Messages

31

Lenses / Re: What should my next lens be?

« on: February 16, 2012, 05:01:35 AM »

I would agree that you should look to increase your range before upgrading your current lens.  I shoot with the 17-55 2.8 efs and still often need a flash indoors.  I noticed you have many pictures of your dog on flickr.  The 70-200 will change your world in getting better candids of your dog.  Here's an example from the 70-200 f/4 IS:

Thanks. I do need to get a flash. Does anyone have recommendations of flash for me? I was just gonna grab a used 320 or 270 in the meantime.

I vote for option 3:  70-200mm f/4.  Cover the range you NEED before upgrading.

If you got the 70-200 f/4, would you still go after the 100mm f/2?  If the answer is no, then the 100mm f/2 is not worth the detour.  Getting the 70-200 would also let you reevaluate whether or not you need the 100mm prime.

If you're happy with the 50mm f/1.4 to cover your midrange, why would you consider replacing the 17-40 with the 24-70?  Losing 7mm at the wide end is significant unless you don't need that range.  If the 17-40 is not fast enough for you (assuming indoor use), then you might want to consider a faster wide prime to supplement your kit at the wide end.

That makes sense. I don't know if I'd pick the 135 over the 100 if I had the 70-200mm. I'd have to see what I needed, but you're right that it's a waste to bother with primes until I have that range covered.

I gave up on the f/2.8 zooms for now, I've had most all of them, and in low light they do not allow fast enough shutter speeds for moving subjects, even with my 5D MK II.  They are fine in well lit sporting fields, its theatres or dimly lit buildings that are just too dark.

So I use my 70-200mm f/4 IS outdoors and use fast primes indoors.  Since you have 50mm, a 28mm f/1.8 , and a 85mm or 100mm prime might be the next step.  You can buy the 85mm f/1.8 and a 28mm f/1.8 for about the price of the 70-200mm f/4L


As soon as you get dancers in almost darkness, it takes a fast prime, high ISO, and slower shutter speed than I'd like to capture a image.  Lots of motion blur here.

5D MK II  ISO 3200,  135mm L @f/2  and 1/125 sec

Thanks for the suggestion. That's one of the ideas I had been throwing around in my head but was too worried it might sound dumb! I'll definitely try this then. I've ordered the 70-200 f/4L and I'm going to try a lot of things with it when I get here and see if there's an improvement.  That picture is beautiful! Another reason I want the 5D MK II. Sadly, that camera is out of my price range for the time being.

 

32

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Off Lighting/Color With 7D

« on: February 15, 2012, 11:14:28 PM »

I have issues with colors because I edit on really high quality, color accurate monitors (Macbook Pro and Dell UltraSharp). Everything looks perfect on them but when I go to look at the photos on normal monitors they look desaturated.

Have you calibrated your monitors with a spectrometer (Datacolor Spyder, X-Rite i1, etc.)?  I ask because the standard MacBook Pro display profile (Color LCD) is very saturated and high-contrast, and the black-point is high (the bottom ~15 gray levels are indistinguishable, as are the top ~10).  Apple makes consumer products, and 'typical' consumers like 'vibrant and punchy' displays, not accurate color  I certainly wouldn't call the default MBP display 'color-accurate' - far from it!  After calibrating my 17" MBP with an i1 Display 2, the saturation is less, the contrast lower, and I can distinguish all 256 gray levels.

No I haven't! I should try that. Where do you buy them?

33

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Off Lighting/Color With 7D

« on: February 15, 2012, 11:12:21 PM »

With pictures 1, 2, 3, and the last one, the subjects are light poorly. try shooting with your subject not backlight. Try shooting at either earlier or later in the day. Get the sun shining on your object; point your shadow at the subject to know if it is light well.

What does subject not backlight mean?

Also I can't really control the time of day in those pictures, unfortunately.

7 is a dull picture because there is no clear purpose to the image; when everything is on focus, nothing is in focus. You need the background to provide the eye a visual cue that there is depth to the scene. Use the 50 1.4 @ 1.4 as much as possible. It will help you develop this vision.

The purpose of 7 is to show what is there, I did not want anything blurred out for depth of field. Good tip, though.

