I had both. Just sold both. I think I enjoyed the Tokina more. Maybe it was just the copies, but I found the Tokina to be sharper.
Posted via RS Mobile

What's the difference between these two lens? (Same lens, different packaging)

http://i.imgur.com/tfZVe.jpg

The packaging was updated.

My question should have been "Is there a difference between these two lenses. " obviously the packaging got updated but do the lenses update too? Like a v1.01?
Posted via RS Mobile

there wasn't any news regarding a refresh, so my guess is that they're the same lens.

I'm looking at Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X for my Nikon D90. 599 shipped. Yay or nay? Or is there something better?

No change in the lenses themselves... At least none that they've made public.
Posted via RS Mobile

I just got the lens and LOVE it.
Posted via RS Mobile

Strongly suggest the tokina 116
It's definitely a yay to me~
Posted via RS Mobile

so what exactly happens when you put a lens designed for a smaller sensor on a full framed camera? will the image appear with a darkened frame? or blurred out edges?

^ It will vary from model to model, and depends which apt you're shooting at.

Ya, it depends on the lens. Usually - it's just very very strong vignetting.

The A900 actually detects that you have an crop-frame lens on and will automatically only use a crop frame sized portion of the sensor. Only thing is when you look through the viewfinder - there's a box that shows where the crop frame picture is being cut off, making it hard to frame pictures properly.

Nikon 35mm f1.4

How the heck does this lens cost $1,800 and the 35mm f1.8 cost $200? I know the 35mm is DX, but it this lens really worth the money? It seems impossible to justifly the cost..

look at the Canon 50mm 1.4 and 1.2. crazy.

If you use it in a professional setting like weddings & portraiture, then yes, it's worth its weight in gold.

Looking to upgrade from my 18-55mm f3.6-5.6 IS lens for my Canon XSi. Looking for the best value walkaround lens:

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC LD
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM

Some discontinued Canon lens:
Canon EF 28-70mm f3.5-4.5
Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

Wow was gonna ask this exact same question... more specifically how does the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM perform as a semi-decent walk around lens?

I'm using the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 VC as my default lens.

The 17-85 is a pretty average lens. I wouldn't get this one personally.

hey guys, im quite a noob at photography
picked up my first camera this year..
so right now i want a zoom lens that zooms farther
right now i have a 80-200 and 300mm. both are 2.8
im on a tight budget. should i just get one of those zoom multipliers or what are they called?
or i want something more compact. quality isnt important because the pictures will just be of events. i had a hella hard time with the 80-200 this morning for 4 hours haha

^you have a 300mm and you need to zoom farther? what are you shooting? the moon?

I'd recommend a teleconverter if you need more zoom.

get a 500mm mirror lens

^how much are those and which one do you recommend getting?

im thinking about getting a 18-200 so i dont have to carry my 35-70 and 80-200 around all the time lol
everyone tells me i shouldnt do it because of "bad quality" but i really dont mind at this point because of the inconvenience. im only taking pictures of casual events, assemblies, parades, etc. will be working with not alot of space lol. basically i need
1) a daily "get shit done" lens (wider and greater range than the 35-70. 35-70 is pretty good sometimes but really sucks to work with. its loud, af is way slower than manual focusing and sometimes it doesnt even work. im getting a sigma 17-70 this weekend but like i said i need something thats all around so 18-200? willing to spend 300-400 on this one.)
2) a lens that can zoom even farther but quality doesnt matter as long as i can get peoples facial expressions
@!MiKrofT yeah haha those are what i was talking about. which one do you recommend?

tia you guys

@737! If you just need a lens for PW events 300mm is more than enough. I went through the whole year with just my 55-250 and took literally thousands of pics, but since you want a kit lens so badly give the tamron 18-270 a shot. Don't expect much out of image quality especially at the longer end


EDIT: Sounds like you should just sell your dslr if image quality means nothing to you, take that money and get a handycam or something with 400x zoom etc... 18-200 has pretty slow AF in my experience