What do you guys think about getting a UWA lens for a 6D? Rokinon 14mm F2.8 seems to get all the attention around here, but how does it feature besides landscape photography? Have anyone tried using it for a function or portrait purposes? How does the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 hold up to it? Is it a versatile lens, or a very specific usage lens? How does the Tokina perform? Any other lens to recommend besides Canon 16-35mm F2.8, since as far as I've heard for that price it kinds of suck, compared to Nikkor 14-24mm F2.8? (It's simply too expensive anyway :-X).
UWA Lens Discussion
- Thread starter abcde12345
- Start date
Is autofocus important to you? If so then the Rokinon is out.
Do you need to be able to use a front element filter? If so the tokina will not take a thread on filter.
The 16-35 is a great lens. People seem to have a love-hate relationship with it with price being a big factor in this relationship.
Another lens to consider is the 17-40. It is a great lens and for the price stacks up well in the line-up.
Do you need to be able to use a front element filter? If so the tokina will not take a thread on filter.
The 16-35 is a great lens. People seem to have a love-hate relationship with it with price being a big factor in this relationship.
Another lens to consider is the 17-40. It is a great lens and for the price stacks up well in the line-up.
Upvote
0
Well, I believe for most people auto-focus is important, isn't it? I just wonder if those using the Rokinon lens have any other usage for it other than landscape?
Upvote
0
I do not think UWA lenses are very suitable for portrait, but can be useful in any kind of picture where you want an exaggerated perspective. If you want to use in different situations, Canon 16-35mm L is the most versatile of you cited, followed by Tokina 16-28mm and Samyang 14mm (or other name) loses in convenience and is not suitable for moving objects.
Upvote
0
abcde12345 said:
AF is important to many people. Is it important to you?
I thought you were asking specifically for your own use. Hence the response.
Personally I would never want a non AF lens for anything other then static subjects. Landscapes being the main one. I use manual focus for most of my landscape work. And Zeiss has a huge following for IQ.
To simply answer your question: No, i dont believe that the rokinon has any real advantages other then price and a slightly shorter focal length.
Upvote
0
Canon1 said:
The Rokinon (Samyang, etc.) also does not take a thread on filter. If that is important and cost is important (as it is for many of us), consider the 17-40 for landscape.
Upvote
0
Here is a thread reviewing the Rokinon (which convinced me to bite again after having the Bower version a year ago that I returned):
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17252.0
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17252.0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