#8 isn't bad, but would be better if the foreground were either black or lighter.

#9 would be better with a better foreground.

#10 would be better if you had pointed the camera  toward the ground a little more...

Hope this helps! What makes a good picture is not high saturation as much as it is subtle details as listed above; keep working at it! You are getting there!!!

Very helpful!
 Thanks.

34

Lenses / What should my next lens be?

« on: February 15, 2012, 10:14:29 PM »

I have wanted to replace my 17-40mm with a 24-70mm for awhile now. However, I've also wanted a telephoto. I can't afford the 70-200 f/2.8 but I can get a used 70-200 f/4. I have a 50mm f/1.4 right now to cover my medium range. I do need a telephoto zoom but I had wanted to wait until I could afford the f/2.8. I also considered, in the mean time, getting a 100mm prime lens to tide me over.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby

I would like a wider aperture for indoors use with my main lens (the 17-40). I'm just not sure. Can anyone help me with the pros and cons?

Contenders:

• Sell 17-40mm and buy 24-70mm f/2.8
• Buy 100mm f/2 prime.
• Suck it up and buy a 70-200mm f/4 even if I do sell it later.

35

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Off Lighting/Color With 7D

« on: February 15, 2012, 09:43:17 PM »

Adding to what Neuro had mention, it would be better if you could get down to the same level as the dog to take your shot. Those shot you have taken look flat to you because this is how we normally view dogs from a standing point, thus it becomes a common view. You might also try getting closer shot of the dog, using lower f value. By doing so, you can focus on the dog and blur out the background.

I liked the shots where I could do that. Part of the problem was he kept running towards me when I kneeled down.  Good suggestion. I might try getting a simple low-to-the-ground tripod so I can distract him myself and get the shot.

Pay attention to the background.  Look at the shots you think are flat - dark dog against gravel, sand, and grass, brown bottle against light brown countertop.  Then look at the ones you like - dark dog against snow, white clouds against blue sky, etc.  Contrast is the key, and the lack of contrast between subject and background results in a flat look, even if you push saturation (FWIW, I prefer to push vibrance, as I think it adds 'pop' without looking overdone).

Ooh, that's a good suggestion. I'll start paying more attention to background now.

I think that improvement suggestions would best be given for each image. 

However, as a general comment, lighting is the issue in all of them, light objects and shadows require you to chose to expose for one or the other.  Thats why you hear camera owners wishing for more "DR".  DR (Dynamic Range) simply put, is what allows dark and bright objects to still retain detail in a image.  If yoou have more DR, then you can have a good image with both very bright areas as well as shadows.

The second thing is when you have lots of white or gray in a image, it fools the camera as to what the true color is, and sometimes makes the image appear underexposed and dull.

Thirdly, a bright background will almost require some exposure compensation because the camera will reduce the exposure and make your subject too dark.  Shoot with light from your back or at least from the side.

In the event that you have no choice of having a bright background.  Then you need to manually increase the exposure so that the bright background is overexposed, but the subject is correctly exposed.

You can also shoot in RAW and use software like Lightroom or other excellent photographic editing software to lighten shadow areas and darken bright areas.  This reduces contrast, but you can add clarity which increases contrast of the edges to make the subject pop out.  All of these are basically adjustments to the lighting.

Hmm, interesting. Thanks. I always worry about the background being over-exposed. I'll practice tomorrow and see how things turn out. I have a copy of photoshop, I don't use lightroom (tried the trial)  because it adds every little change you make to the exif data.

Your pictures don't look bad at all to me! Even the "dull" ones.

A couple of ideas:

1) For SOME of the "dull" ones, you might have been better off opening up the aperture a bit to blur off the background, if you like that effect. (I do.)

2) I cheat with my 7D. I NEVER post-process at all, but I *do* shoot with the colour saturation increased by a couple of notches. It's probably "naughty" but I love bright colours and I prefer the results it gives.

Best of luck; I'm sure others will have better suggestions!

That's a neat way of "cheating". I have issues with colors because I edit on really high quality, color accurate monitors (Macbook Pro and Dell UltraSharp). Everything looks perfect on them but when I go to look at the photos on normal monitors they look desaturated. I have to find a happy medium. Speaking of aperture, I've been considering selling my 17-40 and buying a 24-70 lens to get a wider aperture (and because it takes crisper images). Would you think this is a good idea too?

