jupitersolo

Tokina 11-16 about $200 cheaper, plus you could buy used.

KaMLuNg

iTrader: (5)

any other good used sources? been scoping local craigslist and B&H...

jupitersolo

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/

They both have B&S forums

lcrazyaznl

iTrader: (1)

11-16 tokina 2.8 is 600 i think new
theres a 12-24 f 4 tokina not sure how much

KaMLuNg

iTrader: (5)

can someone explain to me why these smaller wide angle lenses are so much more expensive than some of the massive tele-photo zoom lenses out there? you would think less lens material = less money... but i fail...

Mizouse

What wide angle lens costs more than a big telephoto lens??

I don't see any wide angle lens for more than 3000.

jupitersolo

When you go to such wide angles, you better use good elements are they are junk. Therefore the $$$.

Mizouse

But it has to do with the stuff inside the lens not just the size of the thing.

KaMLuNg

iTrader: (5)

what i meant was that a 10-22mm is $700+

vs

55-250mm is under $300....

i understand that the components that make up the wide angle must be more complicated. but just a size comparison is like wow half the size, twice the price...

JLatimer

A 10-22 has 13 lens elements
a 55-250 has 12 lens elements.

With wide angles there would be a bit more precise grinding necessary. Plus the 55-250 is a consumer lens volume=lower costs.

But yeah, I hear ya on the size comparison.

jupitersolo

But the 55-250 is junk compared to what the 10-22 or the 11-16 can do.

Dan Martin

The optical elements in wide angle lenses are extremely complex to design and manufacture. Telephoto lenses are very simple by comparison, in fact, a large percentage of their internal structure is nothing but air.

Consider the shape of the front element in the 10-22 vs the 55-250:

einsatz

lcrazyaznl

iTrader: (1)

even nikons 10-24 wide angle is like 800 and the 12-24 is 1800 haha...

KaMLuNg

iTrader: (5)

thanks fellas... i know i still have got alot to learn and that helped alot... it just really took me by surprise when i went looking at the 10-22 and was like that cost more than my camera body...

wndrlst

Quality lenses are super spendy. The good news is that they also hold their value much, much better than your camera body, and will last forever if treated well (*ahem* don't throw them off of a cliff).

I've also found that buying cheaper glass costs more in the long run, because you just end up buying the better stuff down the line, and losing money on the trade for the cheap stuff.

Mizouse

Well since my friends were kind of lame and we went to the porn convention instead I didn't get to check this out and the mkIV

SaaBaaDoo

Decided to rent a 35 1.4L for two weeks. Should be fun.

lcrazyaznl

iTrader: (1)

You might end up buying it I like it alot on my friends 5dmk2 =P

SaaBaaDoo

That's why I'm renting it, to decide if I want to get one or not, and I probably already know the answer.

There's a big part of me that wants to give my Dad the zooms and pick up 3 primes to carry in my bag. I think that would force me to compose my shots better.

einsatz

I've been thinking of renting it too, but since I'm already saving $ to buy it I might as well wait until I get it sometime in the summer.

How much are you paying to rent? Penn Camera in DC charges a $900 deposit + $30/day.

SaaBaaDoo

$125 for 14 days insured with return shipping.

lcrazyaznl

iTrader: (1)

I like it more than the 50 you can fit a whole person in the frame almost and still blow out the background nicely unlike the 50.

Mizouse

The 50 is pretty wide on a full frame camera.

SaaBaaDoo

The 35L came in today. I love this lens already just taking pictures of stuff on my desk! Definitely going to have to get one.

SaaBaaDoo

Test photo with the 35L at f1.4.

einsatz

Nice... what body?

wndrlst

I covet that lens.

EuRTSX

Do want.

stogie1020

Would be awesome on a 1.6x body! I often wish for more width on my 40D than the 50mm has, but in a prime.

SaaBaaDoo

7d

einsatz

Killer combo.
I'm covering a HS science fair next week and I'm trying to find a local place that'll rent it on short notice with no luck. :-(

jupitersolo

^^ Penn Camera, they have two places, Tyson's and their DC location. You can check their website. You can also check with Ace Photo in Ashburn.

svtmike

SaaBaaDoo's Test photo with the 35L at f1.4, and my filthy keyboard with a Nikon 35 DX at f1.8.



The bokeh on that Canon L lens is much nicer than on my Nikkor.

Mizouse

well if anything you used flash in your photo. it makes it look much worse.

and your keyboard is much much dirtier

and the canon lens does cost like 5-6x as much.

TS_eXpeed

Looking for some input.
I'm slightly considering the Nikon 60mm AF-S Micro lens.
After a year and a half of playing around, getting my feet wet, and getting better with my D300, I think I'm ready to dive in and get another lens. I'd really like this one because macro photography is something I'm really interested in.

There have only been a few negatives or "complaints" I've heard about it. First, it's closest focus distance is 1-7/8th". In that respect, to get that close, you'd almost guarantee that you'd be block much of your light source, whether that be sun, artificial light, whatever.

Second is falloff. It would be less noticeable since I have a DX body though.

Lastly, is the focal length itself. I've heard it's not the best for macro, and that the 105 would be a better choice, but again, I have a DX lens so that might help me in that area.

I think I might go rent it and see how I like it.
Maybe I'll like the 105 better?

jupitersolo

If you're worried about loseing your light source, which you will for macro. Remember the D300 is cropped at 1.5 so the 60 will get you 90. I have seen some good stuff with short FL macros. The 105 is a better fit, I think, you also don't have to buy the newest 105 VR for macro. You can get one of Nikon older 105's for much less. For macro you won't need VR or AF 90% of the time.

You could also get a older 50mm and a set of reversing rings for much cheaper.

TS_eXpeed

Hmm....what about ring flashes? Do they produce relatively good lighting for macro shooting?

Dan Martin

I think ring flash is more for documentary style of macro photos, i.e. you want to catalog a stamp collection. The lighting is very flat and even, which is good, it's just not very creative. The twin-light macro strobes are much better for unique lighting.

Personally, as much as I enjoy shooting macros, I don't do it enough to justify a dedicated macro flash rig. Instead, I use a standard hotshoe strobe with a TTL cable and just hold it where I want the light to be. The Lumiquest Softbox III is a great modifier for this sort of work.

If you don't use a tripod for your macro photos, it could be a little difficult to handhold a flash and your camera at the same time. There are some really handy but inexpensive flash brackets that are made specificially for macro work. They screw into your camera's tripod mount and have a little arm that can be brought forward so you can angle the flash however you like around your subject. Manfrotto makes one, along with several other companies like RRS and Kirk.

TS_eXpeed

Cool.
I'll check into that!