File :-(, x, )
Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX Anonymous
Thinking about getting this lens for my EOS 450D.

Anyone with the lens? Post pictures/thoughts/tits/whatever.
>> ­
looks plastic.
im pretty sure theres another company that makes lenses for the EOS 450D

canon?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I have this for my d80. I like it.

Note: This was my first time using long exposures

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern750Focal Length (35mm Equiv)16 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:08 15:35:39Exposure Time30 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length11.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height687RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
Not f/2.8 - f/22 17-25 mm :/
>> Anonymous
>>200845

Nice photo!

What do you think of the build quality?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>200845
Also this one.

This was shot in almost darkness with a flash. It was just a test shot.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern750Focal Length (35mm Equiv)16 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:08 15:34:52Exposure Time4 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating640Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length11.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height669RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
It's apparently quite decent.

Here's the thing though: I'd go Canon for the RAW lens aberration corrections. Canon 10-22 is the closest equivalent to this. Being able to correct distortion perfectly (and automatically) is quite wonderful.
>> Anonymous
>>200848

Thanks. I like it. It feels solid to me. The focusing ring does feel a little plasticy though. I like how you can switch from af to mf just by sliding the ring back. With it being f2.8, nothing really compares to it.
>> Anonymous
>>200851

I have to think about that. I don't know. The Canon lenses are a bit overpriced i think. I just want wide OK lens.
>> Anonymous
>>200854

Ok cool. I think i'm gonna go for it. :) It's not that expensive anyway, and people say good things about it.
>> Anonymous
>>200856

Do it! I use mine all the time. For the price it's definitely win. I like it especially for skateboard photography without the zomgfisheye feel to it.
>> Anonymous
i still don't get why you would want 2.8 on a ultra wide
>> Anonymous
>>200879
see
>>200866
>> Anonymous
>>200851Being able to correct distortion perfectly (and automatically)
>> automatically

Explain please.

If this is only through DPP, then nevermind.

>> I like how you can switch from af to mf just by sliding the ring back.

Or you could have full time manual and just focus manually whenever you want even in AF mode?

Ring USM > shitty ass DC motor.

>>200855The Canon lenses are a bit overpriced i think.

The Tokina is $600 IF you can find one. The Canon is $700 and used to be less before the gas price fiasco.
>> Anonymous
I'm no expert in this, but the Canon's i've tried without the red ring has been really plastic fantastic. That's why i'm thinking about buying the Tokina. :(

I can't find any ultrawide EF lenses by Canon.
>> Anonymous
>>200917I'm no expert in this, but the Canon's i've tried without the red ring has been really plastic fantastic.

uh, depends which ones

the $80 50/1.8? yeah

the $600-700 is good, you won't drive a nail with it but it's not flimsy (in b4 beethy BEST LENS EVER)

>> I can't find any ultrawide EF lenses by Canon.

you're doing it wrong

16-35, 17-40
anything below 30-35mm is wide/ultra wide

for crop, the sigma 10-20 and canon ef-s 10-22
>> Anonymous
Well. I borrowed a EF 17-40 f/4L USM from a friend. I liked the lens, but when taking pictures without good light, and no flash the black on the pictures are very noisy and grainy i think. :S The build quality of the lens was amazing though.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>200883
Alright, I'll nevermind.
>> Anonymous
this thread fails on so many levels
>> Anonymous
Well give me some advice then fag!

I'm clueless about this. I want a lens that's wide as fuck and can take good pictures without superlightfromgod! That's it!
>> Anonymous
>>200965without superlightfromgod

oh wow, i hope you're not thinking a 2.8 is going to give you excellent use in low light because 1.4/1.8 isn't even cutting it indoors most of the time

of course, my sigma 10-20 is only f/4 wide open so i am biased
>> Anonymous
It's for outdoor use. I live in an arctic area so "think" it gonna help bringing out the details in the light outdoors and the nuanses of the sky. It's not very "bright" up here, and i will be shooting at night with midnight sun.

I'm no expert in this, and it's a new hobby. I've read and read about the subject, but it's just numbers to me. :/ Technical shit.
>> Anonymous
>>200965

lol yeah buy better equiptment and ALL YOUR PHOTOS WILL BE BETTER
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>200967
Eh...f/1.4 and ISO 400+ is pretty decent many places. I was actually pretty surprised that I could go flashless last night with a Sigma 30mm 1.4 at 1/50 and ISO400.
>> Anonymous
The price on the Canon EF 14mm f2.8L II USM is insane BTW.
>> Anonymous
What is a good wide lens for shooting in low light then :S
>> Anonymous
>>200976

lol that's not low light

that's just indoors rofl
>> Anonymous
Anyone here with the Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4?

Not exactly superwide, but anyway...
>> Anonymous
Moar pictures with the Tokina if anyone have! PLEASEEEEEeeeeeeeee!
>> Anonymous
>>201009
Tamron makes a 14/2.8 for around $1,000.
>> Anonymous
>>202525


Actually not bad at all. Gonna look into it, if i don't buy this Tokina.
>> Anonymous
Moar pictures with this lenssssss!

MOAR MOAR MOAR!
>> Anonymous
>>200850
>>200845
>>203642
Horrible samples so far.

>>202534
OP, I wouldnt touch that thing. 2.8 is a waste on such a wide lens, seriously. You'd be better off buying a zoom for less money. Sigma 12-24 for example, some people say it's a jewel.
>> Anonymous
Can someone please explain why 2.8 is a waste on wide lenses?
>> Anonymous
>>203657
It's useful, though not as much as on a long lenses. You'll gain exposure speed alright, but the additional effects dont come into play as importantly as in longer/standard lenses. You can't easily generate bokeh with that focal length, even at 2.8, or it wont be anything to write home about.

Because depth of field is so large by being a wide lens, focusing will do a minor job. Additionally, the stop difference between a 2.8 and an F4 of any other wide lens will not likely be enough to ruin your shots.

Wider lenses are easier to use for handheld shooting. A 1 stop difference like that one helps a 50mm waaaaay more than it helps a 14mm lens.

Additionally, if you're doing landscape shots or urban landscape pictures, you ought to close down the aperture anyways, so again, 2.8 vs 4 is hardly worth it.

Opinions, though.
>> Anonymous
Ok thanks! I actually understood that. :)
>> Anonymous
did someone mention the sigma 10-20 is $200 less and twice the range?
>> Anonymous
/p/'s opinion on:

sigma 10-20 vs. canon efs 10-22

go
>> Anonymous
>>203740

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!
>> Anonymous
it has bad bokeh
>> Anonymous
I've heard that too. And they say the build quality is very variable.