36

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Off Lighting/Color With 7D

« on: February 15, 2012, 06:43:40 PM »

Not sure if this is the right section for this. I need a critique.

I've taken some photos that I consider to be excellent and others that I just sit there wondering how I could have screwed up so bad. I'm not a professional, just someone who likes taking pictures of things, but I would like to be able to make each picture look crisp, clear, and rich in color. I shoot manual. I just don't know what I'm doing wrong here so I'm coming to you guys. I have a 50mm f/1.4 and the 17-40mm f/4L.

Almost all of my photos have the exif data available on flickr, I'm just posting some examples here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby

This one feels incredibly "dull" to me. I did very little post processing (changed the white balance) afterward and just uploaded it to deal with it. I can't figure out why it seems dull.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby/6883229995/#in/photostream/


In this one I want his coat to pop out and be more defined, but he's almost invisible compared to the ducks in the background.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby/6883198981/#in/photostream/


Again, really "dull".
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby/6832025137/#in/photostream/


Another dull one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby/6854830319/#in/photostream



Here are some examples of photos that turned out well for me:




This one was shot in bright daylight, I changed the aperture and shutter speed to make it look like it was dark:





It seems like the biggest problem I have is shooting specific objects. I'm pretty decent at shooting scenes, but whenever I have a person or an animal that's supposed to be front and center I falter. Any tips for this?

37

Lighting / Re: I Need a Flash

« on: February 09, 2012, 01:24:03 AM »

I'm not sure. I have a 7D. I do shoot horses but I don't think I'd be using my flash when I shoot shows.

That's a good tip. The 430 was the alternative I was looking at.  I wasn't even aware that yongnuo made flashes!

38

Lighting / I Need a Flash

« on: February 09, 2012, 01:12:34 AM »

I was originally planning to just wait until I could afford a 580 flash, but I'm kind of getting desperate without a proper flash. I'd need it mostly for in doors situations (such as inside a horse barn or in my small 1500 square foot house). In the house I'd probably point it at the ceiling to light up the whole room instead of directly at something. I will mostly be using it at night, in rooms that are relatively small (largest one is my loft at 500 square feet). I shoot animals and people.

Should I still wait even though I wanted to to get a new lens, or is there one you guys can recommend to me that's cheaper?

39

United States / Telephoto Zoom or Prime?

« on: November 02, 2011, 03:26:26 AM »

I'm torn right now. I cannot afford a $1500+ lens, but I find myself in need of a telephoto with a wide aperture (indoor horse shows).  Perhaps the 100mm or 200mm f/2.8L. Both are great lenses and people I know swear by them. My budget is extremely tight for this, as I'm also saving up money to get a 5D Mk ii next year. I was initially looking at the 70-200mm f/2.8L without IS, used. Is it worth it to pay the extra $500+ it would cost me for that lens or should I save money and stick with a prime? I use a 7D.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby

Thanks.

40

United States / Re: What should my first prime lens be?

« on: November 02, 2011, 03:20:37 AM »

I much preferred the 1.4 and bought that used for a decent price. Ultimately I wanted the best bokeh and I could not afford the 1.2. It depends on your budget. If you want to save more for another lens, I'd definitely recommend going for the 1.8, as the extra couple hundred bucks would have really helped me pay for an extra lens. If your budget isn't affected by that, and you want the best bokeh, go for the 1.4. 1.8 is a fantastic general prime lens though. It's all up to preference.

41

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: August 02, 2011, 11:18:10 PM »

Well, my budget is complicated. I don't want to spend over $500 on the tripod and ball head for now, though it it would make a significant difference I might stretch up to $650. Height is important to me, and I also need something that can handle itself on uneven ground (trails, for example). If my budget is unrealistic, please let me know.

In short, I need...

• Flexible, sturdy legs for uneven ground such as trails, hikes, etc.
• Under $650, preferably under $500. May save up to stretch further if necessary.
• Stable and capable of handling a 300mm zoom lens in the future.
• Easy to travel with (though I may just get a second, cheaper, foldable tripod for traveling purposes)
• Over 60" tall.

