Tokina 12-24mm f/4?

[John Wiley]

So after a year of playing with my colleagues 5dmkii and a friends 550d and all their lenses, I finally decided to ditch my GH1 and switch over to Canon. Hopefully in a few months I'll be able to buy a 2nd & 3rd camera body and ditch my camcorders as well.

My Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 arrived today and my 550d body is on it's way. Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is next on the list. I had my heart set on the Tokina 11-16mm as well but it would stretch my budget too much. So I was wondering if anybody here has any experience with the Tokina 12-24mm f/4?

It's at least a few hundred dollars cheaper and it seems the only thing I'm giving up would be one stop of light - other than that it has great reviews on the photography sites, but I've not read any reports of people using it for video.

And to save everyone asking - I'll mainly be using it for weddings on a steadicam, mainly outside (during the photoshoot) and occasionally inside the church as well. Also for the 1st dance, but I'll have lights for that.

[John Wiley]

Hmmm... looks like I'll be the first to find out about this lens.

I'll make sure to post my experiences with it here.

[Keith Forman]

Originally Posted by John Wiley

So after a year of playing with my colleagues 5dmkii and a friends 550d and all their lenses, I finally decided to ditch my GH1 and switch over to Canon. Hopefully in a few months I'll be able to buy a 2nd & 3rd camera body and ditch my camcorders as well.

My Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 arrived today and my 550d body is on it's way. Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is next on the list. I had my heart set on the Tokina 11-16mm as well but it would stretch my budget too much. So I was wondering if anybody here has any experience with the Tokina 12-24mm f/4?

It's at least a few hundred dollars cheaper and it seems the only thing I'm giving up would be one stop of light - other than that it has great reviews on the photography sites, but I've not read any reports of people using it for video.

And to save everyone asking - I'll mainly be using it for weddings on a steadicam, mainly outside (during the photoshoot) and occasionally inside the church as well. Also for the 1st dance, but I'll have lights for that.

I am not sure why you'd be using a 550D for filming a wedding because DSLRs are completely inappropriate for that type of video work (unless your clients are not that discerning). Having said that, the loss of one f-stop may be an issue for shooting in low lit churches. I have the Tamron that you mentioned and am not happy with the glass. It is marginal at best but the 2.8 is great.

[Chris Westerstrom]

I disagree, I think DSRL's are better than video cameras for weddings, for many reasons

Low light.
More flattering images of bride and groom
More feel, emotion.

They are more difficult, but I shoot around those difficulties by not making a standard 'catch everything' wedding movie. I've mostly only done them for clients and for friends, but haven't had a dissatisfied customer yet.

[Keith Forman]

Focus issues are a huge problem (depth of field)

Horrible audio (even with magic lantern) still no XLR inputs.

A 200MM lens is only 320 equivalent. My pro video cameras are 600mm equivalent.

12 minute gap. Even ML leaves a short break.

I will admit that I shoot as few weddings as possible. I own a 550D and love it for the appropriate shooting and b-roll for wedding montages.
I am waiting for the new Sony with a large chip. It will overcome many of these issues--however it will not be used for a primary camera at weddings.
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-NEXFS100UK/

Many of my clients are not discerning however they pay me to be discerning for them; and to use the appropriate equipment for the shoot they hire me for.
.

[John Wiley]

Originally Posted by Keith Forman

I am not sure why you'd be using a 550D for filming a wedding

Well that's quite simple to answer. The image blows away every other camcorder I've ever used. Amazing colours, dynamic range, sensitivity, low noise, etc. Brides absolutely love the images, and the times I've used a DSLR for B-roll it's made the rest of my footage look lacklustre.

Which Tamron do you have that you say is marginal? The 70-200 or the 17-50? I've read nothing but great reviews about both regarding the glass, though the 70-200 does have a lacklustre AF system (which I won't be using for video anyway) and apparently some quality control issues as well. I can't compare it to anything as I've never used the Canon L version but so far I'm very pleased with the quality.

I appreciate that DSLR's are not for everyone, but personally, the images are worth the workarounds for me. Maybe DSLR's are not for you, but there are hundreds of wedding videographers out there right now using these cameras effectively.

