 25 2011 4:02PM
0 0
profile picture
TaySwift
Posts: 3436 - Karma: 1,622
Hmmm I want a good videography lens that will do well for photography as well, 70% video, 30% photo, price range I anything under $800
Dec 25 2011 4:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
it's faster, thats about it. The 17-40 is completely weather sealed, sharper, has better contrast and better colors, but it is an L lens so what do you expect.
Dec 25 2011 4:52PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
i have heard the colors on the tamron are better, but i have never really done a side by side comparison. i could be completley wrong, just gooing off some rumors.
Dec 25 2011 5:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
ive used both, I find the 17-40 much better then the tam
Dec 25 2011 5:13PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
hmm, good to know.
Dec 25 2011 5:16PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
But do you need a super wide lens or a wide-normal lens? what other lenses do you have?
Dec 25 2011 5:29PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
I own both, and I like the 11-16 a lot more. Sharper and wider. The 17-40 also has a lot less DoF compared to the 11-16; which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on perspective. Of course with the 17-40 you get that extra range which can be nice at times (I use my 17-40 at 35mm more than @17mm).
Dec 25 2011 5:50PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
then sell it and got a rokinon 35 1.4, its practically 35L IQ but fully manual

oh, and my 17-40 is still wider then your 11-16 ;) get on dat FF train mike
Dec 25 2011 6:04PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
cool story bro, we shoot video.
Dec 25 2011 6:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
cool story bromosexual, they do make FF cameras that shoot video
Dec 25 2011 6:11PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
that are plagued with issues upon issues....
Dec 25 2011 6:14PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
brb, shitting out $2k.

And I am in the process of trying to sell my 17-40, so if anyone wants it, get at me. $600 shipped. So on that topic...


WHAT CAMERA: T2i
WHAT DO YOU NEED IT FOR?: Video
WHAT DO YOU HAVE? Tokina 11-16, Canon 85mm, Canon 17-40 (But selling)
WIDE ANGLE/FISHEYE/MACRO/TELEPHOTO?: 30mm-50mm; prime or zoom
PRICE RANGE: After I sell the 17-40, $600.

Also, what do people think of the 24-105? Not sure if interested in it or not.
Dec 25 2011 6:15PM
0 0
profile picture
TaySwift
Posts: 3436 - Karma: 1,622
Really to be honest, i don't know what i want, i have tried out the 11-16 on mybuddies 7d and it was great but, right now i have a 11-16, so really anthing would be a step up,
Dec 25 2011 6:27PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
what other 11-16 do you have?
Dec 25 2011 6:34PM
0 0
profile picture
TaySwift
Posts: 3436 - Karma: 1,622
wowowowow DERRRRPPPPP
right now i have a 18-200, i was thinking of the 11-16 in my head
Dec 25 2011 6:36PM
0 0
profile picture
jkauffman22
Posts: 2592 - Karma: 1,150
Threads for future use
Dec 27 2011 3:38AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
Do you need a long lens? maybe you need to buy a samyang 35 (since you said you use the lens at 35 alot) and then get a 70-200? 24-105 could be nice but still 105 is your longest, you'll want 200.
Dec 27 2011 4:09AM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
An old Nikon or Pentax 50 1.4? I would probably look into the 24-105 since you won't have much in normal/telephoto, I thought they were more than $600 though. Maybe you're even interested in macro and you could go for a 60mm 2.8 macro, can double as a normal prime if you need it.
Dec 27 2011 4:56AM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
24-105 is definitely out of price range, and I'd prefer primes over zooms (low-light/sharper). Definitely will look into the 35mm though. And honestly, I cant think of too many situation where I would need the 200mm capabilities, unless I get into shooting big mountain (I won't). or portraits (even then, I would rather go with the 100mm macro)
Dec 27 2011 6:24PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,050
ive filmed 3 days and one day i shot primarly over 100mm tight shots can look really good
Dec 27 2011 6:49PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
Yeah I'm a big fan of tight shots too, but I find that they are much easier to fuck up.
Dec 27 2011 7:22PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
of course they are
Dec 27 2011 7:39PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
Exactly why I've been shooting at 11mm 90% of the time ha
Dec 27 2011 7:48PM
0 0
profile picture
TaySwift
Posts: 3436 - Karma: 1,622
okay
11-16 vs 10-22 canon? shoot!
differences?
Dec 27 2011 8:31PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)