Lens decision help

jeb_b_vt

jeb_b_vt

Active member
Hey guys!Y budget is just about $1000. I'm trying to decide whether I should get a canon 70-200 f/4...or the rokinon 85mm f/1.4 AND the tokina 11-16. Any suggestions? I have a 17-50 and am looking for a lens with a longer focal legnth. So should I get the 70-200 or get the two other lens? +k for helpful responses!
 
While the answer will almost definitely be the 70-200 could you give a bit more info on what you need it for? Video? Photo? Outdoors only? Do you need f/1.4?(really ask yourself)
 
Mainly for video use. The f/1.4 would be super helpful cause I want to start shooting in low light. On the other hand, I'm going on a school trip to New Zealand where I'll be taking a ton of photos for the trips website and stuff. So I'm not exactly sure which way to go. Suggestions?
 
I'd say that I'll be shooting video 75% of the time if that makes a difference. Ideally I would get the 70-200 and the 11-16 but as of right now I won't have enough money by the time I leave for the trip.
 
Hmm...

What situations do you foresee needing wider than 17mm In nz? Don't forget they're all 3 relatively heavy lenses, each 500g+.

Do you know how shallow the dof will be at 1.4 on the 85? Do you need 85mm or are you just looking for a tele lens and also looking to get something faster. If so don't get the 85.

The way I see it you have a few options,

First decide if you need the 11-16, if you do, get the 11-16, 70-200 and keep the tamron 17-50(you can get the 11-16 and 70-200 for 550$ each iirc)

OR

Get the 70-200 and 85, assuming you're needing a 1.4 lens at that focal length(I doubt it)
 
yeah, i doubt ill need the f1.4, i think ill get the 70-200 first and then hopefully i can get the 11-16!
 
Get the 70-200 F4L, and get a nifty fifty, it's cheap , fast, and 50 on crop (80-85) is a sick focal length. I feel like an 85 prime would be too tight on crop for 'daily' use IMO.
 
you could get a 70-200 f/4 non is for $500, leaving you with another $500 to put towards a 11-16 letting you cover almost all focal lengths from 11-200mm.
 
Personally, i'd go with the Rokinon and tokina, because the tokina seems like a very useful, versatile lens, and everything from rokinon is great quality. I have an 8mm rokinon fisheye (i know, big difference from 85mm) but its a great quality lens.
 
Im sorry entire statement is false. Tokina is an UWA, it's a specialty lens not versatile unless all you do is shoot skiing with a glidecam. Rokinon 8mm is quite possible the worst lens I've ever hard, worse than a Holga so. The 85mm is semi legit, but other than speed i'd still prefer a 70-200 F4.....
 
Disagree. I think it can be used plenty for landscape, works great for timelapses, excellent for star photography as well.
 
You could get a second hand Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 instead of the 70-200 f/4 and 85 f/1.4. I paid $500 for mine (Nikon mount) and it is a stunning lens.

The 11-16 is indeed not versatile at all, but great at what it does (UWA).

For the low light shooting I'd go with a prime in the 24mm - 35mm range. Keep in mind that longer lenses (85mm) need faster shutter speeds which is not helping in low light. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 can be found for $200 second hand, the AF is a bit iffy but the images are very nice from it.
 
Fail to see how it's got any advantage for time lapses?

Sure it's good for landscapes & astro especially, but I don't get what you mean about timelapses

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top