[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Nice to see another Tokina 19-35 user, but I didn't find mine to be that sharp to have a go at 50mm 1.4, it's good but not that good.But it's good VFM. Many of my recent Goa trip are from that lens.
And 70-200mm, oh I love this lens, on my last trip I've used that lens almost 80% of the time.But I got the f4 IS one. As I didn't want to lug that heavy 2.8 and for my use f4 is good enough (mostly for landscapes and occasional candids)

Its not that sharp in the f-stop ranges that one would be shooting a 50 1.4 with. However between f/8-f/11 or so its just astounding how sharp the lens is through the entire focal length range. It can give many a prime lenses a run for their money. Maybe not the 50 1.4 but a 50 1.8 for sure. There's a wee bit of barrel distortion at 19mm but thats acceptable for a lens so cheap. Plus its compatible with film with absolutely no vignetting. Last time round I rented a 17-40 f/4L. Didn't find it to be as sharp as this lens. Considering how much that particular lens costs, I don't see any justification for the price other than the build quality and a slightly smoother focus/zoom ring.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

Its not that sharp in the f-stop ranges that one would be shooting a 50 1.4 with. However between f/8-f/11 or so its just astounding how sharp the lens is through the entire focal length range. It can give many a prime lenses a run for their money. Maybe not the 50 1.4 but a 50 1.8 for sure. There's a wee bit of barrel distortion at 19mm but thats acceptable for a lens so cheap. Plus its compatible with film with absolutely no vignetting. Last time round I rented a 17-40 f/4L. Didn't find it to be as sharp as this lens. Considering how much that particular lens costs, I don't see any justification for the price other than the build quality and a slightly smoother focus/zoom ring.

Probably mine was not that sharp because of the humidity that was built up in one of the lens element. Had got it cleaned once. May be that's one of the reason. Actually I was thinking about replacing it with 17-40L , but now it seems I need to do a one on one tests.

[Gill]

@Tanvir,
Thanks a lot for the information.

Cheers!

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Nice to see another Tokina 19-35 user, but I didn't find mine to be that sharp to have a go at 50mm 1.4, it's good but not that good.But it's good VFM. Many of my recent Goa trip are from that lens.
And 70-200mm, oh I love this lens, on my last trip I've used that lens almost 80% of the time.But I got the f4 IS one. As I didn't want to lug that heavy 2.8 and for my use f4 is good enough (mostly for landscapes and occasional candids)

For digital try and get your hands on the Tokina 12-24mm f4. It's a fantastic wide zoom - very good quality, very well built and compared to the Nikon equivalent (Canon has the 10-22mm I think) $400 cheaper. I've been very happy with mine. Coupled with my 80-200/2.8 it makes for a good quality, relatively fast zoom kit that covers all the wide and telephoto focal lenghts.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by navin

I dont own one. I borrow it from my niece usually for my son's school programs. It serves a greater purpose other than being really fast. Since I am old and carry this lens on a tripod once "they" see me coming with this big white monster and a tripod even the "pro" photograhers hired to take the official shots make room for me. Both the offical school photograhers use Nikon so I dont have to get into who owns the lens with them.

I use mine for the same purpose! Together with a 2x teleconverter I get a really long lens that scares away all the photographers hired by the school.

Originally Posted by navin

My neice jokes that the reason I switched to Canon was so that I cold borrow her lenses! :-) she may be right.

That's always a good reason to choose one system over another

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by StarScream

For digital try and get your hands on the Tokina 12-24mm f4. It's a fantastic wide zoom - very good quality, very well built and compared to the Nikon equivalent (Canon has the 10-22mm I think) $400 cheaper. I've been very happy with mine. Coupled with my 80-200/2.8 it makes for a good quality, relatively fast zoom kit that covers all the wide and telephoto focal lenghts.

Already have canon 10-22mm and quite satisfied with the results of it, probably slightly better then Tokina 12-24mm for contrast and color [not very sure as I'venot done a side by side test]. But build quality of the Tokina is better. I was very much confused between which lens to take but later decided on the Canon one.

[reignofchaos]

The canon 10-22 is one amazing lens optically. It is ultra sharp. Lots of geometric distortion but well at those focal lengths its acceptable. The build quality is a bit suspect though. Had taken a picture of the San Diego airport and skyline with it and thats one of my most cherished photos.

[kaushik_s]

Yes, distortion is there and it's acceptable for the focal lengths it works on.

Hey RoC would love to the see the pics.. Can you send me the link ?

[smsrini]

Found this on Autoblog, and thought of sharing with this community who enjoy cars and photography:

Dodge Challenger SRT8 Photoshoot for TopGear

Top Gear Magazine shoot for new Challenger SRT - Video

Though the techniques may be known to the gurus on this forum, it is an interesting perspective from the photographer!!!!

Anyone want to photoshoot my Safari ?

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Already have canon 10-22mm and quite satisfied with the results of it, probably slightly better then Tokina 12-24mm for contrast and color [not very sure as I'venot done a side by side test]. But build quality of the Tokina is better. I was very much confused between which lens to take but later decided on the Canon one.

