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!

New Lens

profile picture
j.benziger
Posts: 689 - Karma: 8,026
I really could use some advice about a lens.
I am looking to purchase a nicer lens from my kit lens. I was looking to buy a Sigma 18-50 f/ 2.8-4.5 it is a good lens for filming skiing?
Could really use some help on this decision I am getting bored of my Nikon kit lens.
Sep 4 2012 12:38AM
0 0
profile picture
Belzebub
Posts: 451 - Karma: 812
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc. /thread
Sep 4 2012 7:24AM
0 0
profile picture
jeano
Posts: 333 - Karma: 104
10.5 fish is endless fun.... just sayin
Sep 4 2012 7:26AM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Hey, I acutally have that exact lens, 18-50 2.8-4.5. It is essentially the canon 18-55 if you already own that, but with one stop more of aperture (2.8 v 3.5 and 4.5 v 5.6). I like it but i'm sure it is not much better than the kit lens you already own. Are you more into wide angle shots or more zoomed in telephoto shots? What's your budget?
Sep 4 2012 7:36AM
0 0
profile picture
j.benziger
Posts: 689 - Karma: 8,026
I am looking for a wide angle and my budget is around $300
Sep 4 2012 10:57AM
0 0
profile picture
B.Taillefer
Posts: 420 - Karma: 321
Definitely a Rokinon 8mm!

Its a sweet little fish eye and a great wide angle for the price, which is around $300!
Sep 4 2012 2:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Jelle
Posts: 337 - Karma: 715
Im looking at buying that lens, but what makes you want the non VC over the VC? Just a question! because im considering one of those two, so whats better about the non VC?


Sep 4 2012 3:01PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
non vc is cheaper and sharper.
Sep 4 2012 3:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Jelle
Posts: 337 - Karma: 715
thanks yo!
Sep 4 2012 3:58PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
If you want something wider than the 18-55 then get the 14mm 2.8 or 8mm by rokinon. If you want a replacement for it go for the 17-50 2.8 non VC. If you want longer go for a 85mm prime by rokinon or something else
Sep 4 2012 5:22PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
The 8mm is a fisheye, so only get the 8mm if you want a fisheye. The 14mm not a good lens, wrought with distortion. if you want an UWA save up for the tokina.
Sep 4 2012 5:32PM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
knowledge right here. i wish my tokina could birth my child, its lovely
Sep 4 2012 6:03PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
You can easily correct distortion, and it's about half the price of the tokina...
Sep 5 2012 11:46AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61648 - Karma: 123,472
in photos... not worth it IMO. money well spent on lenses is worth every penny.
Sep 5 2012 11:49AM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
While it's out there would it be worth getting the tamron 17-50 VC if it was less than the tamron 17-50 non VC? I'm thinking still the non vc would be a better choice yeah?
Sep 5 2012 11:52AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61648 - Karma: 123,472
the vc will be more expensive. non vc is the way to go
Sep 5 2012 11:55AM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
Yeah, I was planning on getting the non vc based on sharpness comparisons I've seen, but in this case the vc version IS cheaper.
Sep 5 2012 11:59AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61648 - Karma: 123,472
where? every time ive looked at this lens its always a couple hundred more. id still go for non vc, im guessing the one you found isnt that much cheaper
Sep 5 2012 12:04PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Look at this. The non VC tamron for 300 bucks in good condition used.
a much better deal.\

Sep 5 2012 12:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
Yeah I found it weird, but it's only $20/30, but yeah I'm just gonna go for the non vc, just needed confirmation thanks.
Sep 5 2012 12:06PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61648 - Karma: 123,472
I wouldn't recommend buying lenses out of the united states unless its vintage. You definitely can save 40-50 bucks on the tamron buying it from japan/china, but it could bite you back in the long run if you had an issue with it.
Sep 5 2012 2:38PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
Not the terrible complex distortion that that lens renders, it's also not very sharp.
Sep 5 2012 2:42PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Are there any good wide angle lenses cheaper than the 11-16 that are still good quality?
Sep 5 2012 5:14PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
I think there's a vintage tokina MF prime that a lot of people like, but I don't know how well it performs - a lot of people like the rokinon 14 too, but I wouldn't ever purchase it personally. I think the thing to do is save up - the Tokina 11-16 can't be beat. It has a little bit of simple distortion, but not enough to be able to notice in video, you really aren't going to find a lens that performs better on all fronts for the price (or anywhere near it)
Sep 5 2012 5:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
That Is very cheap.
Sep 5 2012 5:19PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
The tokina is 600 bucks. is there anything for like 3-4-5 hundred other than the rokinon that is good?
Sep 5 2012 5:39PM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
Honestly dude, its worth just getting the Tokina, its a lens that once you add to your collection you will never have to upgrade.
Sep 5 2012 6:52PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Would you say I should upgrade to a tokina or a 17-50 2.8 first?
Sep 6 2012 11:52AM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
which focal length are you going to use more?
Sep 6 2012 12:15PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
unless you go full frame
Sep 6 2012 12:55PM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Have you ever even used it? Sure it has some mustache distortion, but no one will see that as long as you're not shooting architecture. If you're going to shoot anything sports-related/follow cam, the 14mm is a good lens.