42

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: August 02, 2011, 02:17:19 PM »

One last thing to consider with tripods is leg flexibility... Manfrotto on a lot of legs have a sliding locking horizontal support bar that connects to the legs to the center column.  You will want to be able to control each leg individually.. Sometimes you may be on unstable grounds in which one leg is shooting out at the standard 30 degrees angle and another leg, given your location, maybe 50-60 degrees, etc.... If you dont have that control on your legs, it can hinder your photo shoot.  You will know what i'm talking about as you play with the tripods... lastly on heads, see if you can get a nice sturdy ball head.  Ball heads carry the weight better over the tripod where as standard pan/tilt heads are cheaper but instead of holding the weight directly on the body, you are carrying the weight on a few screws and metal/plastic as it hovers above the center column.  It's just not as secure.  Manfrotto has high quality heavy duty pan/tilts but you still can beat a nice ballhead.

Do you have any specific recommendations?

Whoo. It's gonna take a bit but I'm going to read through the rest of the responses and then reply to them.

I wasn't intending on being condescending and or rude, I was just seeking clarification about how you said you had it, tested it, and loved it and then "just got it" the other and are having buyers remorse.  Do keep in mind regarding distortion... this lens is designed as a 17-40 on a full frame camera... 17mm on any camera will have some level of distortion... Same as the 17-55 in some regards on the 17 end, as well as lets say the tokina lens and the 16-35 I or II... The full frame will show the distortion more than crops, but it's still there. 

Ah okay! It was just a misunderstanding then. My apologies. I agree that that there will always be some sort of distortion. However I have learned that photoshop has a feature built into CameraRAW that can fix most distortion problems. This will come in handy, though I do need to get a legitimate copy of photoshop since I cannot borrow my friend's forever. That's gonna be a little pricy.

Some lenses to keep in consideration that will have fast(er) speeds and keep distortion in check (20mm 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4, they are all within the range of the 17-40, should keep distortion better in check, and 2.8 or faster) It's a great outdoors/travel/walk-around lens, but indoors, you will need to have a fast prime if you really want to shoot handhold.  I do architecture (one of my specialties) and real estate photos... I shoot with the 10-20 and 17-40... But then again I shoot low apertures, tripod always, and they are static.  Sometimes if I cant shoot tripod I still use low ISO but throw in off camera flash or strobe.  Light will always be an issue indoors so either use a faster lens or use a flash (ideally either strobe or off camera flash).  The 7D has a great commander feature if you can pick up some 580's or 430's... scatter them around the scene out of view from the camera and you never have to worry about lack of light. 

I am in need of a good tripod. Somebody recommended manfrotto and I'm currently weighing my options.

Lighting is something I'll definitely need to invest in. Before getting external flash, though, I want to try to make the pictures as good as possible without flash. Force myself to practice, so to speak. You have some good suggestions here.

I never said it was foolish not getting the 17-55... I said I liked the 17-40 personally, however you need to really and fully know it's capabilities and limitations to get the most out of it.

I mixed you up with somebody else who said that to me, oops. 

By going in a shoot fully educated on your gears limits will allow you to forward think so you know how to counter the limitations and push the limits to get awesome shots.  Also remember the 17-40 can be used by the 7d and 5d whereas the 17-55 can only be used on crop cameras.  Regarding your expectations of high ISO, check out the link i posted earlier... it'll give you a good idea of what this camera can do not only against itself but competitors.

Thanks

While at school, I used manfrottos tripods almost exclusively... We shot with 4x5's and medium formats so i needed heavy duty gear to handle the weight and strain of the cameras... I dont shoot much 4x5's any more but now my gear includes a Slik Pro 700 legs (i think thats the number) and manfrotto heads... The legs are aluminum and light weight compared to my old heavy duty manfrottos... I would love a carbon fiber manfrotto or better, but the slik is light weight yet extremely sturdy for me.  Keep weight and load in mind... Weight because you have to haul this puppy with you on shoots and load because if the head AND legs aren't strong enough to hold secure your gear, you can not only lose shots but damage your gear.  I had an old tripod fail on me wading in a river waiting for the lighting to be right before I shot the image... I barely caught the camera in time before it fell in the river. 

