• Forums
  • Media And Arts
  • FS - ALL MY GLASS (well kind of) Rokinon 35mm, Canon 70-200, Tokina 11-16 & Rokinon 8mm

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!

FS - ALL MY GLASS (well kind of) Rokinon 35mm, Canon 70-200, Tokina 11-16 & Rokinon 8mm

profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
Hi M&A

Im making the switch to 100% Nikon adaptable glass!

I am going to try and find some buyers for these lenses, im not interested in selling right away just seeing if there's any interest. I know I need these lenses for Whistlers opening day but after that I will be selling all of them.

70-200 2.8 non IS:
Body condition: 9.5/10 - Lens cap has tiny crack on the side
Glass condition: 9/10 - not 10/10 because its not new
Price $1050 OBO
Click for larger image
Click for larger image
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Body Condition: 9.5/10
Glass Condition: 9.5/10 - filter since day one
Price: $550 OBO
Click for larger image
Click for larger image
Rokinon 35mm 1.4
Body Condition: 9.95/10 - have had it for just over a month
Glass Condition: 9.95/10 - Pretty much new
Price: $425 OBO
Click for larger image
Rokinon 8mm fisheye
Body Condition: 8/10 - Sun blocker is cracked in half
Glass Condition: 9/10
Price: $225 OBO
Click for larger image
Click for larger image

Additional info:
-All lenses besides the 8mm come with original boxes and manuals
-Buyer pays shipping
-Paypal only, buyer pays paypal fee

Thanks guys!
-Zac
Nov 7 2012 8:00PM
4 0
profile picture
Sklar
Posts: 8864 - Karma: 31,612
1st
kind of want the fish
Nov 7 2012 8:05PM
0 0
profile picture
jkauffman22
Posts: 2592 - Karma: 1,150
Really interested in the 35. Thinking about trying to sell some stuff. May I ask why you're getting rid of so much?
Nov 7 2012 9:15PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Did u read the OP? He is switching to nikon. Probably going to GH2/GH3
Nov 7 2012 9:21PM
0 0
profile picture
jkauffman22
Posts: 2592 - Karma: 1,150
Yeah sorry, just actually went back and read it after walking back to my dorm. My problem
Nov 7 2012 9:22PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Not a big deal, i was just making sure u didnt miss it.
Nov 7 2012 9:22PM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
Dibs on fish.
Nov 7 2012 9:36PM
0 0
profile picture
SSteezle
Posts: 9297 - Karma: 7,702
couldn't imagine selling the 35, easily my favorite lens
Nov 7 2012 9:56PM
0 0
profile picture
NPF
Posts: 5152 - Karma: 12,116
fuck... i wish i had money hahaha....
Nov 7 2012 10:04PM
0 0
profile picture
mBall
Posts: 1690 - Karma: 2,827
Dang all these 11-16s going up... Ahhh
Nov 7 2012 11:16PM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Why don't you just get an electronical adapter Zac? Much cheaper solution. And on top of that you're used to your glass now (and the way they focus...)
Nov 8 2012 1:11AM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Also, how the fuck haven't I seen a single 11-16 in Canon mount in the last two years I've been actively in M&A and now all of a sudden 3 pop up in a week?
Nov 8 2012 1:12AM
0 0
profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
Id rather re invest in Nikon adaptable glass, Canon glass is not adaptable to anything without buying an expensive adapter, even then Nikon glass is adaptable to almost anything with a cheap 20-50$ adapter.
Nov 8 2012 1:22AM
0 0
profile picture
h.robarge
Posts: 1284 - Karma: 1,800
Bump. Wish I had 20 dollars more
Nov 8 2012 11:18AM
0 0
profile picture
807.
Posts: 74 - Karma: 27
I am actually really interested in the 35mm
Nov 8 2012 12:23PM
0 0
profile picture
Gknow
Posts: 627 - Karma: 358
Why the change to nikon?

Also, will pm you about some stuff....
Nov 8 2012 5:36PM
0 0
profile picture
cwillygood
Posts: 6831 - Karma: 1,829
ahhh do i get this 35mm or a 50mm......
Nov 8 2012 5:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
The 35mm is easily one of my favorite lenses now.
Nov 8 2012 6:54PM
0 0
profile picture
markc
Posts: 367 - Karma: 540
Still have the 8 mill
Nov 15 2012 12:15AM
0 0
profile picture
NickVentura
Posts: 243 - Karma: 1,229
Which lens is better for filming skiing and landscapes, the Tokina 11-16 mm Wideangle or the Rokinon 8mm fisheye?
Nov 15 2012 7:04AM
0 0
profile picture
BA.berger
Posts: 300 - Karma: 300
The Tokina
Nov 15 2012 8:25AM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
No lol. One's a fisheye and one's an UWA. They're used for different things....
Nov 15 2012 2:50PM
0 0
profile picture
Belzebub
Posts: 451 - Karma: 812
He asked what lens would be the best for both landscape and skiing, and thats obviously the tokina
Nov 15 2012 2:53PM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
Although I personally wouldn't shoot landscapes with a fisheye, people do it. And skiing can obviously be shot on a fisheye. It depends on the look you want....
Nov 15 2012 2:57PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
People that don't know what they are doing do it.

