Topic: Greetings from beautiful Jersey City!

[Frank in JC]

Given how good the pro zooms are, I think prime lenses are better left for special applications.  The downside to the zooms is the potential for internal reflections, barrel & pincushion distortions, and "slower" f/2.8 apertures.  Fortunately for most photographs those things aren't visible.  The 17-55mm is distorted at 17mm, but unless there are long, straight lines near the edge of the frame it's not blatantly obvious.  Other than the fisheye, this lens has pretty much lived on the camera since I got it. 

As for primes, the 85mm f/1.4 is a gem with gorgeous bokeh.  If you want a really nice prime that makes everything pretty this is the one to have.  It's a "people-flatterer."  DOF is so shallow at f/1.4 that in a portrait, if your subject is at an angle to the camera, only one eye will be in focus.  It felt kind of silly using it for a cityscape at f/11, but it turned out to be a good tool for the job. 

FWIW, I noticed that Ken Rockwell doesn't recommend either of these lenses... that means they MUST be good!   

[hypnotoad]

Those are some amazing picture guys.  Great work!

[stirinthesauce]

since this thread has migrated towards lenses, I have a comment and also require some feedback.

First, Sanjay, those Tokina lenses are nice.  I miss my 12-24.  That thing was friggin sharp! 

Now, for some feedback...I moved to a full frame and the price jump caused me to sell my super wide and I have yet to replace it.  My 24-70 is now wide (moving from 1.6x crop) but in a few situations, I desire wider.  Like a 17-35.  My initial thought was to sell the 24-70, replace with L glass, and then buy a 17-35, maybe third party, most likely canon.  My dilemma is this, my sigma 24-70f2.8 ex dg makes great images.  Not as good as my L glass, but very nice nonetheless.  And the price jump up will probably leave my wallet screaming if I then buy a 17-35.  So, my thoughts are this, buy a 17-35L, keep my 24-70 and eventually swap that out.  I feel sorta naked without a super wide.  Since I primarily do landscapes, I kinda *need* this lens.  Thoughts?

[Frank in JC]

since this thread has migrated towards lenses, I have a comment and also require some feedback.

First, Sanjay, those Tokina lenses are nice.  I miss my 12-24.  That thing was friggin sharp! 

Now, for some feedback...I moved to a full frame and the price jump caused me to sell my super wide and I have yet to replace it.  My 24-70 is now wide (moving from 1.6x crop) but in a few situations, I desire wider.  Like a 17-35.  My initial thought was to sell the 24-70, replace with L glass, and then buy a 17-35, maybe third party, most likely canon.  My dilemma is this, my sigma 24-70f2.8 ex dg makes great images.  Not as good as my L glass, but very nice nonetheless.  And the price jump up will probably leave my wallet screaming if I then buy a 17-35.  So, my thoughts are this, buy a 17-35L, keep my 24-70 and eventually swap that out.  I feel sorta naked without a super wide.  Since I primarily do landscapes, I kinda *need* this lens.  Thoughts?

I've been thinking about the D3 lately (an unhealthy activity) and what lenses I would want to pair with a full frame body.  For what it's worth, a 17-35 would probably be the first lens I put on it, followed by a 24-70.  Hey, one of the most significant reasons to use full frame is the ability to go super wide... that should help you rationalize the purchase

[Sanjay]

What about a nice wide prime, and use the 24-70 as your walk around?

[stirinthesauce]

What about a nice wide prime, and use the 24-70 as your walk around?

 

I was looking at the canon super wide primes.  Don't think I can swing $1700    They do look mighty nice though.  Don't see much of an option in the 3rd party region.

Frank, I think your right.  Think I'm hunting for a super wide.  Just needed an to hear it somewhere else.

[BJ]

since this thread has migrated towards lenses, I have a comment and also require some feedback.

First, Sanjay, those Tokina lenses are nice.  I miss my 12-24.  That thing was friggin sharp! 

Now, for some feedback...I moved to a full frame and the price jump caused me to sell my super wide and I have yet to replace it.  My 24-70 is now wide (moving from 1.6x crop) but in a few situations, I desire wider.  Like a 17-35.  My initial thought was to sell the 24-70, replace with L glass, and then buy a 17-35, maybe third party, most likely canon.  My dilemma is this, my sigma 24-70f2.8 ex dg makes great images.  Not as good as my L glass, but very nice nonetheless.  And the price jump up will probably leave my wallet screaming if I then buy a 17-35.  So, my thoughts are this, buy a 17-35L, keep my 24-70 and eventually swap that out.  I feel sorta naked without a super wide.  Since I primarily do landscapes, I kinda *need* this lens.  Thoughts?

I've been thinking about the D3 lately (an unhealthy activity) and what lenses I would want to pair with a full frame body.  For what it's worth, a 17-35 would probably be the first lens I put on it, followed by a 24-70.  Hey, one of the most significant reasons to use full frame is the ability to go super wide... that should help you rationalize the purchase

 

buff...get the 17-35L  with your 5d...landscape heaven!  and like you said..your sigma is taking very nice photos right now!!!  I know there is always room for improvement..but hey..if you are happy, then get another lens, instead of just upgrading 1 lens!!!!

[Frank in JC]

I've been thinking about the D3 lately (an unhealthy activity) and what lenses I would want to pair with a full frame body.  For what it's worth, a 17-35 would probably be the first lens I put on it, followed by a 24-70.  Hey, one of the most significant reasons to use full frame is the ability to go super wide... that should help you rationalize the purchase

 

Yeah, I need to make that purchase like I need a hole in the head. 

[stirinthesauce]

The fredmiranda search begins today.  Now to find a deal 

[Sanjay]

yikes I didn't realize there were no third party options... now all I see is an 8mm fisheye.

Go superwide then... If you're just doing landscapes you might be able to bump up from 2.8 to f4L

[stirinthesauce]

yikes I didn't realize there were no third party options... now all I see is an 8mm fisheye.

Go superwide then... If you're just doing landscapes you might be able to bump up from 2.8 to f4L

That's my decision.  I have read mixed reviews on the 17-35f2.8L.  The 16-35 (especially the mkII)L lens is fucking awesome, but at 1600, I'll pass.  May try the 17-35Lf2.8.  I may need, at times, that extra light gathering ability for event purposes.  Or not, may get the f4L

[Frank in JC]

This was more of a science experiment.  It really needs a subject, preferably a young woman or a kid.  Still, I think the stoppage of time is pretty cool.

[Sanjay]

That's fantastic, so sharp!

[Frank in JC]

I'm a little surprised at the sharpness since it's a fairly serious crop.  The lens was actually zoomed to 17mm to make sure I got everything.  Unfortunately my facial hair stubble was supremely well rendered along with the interior of my left nostril.  It wasn't a pretty sight!

[Jimna]

love your shots in this thread, very cool indeed.  i really like the one in the first post too.