Lens help

Thanks guys, my poor mind's boggled.

I'd probably go Tokina. That lens has a good reputation, third-party AF issues are no biggie with super-wides, and that half-stop to stop and a quarter difference will make a difference in viewfinder brightness if nothing else.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:18 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

most modern DSLRs have plastic viewing screens which don't necessarily get brighter w/ larger aperture lenses, iirc

Hi, I am looking for a wide-angle lens for a Canon 600D.

I'm unsure whether to opt for a prime or zoom, but I don't need a lot of range from a zoom, not this time around anyway.

I guess I am able to throw about £400-£500/$620-$775 at the most, a little less would be better though.

Salsa & Michael's lovely shots just above are the kinda thing I'd like to be able to take. Any suggestions?

I ended up buying the 10-22mm Canon lens and I have no regrets. The lens feels nice to use and produces good photos (by my standards, I'm certainly not a pro). Prices vary wildly for it, though. If you don't need a huge zoom range the Tokina 11-16mm might be worth looking into, it'll be less expensive than the Canon. There's also a Sigma 10-20mm which, iirc, is cheaper than both the Tokina and the Canon, but people who used it seemed to think there were quality control issues and some lenses were a bit wonky (I did a lot of research before I purchased the 10-22mm so this is just what I remember from when I did that).

Prime vs zoom, well, I guess it might depend on what you plan on using the lens for, but one of the better/more knowledgeable ILPers might be able to advise on that.

Thanks for the advice Salsa, I ended up going for the Tokina, should have it in a coupla days.

Man, I hate this fucking Tokina, there's a second hand 24mm f/2.8 at Aperture in London and I'm pretty certain I'm gonna head over there and part ex this sucker.

this is nothing to do with that but recently the focusing-circle on my lens has stopped lining up when i'm focusing on what's farthest away. like it's a little split. i don't know whether or not to be concerned

something that is a little of a downside to film photography is that it takes forever for me to get things developed, so if something goes wrong it perhaps stays that way until i months later see what's been happening & realise

how far away is the furthest away? sometimes there will still be a little split when focusing on, say, distant buildings, but there won't be when focusing on, say, the moon.
anyway, I doubt you'll see any issues.

i am straight up waiting for the moon to come out before answering this, but: thanks! it is the case with distant buildings, & i'm only perturbed because i don't think it was previously. i'm sure it's okay, i just wondered what i'd done to make things go astray. i keep meaning to pick up a 28mm lens anyhow. thanks for the expertise.

Nabbed myself the 24mm f/2.8 EF from Aperture at lunchtime, what nice guys they are in there.

Pretty happy to be rid of the TK. This new one, while obviously nowhere near as wide, checks out nicely and afterwards I wandered into the atrium of the British Museum to take some test shots. Wonder how many people do the same?

For a few mins I was acutely tempted by a 17-40mm L that they have, but I really wanted a prime as I'm going back to Japan next year and I want to take just one compact-ish lens.

So, what have I learned? Never take the advice of a friend who takes HDR shots pretty much exclusively, I guess.

Good choice. The non-L primes are underrated. That said, I see Aperture just sold a 135L for £490. That's a steal. I like that Aperture give you shutter counts on the bodies. But if I ever sell them my 40D I'll have to include the repair letter from Sendean, cos my shutter count is still 82k+ despite the shutter being replaced.

I think for now I'm a non-L primes kinda guy.

They had a 1DX for sale with only 1 actuation, how is that possible? They must reset just before boxing.

What's the current consensus on a Canon walkaround lens? Is it still the 17-55? Or is the Tamron 24-70 the way to go?

what do u shoot

i mean a true walkaround lens is the pancake 40 in terms of size

Do you have a crop-sensor Canon? So you mean the Ef-s 17-55/2.8? Not sure 2.8 is really necessary in an everyday zoom - that is a great lens and I've hired it in the past, but if you're never going to go full frame, I would recommend the 15-85 instead. Slower but smaller, lighter, cheaper and the image quality is excellent. Nice to have that extra reach too.

Don't know the Tamron.

I was wrong about price. The 17-55/2.8 has come down by quite a bit since I last looked. Now about the same as the 15-85/3.5-5.6. Just comes down to speed vs reach.

I just bought the 40mm on a whim. I'm full frame now so it's theoretically good for walking around, haven't taken anything other than test shots with it yet but I'm going to use it this week.

if you're near London, Aperture have a (Mint-) 17-55mm for £370 at the moment.

http://www.apertureuk.com/Canon_EOS.html

Shooting is mainly architecture and portraits (or what would have been disparagingly called 'holiday photos' at one point) I guess. I have a 10-24 and a 70-300 that I usually also carry in the bag so it's really something that I can leave in when I'm away and will be good for 70+% of shots.

I threw the Tamron in because at one point there was talk as far as I can tell through limited digging that the Canon 24-70 was the business but is out of my price range and the Tamron is the affordable equivalent.

And arse, I only left London this morning.