I've used the tokina 12-24 f4 lens and I loved that lens. Maybe it's not fast enough for photojournalism but it was very sharp in the center and the build was very strong. It seemed pretty wide to me on my 40d back in the day.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I agree with logaandm and took the liberty of adjusting your image doing essentially what he said. I also warmed the image up because to me it felt right for this picture.This is meant to be constructive criticism. Please don't take offence. I wouldn't even take the time to comment if I didn't see some interesting ideas in the photograph.
First ask yourself why you took the picture - what attracted you to the scene. Then ask yourself if you managed to show in the photograph that feeling or concept. What were the key things in what you saw which attracted you - the grapes, the frost, the light the shadows?
1. The horizon isn't level
2. The horizon is in the middle of the photograph and that is a no-no
3. The main subject (the grapes?) should (probably) be done with rule-of-thirds - probably off to the left.
4. The framing of the grapes with the blurred background should have used either the washed-out sky OR the darker earth. You have framed the grapes with both.
5. Post processing probably should have emphasised the grapes with the light shining through them. Either do this by shooting them entirely against the sky or entirely against the darker earth.
Good photographs show some sort of contrast - light/dark blue/red, happy/sad, rich/poor. The brain enjoys broken patterns. When taking the photograph you should "frame" the composition. Take photographs from different angles with different f-stops to explore subject isolation and the contrast with the background.
I think I see what you were trying to do and there is some things like cropping and tone control you can do in post. The horizon through the middle of the picture, however, probably can't be saved.
I am not ready to spend around $3K in a normal lens, and many people out there won't. Canon needs to update those lenses that do not render good IQ and sharpness, rather than focusing on improving 'excellent' lenses.
Well, remember that 24-70 is a bread and butter lens, one of the most important in Canon's lineup. It is to their benefit to ensure they have the best version available out there IMO. Tamron is getting a lot of business with a nice quality 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens for half the price due to Canon's unwillingness to release an IS version.
Also, Canon does not HAVE to increase the price, they could actually *drop* the price of the non-IS version to ~1699 which would put it in a lot more reasonable space than it is now. Then put the IS version where the old version was, at 2299.
Now for my regular exercise ( swimming against the tide )
Perhaps it is because I only recently escaped, but "white" makes me think of straitjackets, institutional corridors, orderlies and plain as can be appliances.
Cutesy colors make me think of the previously mentioned "Hello Kitty"/"Gangnam Style" consumer level.
IMO, black, with crisply engraved contrasting lettering/scales/etc., says "serious instrument".
Not least of my objections is the glaring-object-in-your-face I posted about before.
Damn this mud, …can't move my feet!
(P.S. - I'm not fond of pink pistol grips, either,.. WTF, grumble, mumble, …fade out with shaking jowls and frown.)
QuoteJessica Claire has a blog post with some good photos made with this lens:http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263/Wedding-with-DJ-Brittany-Rod
What BEAST of a camera is she using to get a shutter time of 1/12000 s ?!
Look at the sold or completed auctions on ebay to see the selling prices. Read the description and see what is included.
I found one that sold for $600, that's top dollar. I'd pay maybe $400 or 500 depending on if its all there, box and accessories, and its in good condition.