Actually, considering that the Canon lens costs only $170 more than the Tokina, I would think most Canon users would go for the same brand lens. For Canon users the Tokina isn't as compelling a choice as it is for Nikon shooters. The Nikon 12-24/4 is almost double the cost of the Tokina. Unless you are a pro and/or need the marginally better quality of the Nikon, it makes little sense to buy it. As you said, the one area where the Tokina trumps both camera brand lenses is build quality. It feels indestructable.

[navin]

Originally Posted by StarScream

As you said, the one area where the Tokina trumps both camera brand lenses is build quality. It feels indestructable.

I have a friend who almost always uses Tokina's ATX-Pro line of lenses with his Nikon. I believe that in most cases the price difference between Nikon and Tokina makes for a more compelling case (in favour of Tokina) than the price difference between Canon and Tokina lenses. Am I right in this assumption.

On another topic. I inted to go for a hike in May. I wil be taking my 6 year old son with me. Since he is still small I will be carrying most of his stuff (water, food, clothes in my backpak).

I intend to travel light taking only my body (40D) mated to a BGE2 and 17-55/2.8IS with the only additional accessories being a 70-300/4-5.6 IS and 430EX. To keep my hands free I was looking at a very compact holster (Kata H14) or waist pack (LowePro Off trail). Any suggestions (remember the BGE2 will be mounted on the camera so the camera is more like a D1 in size than a 40D)?

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by navin

I have a friend who almost always uses Tokina's ATX-Pro line of lenses with his Nikon. I believe that in most cases the price difference between Nikon and Tokina makes for a more compelling case (in favour of Tokina) than the price difference between Canon and Tokina lenses. Am I right in this assumption.

Not really Navin. In the case of the 12-24/4 it's an easy choice to go for the Tokina since its very good, significantly cheaper and Nikon offers only one lens in that range. In the case of other lens categories Nikon has them covered with cheap, mid-range and expensive pro options so the reason to go Tokina is not as obvious. Also there is the question of the lens utilizing all the functionality of the camera body - you only get that with camera brand lenses.
Trivia: Tokina was founded by ex-Nikon lens designers.

Originally Posted by navin

On another topic. I inted to go for a hike in May. I wil be taking my 6 year old son with me. Since he is still small I will be carrying most of his stuff (water, food, clothes in my backpak).

I intend to travel light taking only my body (40D) mated to a BGE2 and 17-55/2.8IS with the only additional accessories being a 70-300/4-5.6 IS and 430EX. To keep my hands free I was looking at a very compact holster (Kata H14) or waist pack (LowePro Off trail). Any suggestions (remember the BGE2 will be mounted on the camera so the camera is more like a D1 in size than a 40D)?

I personally use the LowePro Mini Trekker AW but that takes very little other than camera equipment and is a backpack, which in your case won't be much help. LowePro makes a lot of other bags though, including ones that carry both stuff and camera gear like the DZ series, Orion and Rover Plus AW II - http://www.interfoto.in/cataloglowep...ompany=lowepro

[mail4loys]

I got Canon powershot SD1000 for around 11-12K

[navin]

Originally Posted by StarScream

LowePro makes a lot of other bags though, including ones that carry both stuff and camera gear like the DZ series, Orion and Rover Plus AW II - http://www.interfoto.in/cataloglowep...ompany=lowepro

What do you think about the Dry Zone Rover. My son and I will be flying and then taking a car to our hotel and the hike will only be a day hike from the hotel.

Can the lower compartment of the Dry Zone Rover accomodate a DSLR (battery pack and 17-55/2.8 attached), 70-300 and 430EX? If so then I can use the upper compartment for water bottles, food and clothes.

The 40D with battery pack is about as large as a Pro SLR (D1) so I am really looking for a belt/waist bag that can accomodate a Po SLR+flash and medium zoom. I can then carry the belt/waist bag under my regular haversack.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by navin

What do you think about the Dry Zone Rover. My son and I will be flying and then taking a car to our hotel and the hike will only be a day hike from the hotel.

Can the lower compartment of the Dry Zone Rover accomodate a DSLR (battery pack and 17-55/2.8 attached), 70-300 and 430EX? If so then I can use the upper compartment for water bottles, food and clothes.

The 40D with battery pack is about as large as a Pro SLR (D1) so I am really looking for a belt/waist bag that can accomodate a Po SLR+flash and medium zoom. I can then carry the belt/waist bag under my regular haversack.

Navin, I think the Dry Zone Rover will work well for you. It's camera compartment should easily be able to accomodate a camera body, two lenses and a flash. Interfoto's web site says it can take a pro SLR, 3-4 lenses (up to 80-200/2.8) and additional accessories. Best thing to do would be to visit Interfoto and check it out. That's what I did before buying the Mini Trekker. Do call them first - they don't keep all those bags in stock.
Inter Foto India Pvt Ltd.
602, Nirman Kendra
Off. Dr.Edwin MosesRoad
Mahalaxmi,
Mumbai - 400011
Tel:022 – 24925151/24985751
Fax:022 – 24904141
As far as a waist bag is concerned, it definitely has the advantage of quick access to your camera but I personally like backpacks because they don't come in the way, leave your hands free and balance well.
I don't know where one gets good waist bags in India.