Go to your local store and they should have a nice selection of tripods... feel them, hold them, and do your research.  Regarding the photoshop... look on craigslist and look at your local colleges... A lot of them sell photoshop and or creative suite at student prices... At my local university in nevada, they have the entire creative suite for $299 student price.  Fully legit copy.  I knew a few college students there but see if your local college has software discounts at the student store.  Also keep in mind adobe typically has a product cycle on a strong 18 month cycle... CS6 should be out sometime in the second/third quarter of 2012 so perhaps you will see CS5 at a discounted price.  Lastly, i heard adobe now has a subscription option?  You pay a monthly fee and you get to use their software...  Doing that for i think for a few months pays for the entire purchase price but if you need to have it now and cant pony up $699, then that's a good option.

Good suggestions! Thanks!

43

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: August 02, 2011, 12:54:05 PM »

Whoo. It's gonna take a bit but I'm going to read through the rest of the responses and then reply to them.

I wasn't intending on being condescending and or rude, I was just seeking clarification about how you said you had it, tested it, and loved it and then "just got it" the other and are having buyers remorse.  Do keep in mind regarding distortion... this lens is designed as a 17-40 on a full frame camera... 17mm on any camera will have some level of distortion... Same as the 17-55 in some regards on the 17 end, as well as lets say the tokina lens and the 16-35 I or II... The full frame will show the distortion more than crops, but it's still there. 

Ah okay! It was just a misunderstanding then. My apologies. I agree that that there will always be some sort of distortion. However I have learned that photoshop has a feature built into CameraRAW that can fix most distortion problems. This will come in handy, though I do need to get a legitimate copy of photoshop since I cannot borrow my friend's forever. That's gonna be a little pricy.

Some lenses to keep in consideration that will have fast(er) speeds and keep distortion in check (20mm 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4, they are all within the range of the 17-40, should keep distortion better in check, and 2.8 or faster) It's a great outdoors/travel/walk-around lens, but indoors, you will need to have a fast prime if you really want to shoot handhold.  I do architecture (one of my specialties) and real estate photos... I shoot with the 10-20 and 17-40... But then again I shoot low apertures, tripod always, and they are static.  Sometimes if I cant shoot tripod I still use low ISO but throw in off camera flash or strobe.  Light will always be an issue indoors so either use a faster lens or use a flash (ideally either strobe or off camera flash).  The 7D has a great commander feature if you can pick up some 580's or 430's... scatter them around the scene out of view from the camera and you never have to worry about lack of light. 

I am in need of a good tripod. Somebody recommended manfrotto and I'm currently weighing my options.

Lighting is something I'll definitely need to invest in. Before getting external flash, though, I want to try to make the pictures as good as possible without flash. Force myself to practice, so to speak. You have some good suggestions here.

I never said it was foolish not getting the 17-55... I said I liked the 17-40 personally, however you need to really and fully know it's capabilities and limitations to get the most out of it.

I mixed you up with somebody else who said that to me, oops. 

By going in a shoot fully educated on your gears limits will allow you to forward think so you know how to counter the limitations and push the limits to get awesome shots.  Also remember the 17-40 can be used by the 7d and 5d whereas the 17-55 can only be used on crop cameras.  Regarding your expectations of high ISO, check out the link i posted earlier... it'll give you a good idea of what this camera can do not only against itself but competitors.

Thanks

44

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: August 01, 2011, 06:29:45 PM »

