Good L series wide angle?
- Thread starter t5Nitro
- Start date
It has already been mentioned but you should take a look at the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS. While it doesnt have a red ring, the glass is superb and IMO on par with L glass. This lens is on my camera 95% of the time and Im always surprised by the pictures Im able to take with it.
The downside is that it wont work on full frame cameras if you are looking to upgrade in the future.
The downside is that it wont work on full frame cameras if you are looking to upgrade in the future.
IPT
Active member
To me spending cash on a good lens that couldn't follow me on on upgrade wouldn't sit well. Glass is usually the big buy you stick with (for me at least). Plus, as good as that 17mm lens is if he wants "wide" with the crop factored in it is a 28mm verse an 18mm (with the 11mm) - that is a big difference in that arena.
t5Nitro
New member
Yeah. I will upgrade to a full frame camera down the road for sure.
I'm suck at the moment. I was pointed in the direction to go with the 24-105mm L lens and BH offers the 5D mark II and the 24-105 on it for like 3599 or so? If I did that, I'd save $100 or $200 on the lens. Man, wish I had $$$$$$$. :lol:
As for the wide angle, I am looking for wider the better, so I think for now the 11-16 tokina sounds good about now, especially being f2.8. That'll be rocking too if I ever get the chance to get a full frame.
I'm suck at the moment. I was pointed in the direction to go with the 24-105mm L lens and BH offers the 5D mark II and the 24-105 on it for like 3599 or so? If I did that, I'd save $100 or $200 on the lens. Man, wish I had $$$$$$$. :lol:
As for the wide angle, I am looking for wider the better, so I think for now the 11-16 tokina sounds good about now, especially being f2.8. That'll be rocking too if I ever get the chance to get a full frame.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
The Tokina 11-16 is a great lens, but will you ever really use f/2.8 on a wide angle? I would think 90% of your shots would be between f/5.6-f/11, the other %9.5 less than f/11. I do think the Tokina is the way to go from what I have heard though.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Yeah that might be 1 application what it could make sense. I have never seen a Aurora but I would guess high shutter speeds could be a plus. Hand shake is pretty much a moot point, as you could hand hold at 1/20. If you are shooting a fast moving object...er...phenomenon in the dark, it might help you there.
IPT
Active member
Oh man, it's amazing! Yes, faster shutter speeds really help keep the details in the individual rays. Somehow I doubt T5Nitro will be shooting Aurora, but you never know .
This was at F1.4 for 4 seconds. I've heard that the supper high ISO on the new Nikons is amazing. It will change the quality of Aurora Photography for sure. To bad I shoot Canon and after all the $$$ I've dropped lately I won't be upgrading for years
.This was at F1.4 for 4 seconds. I've heard that the supper high ISO on the new Nikons is amazing. It will change the quality of Aurora Photography for sure. To bad I shoot Canon and after all the $$$ I've dropped lately I won't be upgrading for years
The Tokina 11-16 is really sharp and built like a brick. I use 2.8 all the time indoors because I mainly use the lens for real estate photography. Often, even with flash, it is necessary in rooms with poor lighting.
It is an EF mount so you could put it on a full frame camera, but there would probably be vignetting in the corners to crop off or deal with.
It is an EF mount so you could put it on a full frame camera, but there would probably be vignetting in the corners to crop off or deal with.
t5Nitro
New member
Yea, I'm just curious how much vignetting. I do think the wide angle lens (11-16 tokina) would be better than my 28-135mm lens from canon for indoor shots, too. I don't really need to worry about the vignetting anyway, since I won't be getting a full frame any time soon.
But mostly I would use it in the f11 range or so I think.
IPT, I can't even imagine walking outside, looking up, and seeing that overhead. Hard to believe it's even real.
But mostly I would use it in the f11 range or so I think.
IPT, I can't even imagine walking outside, looking up, and seeing that overhead. Hard to believe it's even real.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
As stated I don't own the lens and can't deliver a hands on opinion, but from what I have heard its pretty bad on a FF camera.
IPT
Active member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13895596#post13895596 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
IPT, I can't even imagine walking outside, looking up, and seeing that overhead. Hard to believe it's even real.