Alternative is Tokina 17mm RMC.
Sep 6 2012 1:17PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
yes.
Sep 6 2012 1:20PM
0 0
profile picture
chacharlie
Posts: 228 - Karma: 20
Tokina 12-24 is a very good lens, if you don't need the f2.8 of the 11-16. I bought mine for $300 used, you might be able to find it even cheaper now.
Sep 6 2012 1:29PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
Sorry, should clarify - yes I have, and for video of skiing it's passable for sure... I still think it's not worth it though, personally.
Sep 6 2012 1:31PM
0 0
profile picture
zahava
Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039
Please learn your shit or stop posting, you are spreading SO MUCH FALSE INFORMATION.

Sincerely,
M/A of NS
Sep 6 2012 1:53PM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
indeed
Sep 6 2012 2:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Belzebub
Posts: 451 - Karma: 812
.
Sep 6 2012 3:03PM
0 0
profile picture
123+ski
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
I had heard of some people using it on the 5d mark 2 because it covers at 16mm, and they said for the quality it was an awesome price. But I would assume that this is something done more by the hdslr users who shoot on both 7d's and 5d's, or are transitioning to full frame
Sep 6 2012 5:14PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Wow that's a great deal. Do they normally go for that low?
Is it better than tamron/sigma 10-24/10-20?
Sep 7 2012 10:19PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
It's true i am spreading tons of false information. $300 is not half of $600, and you cannot correct distortion in photoshop. They are utter lies. I apologize for spreading so much false information.
Sep 7 2012 10:24PM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
stop
Sep 7 2012 11:33PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61648 - Karma: 123,472
i hate you
Sep 8 2012 4:56AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
You can correct simple distortion in photoshop, but you can NOT fix the complex distortion of the Rok 14. You also can't make it sharper.

Learn what you're talking about before you come back at someone like that, and don't get cocky. Because, yes, you are still wrong.

The UWA from other companies, like the ones you mentioned, also have terrible complex distortion. The Sigma even looks bad on video when the subject ends up in the corners, because they sacrificed a LOT to get that lens to render a 10mm image.
Sep 8 2012 2:35PM
0 0
profile picture
jeb_b_vt
Posts: 1047 - Karma: 1,294
What about the tamron 19-35? Is that a pretty good wide angle lens?
Sep 8 2012 4:42PM
0 0
profile picture
B.Taillefer
Posts: 420 - Karma: 321
It is a pretty decent lens, but there is a reason EVERYONE recommends the tokina 11-16, simply because it can not be beat for the price even remotely, and not even really for the optics. Like the Canon 16-35mm or the Nikon 14-24mm are the only UWA lenses I would even consider other than the tokina, and both of those lenses are very expensive (around 1500 for the canon and 2 grand for the Nikon), so I don't really see the point when you could have an absolutely unbelievable lens for much less than half the price of either of the other lenses.
Sep 9 2012 10:35PM
0 0
profile picture
TaranItUp
Posts: 1313 - Karma: 802
Anyone have a recommendation of a trustworthy place to buy the tokina? I am in need of an UWA. Thank you.
Sep 9 2012 11:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Sklar
Posts: 8864 - Karma: 31,612
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search/mode/edu?Ntt=tokina+11-16mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ta
Sep 9 2012 11:42PM
0 0
profile picture
TaranItUp
Posts: 1313 - Karma: 802
Thank you very much, I heard many people have acquired this lens for 650 dollars, where might you find this lens for that price?
Sep 9 2012 11:51PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)