Canon EF-S 10-22mm vs. Tokina 11-16mm -> FIGHT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ 86

in this image, at 2.8F, why the focus is not very tight?? i can see the background is not totally out of focus. and landscapes are clicked at smaller apertures for large span in focus, then how do we utilise big aperture?
can i see some more examples where wide lenses are used with big apertures?

---

DJ, this shot focused on a very near-field object. Given the focal length the statue may have only been a foot from the lens. The fact that the building is recognizable as anything other than a blur is a result of using such a short focal length lens.

If someone were to frame the same scene of the statue with a telephoto at the same f/# the magnified blur of the building would have been unrecognizable as such. Each style of photo has its appeal. That's the artistic portion of photography.

Moving to SLR's you're leaving the world of point-and-clicks with micro-sized sensors. SLRs are far more capable but also more complicated and difficult to drive well. The SLR community does not speak of magnification powers per se. Instead everything is discussed in terms of the framing of the image relative to a 35mm negative. Any given focal length will capture light from a given arc in front of the lens. That's what ends up on the sensor. After taking that into account then the f/# and focal length and object/background will dictate what's in or out of focus.

If you're truly only interested in shooting landscapes that cover a wide angle with a narrow aperture then pretty much any lens with f < 35 mm will do. Obviously the more expensive the lens the better the image quality. However, most of us are not so single-minded in out photography desires. So having a mixture of focal lengths and the option for wide apertures allows flexibility.

HD, he doesn't mean higher focal length, but higher range (ie: 10x zoom vs. 5x zoom).

DJ, The wider the aperture (the lower f number), the more control you have. You can always select f/8 for a landscape on an f/2.8 lens. On a f/5.6 lens though, you can't go wider to f/2.8 to choose a thin depth of field, or control what's in focus, like the statue above. The f/2.8 will also let you use the lens in less light, but only if you're willing to sacrifice some depth of field. Since wide lenses tend to have lots of DOF anyway, this often isn't a major concern. This is why the above background isn't totally blurred. The DOF is large with wide focal lengths.

If you're strictly doing landscapes on a tripod and don't care about fast shutter speeds and thin depth of field, you don't need a wide aperture. Most people here shoot a variety of things, and would prefer the option of the fast aperture, so long as it's financially feasible.

[QUOTE=DavidEccleston;64172]HD, he doesn't mean higher focal length, but higher range (ie: 10x zoom vs. 5x zoom).

[QUOTE]

Ah, I see....

DJ, this might be helpfull: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

It is a a depth of field calculator. Depth of Field (the area that is accptably in focus) gets wider as the subject moves further away from you. It gets wider as the aperture gets narrower. To see this effect noticably with a wider lens, it has to have the larger apertures.

We derailed the thread somewhat: Being a Canon guy I throw my support in for the Canon EFS 10-24mm over the other lenses. I have no first hand experience with these lenses but I would just stick with Canon :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ 86

can i see some more examples where wide lenses are used with big apertures?

---

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5310/5...176178ce_z.jpg
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 1/30 s, f/1.4, ISO 100

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Not sure what you mean here. But in general as canon primes go, the longer the lens the sharper it gets. The super telephoto's are the sharpest and best performers of all.

---

here i meant that people prefer 17-70 instead of 18-200. as (70/17 is less than 200/10 i.e less than 10x zoom)

with the shown images, i got a fair idea how wide lens are used with big apertures. thank you everyone for the sample pics. now i will finalize the budget and then shortlist the lens.
till then i would like to know suggestions from all you guys, for my 600D. also, is it worth to get only body and 2 lenses. like a wide and a regular

say for eg, a 10-24mm and a 24-70mm, something like that.

no idea how much it wil cost me, but just thinking that way.

If your looking at those lenses and that body, then you may want to look at a couple other options as well. The 24-70 will be very large on your 600D and expensive to boot. What you could do is get the Tokina or the Canon UWA, pick up the Tamron 17-50mm (without the VC) and get yourself a good zoom like the 70-200f/4 without the IS. It would basically cost you about what you would pay for the two listed above and give you more focal length to play with and you wouldn't be missing out on much getting the Tamron instead of the Canon 24-70. I use both and preferred my Tamron for the longest time. It is sharper than the canon in the middle, but not as much on the outer edges. With the new announcement of the 24-70mm II, I am not sure if there is going to be a bunch of people dealing their original version for the second and if they do, your not going to see much savings since the new model is so much more expensive. The used market for that lens might actually go up. I used the Tamron for all of my wedding images since I had a terrible focusing problem with my 24-70mm and never had a problem at all. All of the images are sharp. I will post a couple pictures with my Tokina 12-24 f/4. Keep in mind the Tokina lenses have a sale right now also at Adorama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayson

If your looking at those lenses and that body, then you may want to look at a couple other options as well. The 24-70 will be very large on your 600D and expensive to boot. What you could do is get the Tokina or the Canon UWA, pick up the Tamron 17-50mm (without the VC) and get yourself a good zoom like the 70-200f/4 without the IS. It would basically cost you about what you would pay for the two listed above and give you more focal length to play with and you wouldn't be missing out on much getting the Tamron instead of the Canon 24-70. I use both and preferred my Tamron for the longest time. It is sharper than the canon in the middle, but not as much on the outer edges. With the new announcement of the 24-70mm II, I am not sure if there is going to be a bunch of people dealing their original version for the second and if they do, your not going to see much savings since the new model is so much more expensive. The used market for that lens might actually go up. I used the Tamron for all of my wedding images since I had a terrible focusing problem with my 24-70mm and never had a problem at all. All of the images are sharp. I will post a couple pictures with my Tokina 12-24 f/4. Keep in mind the Tokina lenses have a sale right now also at Adorama.

---

@jayson, you said 24-70 would be large on 600D, what does that mean?? what does canon UWA mean?? ultrawide?? why tamron 17-50 without VC?? and 70-200 u mentioned is canon L series ?? waiting for ur pics. btw, please mention prices of the lens too, so that i can get a fair idea.

if i want a deal for my canon 600D, where can get it? bestbuy or adorama? anyone has purchased from adorama??

Wherever is cheapest... Adorama and B&H are very reputable online sellers, sometimes there are good deals on Amazon.com, too.

Check canonpricewatch.com.