Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Tokina 11-16 vs. Tamron 17-50
Hey all, I'm currently in the market for a new lens, i have about 700 dollars to spend. I've been looking at the Tokina 11-16 which i know is a great lens but i'm really looking for peoples opinions on the Tamron 17-50, I think i could use the extra focal length but i would be mainly shooting with it locked on 17 on a glidecam. I'd love some feed back about both or even other lens suggestions, mainly for follow cams, maybe some tripod shots mixed in. +k for helpful information -Thanks!
2 different lenses for 2 different uses. save up another hundred or 2 and buy both. what exactly are you shooting?
Optically, the 11-16 slays the 17-50. It's rectilinear too.
what's up matt
you need to decide if you want an ultra wide angle (UWA), the tokina, or a more standard range, the tamron.
I know a lot of people, me included run the 17-50 for glidecam follow kind of stuff without issues.
What other lenses do you have right now? just that kit guy?
You can pick the tamron up for about $350, so maybe pick that up now, it'll be more versatile, good for the summer, and save for the tokina (can't you borrow one from stept if you need it this summer?)
you just have to decide which is more important to you, wide angle or standard zoom, because they're 2 different lenses.
the 11-16 is the 'better' lens, but the 17-50 is probably more versatile. i just bought the 11-16 and im super impressed with it, but my 17-55 is still my go-to lens in most situations.
i bought my 17-55 in june 2010, and i didn't end up needing to buy an 11-16 until a couple months ago.
I think the extra focal length is more important to me right now, i plan on investing in both eventually, i was thinking about going with the VC version of the 17-50, thoughts on that?
the non-VC is sharper.
my canon 17-55 has IS, but i wouldn't really miss it if it didn't
the real answer is get both my two most used lenses
non-vc is sharper and vc isn't really necessary in such a wide angle anyway
where did you find the tamron for $350? I found a couple places that sold it for that price but had horrible reviews so it sketched me out. most places I saw were around $500
I'd get the VC. Can someone explain logically why it would be sharper without it?
looks like I might be sending mine back...but do you recommend buying used stuff?
its a poor system it doesnt work well for video. and buying used is legit
idk how technically accurate this is, but in many cases making a lens complex sacrifices sharpness.
this is from a video standpoint, idk anything about VC for photography
I found a non-VC version for $350 used in really good condition i think I'm going to go ahead and go with that. Thanks for all the good info!
All times are Eastern (-5)