When it really rocks like that, sometimes I can't believe it either. It literally makes the hair on my neck stand up (not from electric charge, but from that deep down sort of primitive awe).
t5Nitro
New member
I had a quick question. I'm waiting on my lens for now so I can see what Santa brings, ( :lol: ), but what about filters? In Doug's latest thread, he used multiple filters in front to get the effects that are shown. I didn't know about these filters. Say I'm shooting some rapids or whatever, what would some good filters be? I suppose it depends on the mood you want, but what would you guys go with? Or even some "over-the-lake" and looking at a mountain range. Any suggestions to filters to hold in front of the lens would be cool, too.
t5Nitro
New member
Yeah, was looking into the higher end filters, although a polarizer would be cool, too.
By the way IPT, after looking at your avatar one more time, I realized I remember seeing that in my backyard before. It probably wasn't as intense as in your avatar, but I do remember seeing likes like that in the sky that were a rich red color. It was probably a really rare occasion for the lights to appear here.
By the way IPT, after looking at your avatar one more time, I realized I remember seeing that in my backyard before. It probably wasn't as intense as in your avatar, but I do remember seeing likes like that in the sky that were a rich red color. It was probably a really rare occasion for the lights to appear here.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
The Earth's polarity is believed to switch from time to time. Eventually north will be south and south will be north. The Earth's magnetic field draws the solar winds into its poles which causes the auras. We currently have 2 predominant poles but as they switch, we could have 8 or 10 established polar regions for a number of months. Currently new polar regions periodically pop up for a very short amount of time as the north and south poles weaken. You may have witnessed such a phenomenon. Sometimes the aurora will expand passed the polar regions, and you may have seen a very large solar storm. I don't know I am no expert, just pure speculation.
Last edited:
t5Nitro
New member
Interesting thoughts. I knew that the poles switched from time to time based on lava rock investigation. Either way it was cool!
That stuff still amazes me. Outside one dark night and the sky lit up like day almost. Fiery comet blazed past overhead. I want to have that happen again, too!
Other than that, is there any in particular order you would stack some filters? If you wanted to go a sepia route, what's the best combination (or in your opinion)? Or even a full all out dark, rich colors. Anything at all that you could put on here (without getting majorly expensive) with a few filters to get really great effects on shooting landscape or rapids etc.?
That stuff still amazes me. Outside one dark night and the sky lit up like day almost. Fiery comet blazed past overhead. I want to have that happen again, too!
Other than that, is there any in particular order you would stack some filters? If you wanted to go a sepia route, what's the best combination (or in your opinion)? Or even a full all out dark, rich colors. Anything at all that you could put on here (without getting majorly expensive) with a few filters to get really great effects on shooting landscape or rapids etc.?
IPT
Active member
T5Nitro - You can see them that far south. In fact, there was a solar storm (maybe in the 60's) that was so huge the Aurora was seen as far south as Mexico! There is basically an auroral ring (like a crown with a fat rim that "sits" above the earth). As stated, it can expand or contract based on the activity. The more it expands, the more likely people south of the Northern Latitudes will see it. Red is rare, except at lower latitudes for some odd reason (I think because of the curvature of the Earth you southern people are actually seeing the higher altitudes of the atmosphere) and there is more of (oxygen, or nitrogen) gas that creates the red. Though, most of the ones seen from the southern latitudes will lack the distinct rays and curtains we get up here. Ends up being more of a diffuse area of color
Anyway - ah, filters. I only use a polarizer now a days (and I have a few lenses with UV filters as protection but I have slowly been removing them too). Polarizors are great for bringing out colors that are already there but masked by glare or haze.
I used to use a graduated ND filter when I was shooting film. What I always hated was that you get underexposed areas on anything that was over the horizon line that overlapped the brighter area you were tryingto hold back (like trees, or mtns). I attached a pic.
I drew the filter edge so you can see where it was. I moved the filter up and down slightly to hide the transition (even though it was "graduated already). Still, the trees in area "A" are underexposed vs area "B" even though they are int he same light and general exposure range). In some images its worse than others, sometimes it goes un-noticed (well, not really, but it's tolerable and an untrained eye may not even notice). With the digital era I prefer to take two or three seperate exposures (easily achieved with bracketing) and blend them in PS (though obviously you need the camera on a tripod). Many pros started doing this even when they were still shooting film and then scanning the images.
