|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 4th, 2009, 09:50 PM
|
#16 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
Quote:
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
|
|
|
|
June 4th, 2009, 10:26 PM
|
#17 | |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 8,314
|
Quote:
2) Screw on filters are for photographers and hippies. We are cinematographers and thus use 4x4 filters on matte boxes, which work fine. 3) It's only 5.6 at 24mm, who cares about the boring end? It's f4.5 at 12mm, which fine is still kind of slow... but so what, it's 12mm! (and his review is flawed, stating that the Canon and Nikon 10mm and 12mm lenses are better, but since they are both EFS and DX lenses and the Sigma is full frame, they aren't in the same category). 4) Also, I heard Ken Rockwell punched a puppy and drinks light beer... so... I'm just saying...
__________________
Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com |
|
|
|
|
|
June 4th, 2009, 10:58 PM
|
#18 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 613
|
I picked up a tamron 20-40 f2.7-3.5 in nikon mount since I had been looking for a tamron 17-35 2.8-4 based on good reviews but everywhere seems to be out of stock in for that lens in nikon mount. I had seen the 17-35 reviewed in comparison to canon and sigma. These tamron lenses provide comparable quality to canon especially when using as manual focus so usm is no concern, and all sigma superwides with reasonable prices seemed extremely lacking in sharpness bad for distortion based on reviews I read. The tamron 20-40 was incredibly cheap used. its ~$150 and keh has it, but i picked one up at adorama in person since i wanted it sooner. after some use ive been very impressed with the sharpness and lack of distortion (for the fov) on my 5dmk2. I used it a lot on a 48hr film fest entry last weekend and love having such a wide lens. I shot some photos and video this week on top of the empire state building and I just have to say it is insane not to have a lens at least this wide if you are shooting landscape exteriors. It's a pretty amazing look shooting at f2.7 at 20mm and being in a Medium-Full shot and still having the background quite blurred out despite the wide angle. Feels like an even larger format. Only thing to be careful about is flare, it doesnt flare too pretty and at 40mm it still flares like a 20mm. I had to be careful with this on some heavily backlit stuff I shot. Only problem ive found is backfocus, though thats probably my nikon-eos adapter. i have a cheap ebay kawa adapter and an even cheaper ebay hongkong adapter, and both seem to be too short in depth, so the lens focuses quite a bit past infinity.
i should mention my original choice of the 17-35 tamron was based on reviews at the fred miranda reviews site, but they had no reviews for the 20-40 which i eventually came across on my own and looked up reviews which seemed to be quite good. |
|
|
|
|
June 5th, 2009, 07:50 AM
|
#19 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 145
|
what about the Tokina 11-16mm, just bought one for my Red that is being converted to PL mount as I type.
__________________
www.digitalfx.tv |
|
|
|
|
June 5th, 2009, 08:23 AM
|
#20 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 3,531
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 5th, 2009, 08:45 AM
|
#21 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 33
|
Nikon 14-24G > Contax N Zeiss 17-35 > Nikon 17-35 > Canon 16-35 > Third Party
|
|
|
|
|
June 5th, 2009, 09:01 AM
|
#22 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pinewood Film Studios, Bucks, United Kingdom
Posts: 80
|
Jon:
You asked <<What adapter is needed? Is it really an f/2, or does the falloff andcontrast loss get extreme? How's it look with your filter system? Does the front move when you focus? What's the typical price range? >> I'm using the eBay sourced 'Big-iS' EOS-OM adaptor from Hong Kong. An 'AF Confirm' type adaptor (beeps when in focus) and it now comes in a version that can have the lenses EXIF data inputted to the adaptor...via a sequence of shutter and aperture 'fiddles' to set the adaptor for the lens. A great idea but since I'm using 6 Olympus lenses with one adaptor probably not too relevant. Not all adaptors are equal, a matter of the machining tolerances. Fotodiox do an expensive adaptor and there are some rated Japanese ones.No Novoflex though. In the wide angles, I have the 21mm, 24mm and 35mm Oly lenses which are all f2.0 versions, so great for video work. There are users posting on the web, like this one: PixelPix by Russell Stewart: Tip 8: Olympus Lenses on your Canon SLR There obviously is some fall off on the 21mm but I guess the Nikons have that too. Software can take that out on stills...but it's hardly noticeable on video to be honest as narrow DOF helps the eye in video. The front elements do move during focusing. I'm using the Cokin P Filters and have the 'wide-angle' holder which avoids vignetting....just I guess. Mostly using ND8 (3 stops ND) because of video exposure in daylight and have the older Cokin A filters on the narrow lenses. Oly manual lenses are prized for sharpness so keep reasonable prices and the 21mm f2 is sought after, I'm not sure how much you'd pay locally though. David T. |
|
|
|
|
June 5th, 2009, 09:24 AM
|
#23 | |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Minneapolis, USA
Posts: 17
|
Quote:
I am on a waiting list for the new 17 TS lens... That will be really nice lens I think. |
|
|
|
|
|
June 5th, 2009, 11:25 AM
|
#24 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
How about the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II Rectilinear...
|
|
|
|
|
June 5th, 2009, 01:03 PM
|
#25 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
Quote:
I've got a concept that would include timelapse and astronomical shots, and that lens is at the top of the list for that job...
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
|
|
|
|
|
June 5th, 2009, 03:16 PM
|
#26 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Orange County, Calif. USA
Posts: 70
|
I went with the Tamron 17-35mm f2.8.
I was gonna go with the Canon 17-40 f4, but the Tamron was only $300 and it was f2.8. I'm satisfied with it. Having the f2.8 is nice. It is soft in the edges but not an issue for video. For stills it could be, but only if you're really blowing up your photos. -Bill |
|
|
|
|
June 5th, 2009, 03:51 PM
|
#27 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
Quote:
A couple of questions: * Have you tried it with filters? (I like the 77mm thread, btw) * Does the contrast die, when you go to f/2.8? (Some lenses seem to go dark when you open them that last click - which defeats the purpose of the large aperture.) Thanks!
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
|
|
|
|
|
June 5th, 2009, 07:32 PM
|
#28 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canyon Country, CA
Posts: 445
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 5th, 2009, 07:35 PM
|
#29 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Beijing
Posts: 665
|
Jon,
Sorry to come to this late, I would seriously suggest you look at the older Nikon 20-35 f2.8 AF lens. It can be found quite cheaply now and features better manual focus than the newer lenses, importantly it also has hard end stops and a 77mmm filter thread. The other sensible options are the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8, Canon 17-40 f4 and 16-35mm f2.8 II lens. Dan |
|
|
|
|
June 5th, 2009, 10:07 PM
|
#30 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 613
|
Quote:
Flickr: Sigma 12-24 Cheaper than the Canon 17-35, and I feel way more satisfied having an extreme wide that's not fish-eye. Regarding it's slow aperture, I really don't care. I have other fast lenses for stupidly low light. This thing does just fine with a modest amount of light on the 5DMkII. -steev
__________________
www.holyzoo.com |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
