needs second opinion, cold feet

dyslexia said:

I think the biggest issue with the Tokina is going to be the small
aperture. I myself recently decided to give up on my Canon 28-200mm
f/3.5-5.6, because once I go over 75mm, it's at f/5.6 all the way
to 200mm. I suspect the Tokina is going to be similar.

The end result of this is, it's almost useless indoors. At f/5.6
and ISO1600, you'll be lucky to get maybe 1/15s. So, if you want to
use the lens indoors without a flash, I would not recommend the
24-200mm, as I believe it suffers from about the same problem.

My solution was to purchase the Canon 135mm f/2L, which gives me
good reach, and good low light capability. However, it's a bit
expensive, which may be prohibitive for you. Considering I'm
looking to unload my 28-200mm, that takes a little bit off the
price (but not too much, considering the 135mm is over $900 new ).

I'm loving the 135mm so far, and even with the reduced reach, I'm
finding it 10x more useful than the 28-200mm, if only because I can
actually use it indoors.

--
-- dyslexia

http://implausible.net/galleries.html

Click to expand...

Mrokay said:

Spent some times yesterday testing it and found that the 100 f/2
doesn't have that much reach (I was trying to photograph some
seagulls). I'm thinking about returning it for a tokina 24-200
3.5-5.6 lens. How much difference will another 100mm make?

Click to expand...

Mrokay said:

sort to be a bugger, but on tuesday I got the Canon 100 f/2 USm.
(couldn't afford the 70-200 F4L new $630 and couldn't find it used
in NY).

Spent some times yesterday testing it and found that the 100 f/2
doesn't have that much reach (I was trying to photograph some
seagulls). I'm thinking about returning it for a tokina 24-200
3.5-5.6 lens. How much difference will another 100mm make?

The problems is, I do mostly landscapes (90%). Not alot of animals
or birds to shoot in NY. So the zoom/telephoto will be used only
occasionally when I need to reach in for something.

And because I'm not going to be using it alot I'm split.

One side of me saids,"live with the 100, you probably won't notice
the 100mm difference when you;re not aiming for animals. Plus the
faster lens on the canon might be useful when you shoot dogs or
cats in the park or at your friends home. And it can give good
background blur, no more photoshop."

Other side of me saids,"get the tokina, it's cheaper, you save a
100 bucks and if the lens qaulity isn't as good as the canon you're
not using it enough to be that important of an issue. Besides you
can always up the ISo if you need it for faster shoots. Can always
use photoshop for background blur. Save the money toward the
purchase of a 17-40L or sigma 12-24 instead"

SO what should I do? If i return it I have to do it soon

Click to expand...

Mrokay said:

Spent some times yesterday testing it and found that the 100 f/2
doesn't have that much reach (I was trying to photograph some
seagulls). I'm thinking about returning it for a tokina 24-200
3.5-5.6 lens. How much difference will another 100mm make?

Click to expand...

Mrokay said:

The problems is, I do mostly landscapes (90%). Not a lot of animals
or birds to shoot in NY.

Click to expand...

Mrokay said:

occasionally when I need to reach in for something.

And because I'm not going to be using it alot I'm split.

One side of me saids,"live with the 100, you probably won't notice
the 100mm difference when you;re not aiming for animals. Plus the
faster lens on the canon might be useful when you shoot dogs or
cats in the park or at your friends home. And it can give good
background blur, no more photoshop."

Other side of me saids,"get the tokina, it's cheaper, you save a
100 bucks and if the lens qaulity isn't as good as the canon you're
not using it enough to be that important of an issue. Besides you
can always up the ISo if you need it for faster shoots. Can always
use photoshop for background blur. Save the money toward the
purchase of a 17-40L or sigma 12-24 instead"

SO what should I do? If i return it I have to do it soon

Click to expand...

Don Paluh said:

Don Paluh said:

Spent some times yesterday testing it and found that the 100 f/2
doesn't have that much reach (I was trying to photograph some
seagulls). I'm thinking about returning it for a tokina 24-200
3.5-5.6 lens. How much difference will another 100mm make?

Click to expand...

An additional 100mm should double the size of your sea gulls
visually and multiply the pixel count or image area by a factor of
4. So that's something. My friend shoots birds in Central Park
(with Canon digital equipment), and it seems there are plenty to
shoot in NYC. His website is http://www.calvorn.com He uses a 600mm
lens, so I would say buy as many mm as you can afford if you want
to do this kind of photography seriously.

Don Paluh said:

The problems is, I do mostly landscapes (90%). Not a lot of animals
or birds to shoot in NY.

Click to expand...

My friend shoots birds in Central Park (with Canon digital
equipment), and it seems there are plenty to shoot. His website is
http://www.calvorn.com

So the zoom/telephoto will be used only

Don Paluh said:

occasionally when I need to reach in for something.

And because I'm not going to be using it alot I'm split.

One side of me saids,"live with the 100, you probably won't notice
the 100mm difference when you;re not aiming for animals. Plus the
faster lens on the canon might be useful when you shoot dogs or
cats in the park or at your friends home. And it can give good
background blur, no more photoshop."

Other side of me saids,"get the tokina, it's cheaper, you save a
100 bucks and if the lens qaulity isn't as good as the canon you're
not using it enough to be that important of an issue. Besides you
can always up the ISo if you need it for faster shoots. Can always
use photoshop for background blur. Save the money toward the
purchase of a 17-40L or sigma 12-24 instead"

SO what should I do? If i return it I have to do it soon

Click to expand...

--
don paluh, nyc/buffalo

Click to expand...

BTP said:

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lens101/focallength/index.html

Second, don't do it. You are going from a high quality, fast, USM
lens to a slow, lower quality lens. I would do one of two things:

(1) Keep your 100 f/2
(2) Save the money and get a better zoom like the 70-200 f/4L

My 2 cents worth

Mrokay said:

sort to be a bugger, but on tuesday I got the Canon 100 f/2 USm.
(couldn't afford the 70-200 F4L new $630 and couldn't find it used
in NY).

Spent some times yesterday testing it and found that the 100 f/2
doesn't have that much reach (I was trying to photograph some
seagulls). I'm thinking about returning it for a tokina 24-200
3.5-5.6 lens. How much difference will another 100mm make?

The problems is, I do mostly landscapes (90%). Not alot of animals
or birds to shoot in NY. So the zoom/telephoto will be used only
occasionally when I need to reach in for something.

And because I'm not going to be using it alot I'm split.

One side of me saids,"live with the 100, you probably won't notice
the 100mm difference when you;re not aiming for animals. Plus the
faster lens on the canon might be useful when you shoot dogs or
cats in the park or at your friends home. And it can give good
background blur, no more photoshop."

Other side of me saids,"get the tokina, it's cheaper, you save a
100 bucks and if the lens qaulity isn't as good as the canon you're
not using it enough to be that important of an issue. Besides you
can always up the ISo if you need it for faster shoots. Can always
use photoshop for background blur. Save the money toward the
purchase of a 17-40L or sigma 12-24 instead"

SO what should I do? If i return it I have to do it soon

Click to expand...

--
Brian

Click to expand...