[Jon Fairhurst]

It really depends on the style, doesn't it?

One couple might want a linear documentary of the wedding that captures all of the moments, end to end without missing anything. For that couple, use standard camcorders. Another couple wants a romantic, dreamy impression of the event. For that couple, use DSLRs. Some couples want a mix - capture the vows and speeches with camcorders and the rest of the event with DSLRs. That last combination makes the most sense to me.

[Keith Forman]

I've yet to meet a bride that does not want the entire ceremony captured. Granted I hardly do any weddings (and they are only high budget weddings). However for multiple thousands of dollars that it cost the bride and groom, I am expected to use the proper equipment and not cheap out with a $1500 camera that will lose focus as soon as someone moves two feet. As I've previously stated I do use the DSLR for b-roll for montages where I can select the best shots.

[Keith Forman]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

It really depends on the style, doesn't it?

One couple might want a linear documentary of the wedding that captures all of the moments, end to end without missing anything. For that couple, use standard camcorders. Another couple wants a romantic, dreamy impression of the event. For that couple, use DSLRs. Some couples want a mix - capture the vows and speeches with camcorders and the rest of the event with DSLRs. That last combination makes the most sense to me.

I've yet to meet a bride that does not want the entire ceremony captured. Granted I hardly do any weddings (and they are only high budget weddings). However for multiple thousands of dollars that it cost the bride and groom, I am expected to use the proper equipment and not cheap out with a $1500 camera that will lose focus as soon as someone moves two feet. As I've previously stated I do use the DSLR for b-roll for montages where I can select the best shots.

[Keith Forman]

Originally Posted by John Wiley

... there are hundreds of wedding videographers out there right now using these cameras effectively.

Perhaps that is why they are limited to weddings.

[John Vincent]

I'd think that the Tamron 17-50 would be enough - it's very wide and keeps its brightness all the way through. As noted by many, the Tamron's 17 mm is wider then the Canon's.

Also, f/4 seems terribly slow to me, unless all you're using it for is outdoor shots. Gotta figure most weddings take place indoors...

[John Wiley]

Originally Posted by Keith Forman

Perhaps that is why they are limited to weddings.

Who ever said they were limited?

My clients don't pay me for the tools I choose. They pay for my abilities.

[John Wiley]

Originally Posted by John Vincent

I'd think that the Tamron 17-50 would be enough - it's very wide and keeps its brightness all the way through. As noted by many, the Tamron's 17 mm is wider then the Canon's.

Also, f/4 seems terribly slow to me, unless all you're using it for is outdoor shots. Gotta figure most weddings take place indoors...

I've used the 17-50 and it is plenty wide enough as a walkaround lens or for most groups shots. However there's times when you just desperately need something wider (like the group photo with all the guests which is often taken in a tiny courtyard infront of the church. I've had times where I've had to cross the road with my camcorders to fit everybody in those shots!

The f/4 is a bit of concern to me. But it'll still be better than my FX7 in lowlight from the comparisons I've done. Most of the stuff I'll use it for will be outside during the photo shoot. It's only very specific shots where I'll use it indoor such as the Bride & Grooms entry to the reception or the first waltz. I want to get the 11-16 but for the price of that I can get the 12-24 & the Tamron 17-50.

[John Wiley]

Well, after debating which Tokina to get for nearly two weeks, I just bought a Sigma 10-20mm! I had the chance to buy it cheap so I did and am picking it up tomorrow.

It''s the f/3.5 version so it should fall somewhere in between the 11-16mm and the 12-24mm in terms of lowlight. From the reviews I've read it seems like it is not as sharp as either of the Tokina lenses and has worse CA, particularly at the centre of the zoom range.

For the price I'm paying I'm not too concerned if it doesn't keep up with the 11-16 f/2.8. Although I can hardly imagine it being so bad that I can't use it!

[Luke Gates]

Originally Posted by Keith Forman

Perhaps that is why they are limited to weddings.

Apparently you have never heard of Shane Hurlbut, or, yeah there are a ton of them out there