I thought you said you tested the 17-40 and already had the lens in question and found it superior than the 17-55 in "every way"?  F4, for most indoor environments was never claimed to be the best of both worlds... In most indoor environments, F2.8 is ONLY 1 stop more light and may not even be enough.  You can pick up cheap primes of 50mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, etc (Even those would have incredibly shallow DOF and need a tripod to shoot with a lower F stop to get more DOF)  Low light situations is a constant battle... you can always get a faster lens but faster lenses have smaller DOF and that can hurt shots as well.  Then it's either raise ISO or get more light, hence strobes or flash... those would be more suited for indoors.  That being said, it appears that you are shooting handhold, am I correct?  For those macro shots which tend to lose light as is due to lighting environments, you almost need to use a tripod.  Using a tripod will allow you to knock down the ISO, longer more stable shots, sharper images, etc...  You can also get a ring light that goes around the lens to add more light in those macro settings.   In the forest you can get a neutral density filter, and lengthen the exposure, lower ISO and get a better shot overall.  I dont know if the grocery store will allow a tripod in their store unless you give them a few photos, but that's the route i'd go in.  Also bring a gray card with you to run a quick white balance in commercial buildings... florescent lights are nasty to work with.  In this Ultrawide area of lenses, distortion will be a fact of life, but it will just vary depending on your lens and camera.  The only way to really avoid distortion is TS lenses.

It was better in every way and I had no noticed any lens distortion during my testing. It wasn't until I was in a more linear environment (my house) that I noticed it. However, I paid a lot less for the 17-40mm than the I would have for the 17-55mm. I paid $600 for it which is about half the price. It's ridiculous to say I'm foolish for not paying twice the price that did not compete. The aperture is not something I tested with the lens when I compared the two, I was in a controlled lighting environment. On top of that, I already own a f/1.4 50mm which I mentioned several pages ago. The 2.8 is enough for indoors for me. No need to act condescending and rude about it, dude.

As for your other suggestions, they are very good and I'll consider trying them. I wish I could afford TS lenses, but that's for later on.

The camera itself is fantastic. I've had issues with shooting in the shade (forest) and high isos. I shot in the grocery store at 3200 iso and I swear it looked like some kid was taking crayons and stabbing it all over (that's how grainy and pixelated it looked at the iso). I'm not sure if it's the lens or the camera or if I'm doing something wrong.

I don't see the grocery store photo in your Flickr stream. Seeing an ISO 3200 example which you think is bad would help because we can see if it's underexposed.

Typically when people complain about high ISO images from 15-18 MP crop bodies they are either a) underexposing the image, or b) spending way too much time pixel peeping. Viewing a 7D image at 100% on a typical monitor is like viewing a 60" print at arm's length or less. It is not necessarily a good indicator of what a print will look like.

I've produced 8x10 and 11x14 prints from ISO 3200 7D shots that have tighter and more pleasing noise than the grain found in ISO 160 35mm portrait films. And I didn't do anything special like layering the image to allow greater NR on low detail areas. I just simply applied a touch of NR, did my other normal processing, and printed. Spending too much time pixel peeping can lead to processing mistakes such as heavy handed NR which results in a plastic look when printed, so be careful with the pixel peeping.

Having said that, the 7D has very little underexposure tolerance at high ISO. Make sure you nail your exposures when shooting in low light.

I had the ISO set to auto. That usually works well out doors, but indoors it can be a bit temperamental. I may have needed a tripod.

However, the results I got were similar to the review test (here) 12800 ISO. It was pretty bad. It looked like this, though honestly I'd complain if it was equal to the 3200 too. I do think I didn't have the shutter slow enough. It just shocked me to see that much noise.

45

United States / Re: I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

« on: July 31, 2011, 11:12:17 PM »

I'm back after testing it out for a few days. I got my 17-40mm in the mail.

The f/4L is not enough, however I'm not sure if I should sell it and go with the 17-55mm or just grab a 10-22 for wides and something in the middle later on. I've noticed the lens distortion as well. I got the lens for very cheap, though, so I'll be able to sell it for more than I bought it for.

The camera itself is fantastic. I've had issues with shooting in the shade (forest) and high isos. I shot in the grocery store at 3200 iso and I swear it looked like some kid was taking crayons and stabbing it all over (that's how grainy and pixelated it looked at the iso). I'm not sure if it's the lens or the camera or if I'm doing something wrong.

Any suggestions?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby

under the "practice" gallery would be photos I've taken with the 7D.

lady - consider the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 when you decide to purchase an UWA zoom for the 7D. I'm not knocking the 10-22. It is very good, and I wouldn't fault someone for choosing it for the zoom range. But the Tokina is f/2.8 and is sharper in the edges and corners. I love mine.

Good suggestion--what does it cost?