Is that the UK magazine that cost $16.75CDN?... I like my Tokina.

Wicked. My next lens is probably going to be a 10-22 or a or a 70-200 as sport season is around the corner.

thoughts on th Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM?

Hmm do you plan on shooting in low light?

Personally I don't think the IS is worth it on a lens like that. But im too lazy to research right now.

Get the Sigma 12-24...works for full frame, too!

do you own one?

even so I lose that 2 mm.

so 12x1.6 = ~19
while the 10 = 16.

I think ill just go camera root. I might be getting a second job at my friends cousin camera store developing rolls and selling stuff... would be an intresting job to have.

No, but I want one!

I read that you cannot screw in filters on top of the Sigma 12-24 lens as the lens bulge out. Is that true?

What the fuck was I trying to say there?

^ no idea but i just ignored it as i didn't understand it.... but now i think u wanted to say Canon ;D

me too, that or the sigma 10-20. still works on FF above 13mm so i hear.

lenses don't lose value do they? if i bought a nice lens, would something else supercede it in the near future like how electronics do?

lenses will drop in value no matter what, but usually brand names don't drop as fast as 3rd party lenses.

it also depends on how saturated the market is... if there are a bunch of a certain lens, then the value will drop.

You don't have to worry too much about lenses being superceded in the future because they don't get updated as fast as elecotrnics do. A bunch of Canon Ls have been around for many many years and haven't been updated at all - glass is glass, manufacturing methods may change but the basic physics stay the same.

I personally try not to buy lenses new because you lose a certain amount of money as soon as you walk out of the camera store, but sometimes it's good to buy new (or buy used but get the reciept from the seller) to get the longer warranty offered by the manufactuer.

Yes.

Almost everything loses value.

Presently, the optics of the best lenses are at the best they will ever be. Zoom lenses my improve, but primes have not really improved for over 20 years.

17-40mm f/4L or a 10-22mm f/3.5-4.6 (non L)

About the same price but I can only afford one for now.

Personally, I'd go for the 10-22. You can get some really effective effects with that lens. And you don't really see as much super-wide angle as you do standard portrait types... that's going to be my next lens.

I have a CPL on mine but you'll see vig on the sides :(

Don't you get uneven polarization on that lens? ...and I thought that lens didn't have front lens threads...it's a rear gelatin filter isn't it?

I'd go for the 17-40 just because I would put more use to it than the 10-22mm. It doesn't matter what's not popular or popular out there, I'd just get something I'd use for most of my shots. Also, I feel that the Canon 10-22 is overpriced compared to 3rd market lenses which provided similar results.

It has front threading on the cap. You can also use gelatin filters in the back too. Not sure about the uneven polarization

Quick questions about filters... I'm getting a graduated ND and was wondering if a .6 was enough for bright daytime days.

^^^ WHat kind of GND are you getting...screw-in type or filter holder? With a screw-in type, the boundary will be right in the middle, which will limit you to taking landscapes with the horizon only in the middle. With a holder type, you can move the filter up & down to alter the horizon position.

Get a 2 or 3 stop one.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...u=57842&is=REG

That one.

I also want to pick up one of these

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=17&Submit.y=8

but im having a little conflict on which one i would use more. The clear one is used for Action shots, while the frosted is used for portraits.

Tiffen is not a very good brand, IMHO.