Gear Talk > Lenses

Nikon Convert Seeking Some Advice.

<< < (2/4) > >>

sammydavisjrjr:
I would say the 17-40 is a great choice if you are doing landscapes and glidecam with it. Its a really light lens which is nice for smaller glidecams and help counteract the odd weight distrubution of the dlsr. I also would assume with landscapes you would be shooting f8-f11 anyways. Also, for the difference you would be spending you could easily buy a rokinon 24 1.4 or 14 2.8.

The sigma 85mm is awesome and I think its the best compromise for those that shoot both photo and video.
If you compare both canons(1.2 and 1.8), the sigma and the rokinon each has its strengths.

Rokinon is also nice and has the best focusing ring for video but no af for photo. however, That doesn't bother me too much as the af sucked so much on the mark 2 that I just shot everything mf even when i got the mark 3.

The 85 1.2 is amazing but the focusing ring is not. It just feels too loose to use for video imo.

The canon 85 1.8 is a good lens, great for the money but I love the look of the Sigma. Really nice creamy backgrounds, great colors, and pretty sharp at 1.4. I know its not a full stop gain over the 1.8 but sometimes can make the difference between an iso bump. In low light high iso, shadow noise can still be pretty apparent, especial when the camera is moving.

Th sigma 50 is also really great but I also prefer a 35/85 prime combo than 50/85. Im pretty excited for the simga 35, but the rokinon had served me very well for the money.

bvukich:

--- Quote from: sammydavisjrjr on November 25, 2012, 02:04:52 AM ---The 85 1.2 is amazing but the focusing ring is not. It just feels too loose to use for video imo.

--- End quote ---

The 85/1.2 is focus by wire, that should immediately exclude it from video usage where you may need to do reliable focus pulls.

symmar22:
I would pass on the 20mm f2.8, it's a very old lens, with very average IQ; it's one of the lenses Canon should upgrade soon. IQ difference between the 16-35 and 17-40 is not so big, it's mainly about the extra F stop. By choosing the 17-40mm over the 20mm f2.8, you get a better built quality, better IQ at 20mmm and the extended zooming range. The only thing you loose is the extra stop. The 20mm 2.8 is not at all a small lens, it weights only 95g (about 3 ounces) less than the 17-40mm. You can have an idea here :

20mm vs 17-40mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=244&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

16-35mm vs 17-40mm :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=4&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

The 17-40, is one of Canon's best bargains (with the 200 f2.8 II), but if you need 2.8, then I would spend the extra money on the 16-35mm instead of the 20mm f.2.8.

The 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2 are excellent as well, you cannot go wrong with them.

The 85mm f1.2 is a no go for me, despite the stellar optics, the size, weight, slow AF and manual focus by wire make it a too specialized lens (not even talking about the price difference).

NormanBates:
check this out:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html#prime

mrsfotografie:
FWIW I absolutely love my Sigma 20 mm f/1.8. It is a vastly underrated lens, IMHO. It has solid build, and works marvellously as a MF lens with *optional* AF built in :) This is one of my 'fun' lenses and I find I'm using it more and more.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version