I do not use any colored filters for my images. You may want a 3-5 stop ND filter just to hold back light over the whole scene to blur moving water (forces a longer exposure). Sepia, and all that can be done in PS. Then you have more control over the tones, saturation, and areas it affects. Plus you still have an orginal without manipulation. Anyway, that is just my preference and style.
Anyway - ah, filters. I only use a polarizer now a days (and I have a few lenses with UV filters as protection but I have slowly been removing them too). Polarizors are great for bringing out colors that are already there but masked by glare or haze.
I used to use a graduated ND filter when I was shooting film. What I always hated was that you get underexposed areas on anything that was over the horizon line that overlapped the brighter area you were tryingto hold back (like trees, or mtns). I attached a pic.
I drew the filter edge so you can see where it was. I moved the filter up and down slightly to hide the transition (even though it was "graduated already). Still, the trees in area "A" are underexposed vs area "B" even though they are int he same light and general exposure range). In some images its worse than others, sometimes it goes un-noticed (well, not really, but it's tolerable and an untrained eye may not even notice). With the digital era I prefer to take two or three seperate exposures (easily achieved with bracketing) and blend them in PS (though obviously you need the camera on a tripod). Many pros started doing this even when they were still shooting film and then scanning the images.
I do not use any colored filters for my images. You may want a 3-5 stop ND filter just to hold back light over the whole scene to blur moving water (forces a longer exposure). Sepia, and all that can be done in PS. Then you have more control over the tones, saturation, and areas it affects. Plus you still have an orginal without manipulation. Anyway, that is just my preference and style.
Last edited:
t5Nitro
New member
I'm not great with photoshop though which is why I asked. I don't even think elements 5.0 has sepia in it. Either way, I thought ND filters are pointless. All you need to do is lower the shutter speed to do the same thing or no?
Otherwise just a regular polarizer is good? At where I work we have some cheap brand that run $25 or so. Is there any better than another? And as far as bracketing, I knew how to do it once, but I forgot within the last year. :lol: Actually never did it on my 30D, so I'll play around with it. Same with blending them, I don't know if I can do that in elements 5.0 or I'm just again not a good "PS'er."
Otherwise just a regular polarizer is good? At where I work we have some cheap brand that run $25 or so. Is there any better than another? And as far as bracketing, I knew how to do it once, but I forgot within the last year. :lol: Actually never did it on my 30D, so I'll play around with it. Same with blending them, I don't know if I can do that in elements 5.0 or I'm just again not a good "PS'er."
Get the best polarizer that you can afford. Everything that goes in front of the lens impacts the image. Some of the really cheap polarizers aren't actually neutral and alter color accuracy.
I use split neutral density filters a lot. They are a way to extend the dynamic range that your camera can see. In Louis' example, without using the filter (or a blend in PS) it would have been impossible to get both the foreground and the background exposed properly. Your camera can only "see" 5-6 stops of light. The eye can see roughly twice that. It's a personal choice. My preference is to get the exposure as close as possible in the camera but bracketing and blending works fine too.
It all depends on how you want to do things; there isn't a right or wrong answer.
With the exception of my gold-n-blue polarizer I don't use colored filters at all. With the exception of that filter, there really isn't a colored filter that can't be readily duplicated in PS. Colored filters can also play havoc with white balance settings.
I use split neutral density filters a lot. They are a way to extend the dynamic range that your camera can see. In Louis' example, without using the filter (or a blend in PS) it would have been impossible to get both the foreground and the background exposed properly. Your camera can only "see" 5-6 stops of light. The eye can see roughly twice that. It's a personal choice. My preference is to get the exposure as close as possible in the camera but bracketing and blending works fine too.
It all depends on how you want to do things; there isn't a right or wrong answer.
With the exception of my gold-n-blue polarizer I don't use colored filters at all. With the exception of that filter, there really isn't a colored filter that can't be readily duplicated in PS. Colored filters can also play havoc with white balance settings.
Similar threads