The only time I've seen a fisheye landscape that worked has been long exposures with stars in them. Most landscape photos are shot somewhere in the middle or longer range of focal lengths, it compresses the space a little and gives a more accurate sense of proportion. I remember reading about Galen Rowell being really upset that he had to put a 20mm on his camera to shoot one of his famous images of El Cap
Nov 15 2012 3:24PM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
if you wanna look like an amateur then you should use a fisheye
Nov 15 2012 4:55PM
0 0
profile picture
MLeone
Posts: 725 - Karma: 72
I agree with what both of you said. All I'm saying is that if he deeeeeeeeply wants to to film skiing with a fisheye his landscapes wont be traditional but they also wont be ruined. I said I'd go with the tokina, I'm just saying that the fisheye is still a very minor possibility. google fisheye landscapes, there's some good stuff.
Nov 16 2012 6:16AM
0 0
profile picture
NickVentura
Posts: 243 - Karma: 1,229
I think ill get the tokina then eventually get a fisheye. Thanks for the input guys +K
Nov 16 2012 11:34AM
0 0
profile picture
s.erickson
Posts: 504 - Karma: 992
Lenses have nothing to do with spacial compression, only the placement of the lens affects spacial relationships.

And to whoever said he'll look like an amateur shooting on a fish, that's ridiculous. I personally love the fisheye look, it just comes down to taste
Nov 16 2012 2:00PM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
Fair enough. I have never seen a edit with a good use of a fish eye
Nov 16 2012 9:39PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
The only instances where I've seen tasteful use of a fisheye are when it's A) static, and B) used as an effect to intentionally curve straight, repeating geometric lines or cells (usually architecture).
Nov 16 2012 9:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Malcolm
Posts: 15951 - Karma: 9,451
Do you have an example of this? I'm intrigued
Nov 16 2012 10:37PM
0 0
profile picture
sweatshirt
Posts: 1357 - Karma: 483
Click for larger image
Nov 16 2012 10:42PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Click for larger image

Like I said, when used specifically for an effect fisheyes can be very tasteful. But using one as a means to achieve a wider FOV just looks awful to me. Rectilinear is much more suiting in that scenario, and is more versatile because it can be used in the above instance with great results as well.
Nov 16 2012 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
ya i agree with you pandysloo, i was speaking pretty specifically about the hordes of skate edits and ski/snowboard edits filmed with horrendous fisheyes. I do thoroughly enjoy those pictures but like you said, in a video they would really only work as static shots.
Nov 16 2012 10:47PM
0 0
profile picture
sweatshirt
Posts: 1357 - Karma: 483
IMO fisheyes are an awesome tool in a photographers bag but is obviously not a replacement for a normal UWA.. they can be used in many settings not traditionally thought to support the fish eye look, including weddings!

Click for larger image

Nov 16 2012 10:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Malcolm
Posts: 15951 - Karma: 9,451
Those are sick. I'll come off as a complete film noob but I used to love fisheyes because they were easier to keep the skier in the shot, made everything look bigger and made everything look skateboardy.
Nov 16 2012 11:00PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
I think it can work with movements tracking inward and outward, as the shapes will grow/contract from the center of the frame rather than shapeshifting like a 90's lava lamp screen saver from panning, tilting, or moving the camera laterally.
Nov 16 2012 11:00PM
0 0
profile picture
SNP_CREW
Posts: 249 - Karma: 495
whats still available?
Nov 17 2012 12:41AM
0 0
profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
I love how my FS thread turned into a debate about fisheyes
Nov 17 2012 1:26AM
0 0
profile picture
Sklar
Posts: 8864 - Karma: 31,612
pm'd you yo
Nov 17 2012 4:16AM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
Exactly. And you perfectly described why fisheyes are generally disliked here, if that makes sense.

The fact that they are easy to film with and make everything look "bigger" (which the riders love) leads to a really, really lazy filmer. People get stuck in a rut where they just start doing follow cams or posting up on the side of the feature for a low angle and all creativity goes out the window.
Nov 17 2012 5:09AM
0 0
profile picture
BA.berger
Posts: 300 - Karma: 300
haha, thats because some brilliant idiot said a fisheye would be better for filming skiing and landscape than the tokina,..
Nov 17 2012 6:54AM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
i mean, it was a more interesting topic considering I'm not looking to buy any canon lenses
Nov 17 2012 7:27AM
0 0
profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
True
Nov 17 2012 8:44AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
Well, ok, I see where you're going with this, but calling me out for what's essentially semantics is pointless. Of course if you stand in the same place with a 300mm lens and shoot an image and a 30mm lens and shoot an image, you can crop the image from the 30 to the composition you got with your 300 and it's the "same"

But to shoot the same subject (IE, a landscape) wide vs. long, you're going to have to change the "placement of the lens". So yea, the lens doesn't, on it's own, compress the space, but how you use it does.... which is basically the same shit. You know what I meant.
Nov 17 2012 2:55PM
0 0
profile picture
J-Munz
Posts: 207 - Karma: 1,059
Interested in the 70-200 2.8.. let me know when you're selling!
Nov 17 2012 4:41PM
0 0
profile picture
s.erickson
Posts: 504 - Karma: 992
Ah yeah sorry wasn't trying to be a jerk, I just get annoyed by that misconception
Nov 18 2012 10:46PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
haha, sorry I thought you were.
Nov 19 2012 12:26AM
0 0
profile picture
Downtofilm
Posts: 6896 - Karma: 20,395
Time to sell!!

BUMP!
Dec 22 2012 1:10AM
0 0
profile picture
jibcrew1
Posts: 1505 - Karma: 522
could be very interested in the 8mm pm me
Dec 22 2012 5:07PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)