Can someone comment on how this is different from a "tilt-shift" lens costing hundreds of dollars more? I want to get into the realm of architectural photography, and was told a tilt-shift would be great to have, but LensBaby was also mentioned. Can someone comment on how this is different from a "tilt-shift" lens costing hundreds of dollars more? I want to get into the realm of architectural photography, and was told a... » Read More Can someone comment on how this is different from a "tilt-shift" lens costing hundreds of dollars more? I want to get into the realm of architectural photography, and was told a tilt-shift would be great to have, but LensBaby was also mentioned. « Show Less
1325253
Hello, I think I can help. It sounds like in your case, you want to get a true tilt shift lens for architectural photography. Canon makes some very nice ones. Yes, they cost more, but those lenses will enable you to have the proper control of each axis to compose your subjects. They're also probably better optically and will probably give you auto focus control and all that nice stuff. The LensBaby follows the principles of a tilt shift lens, but is much more of a free form, special effect lens. When you tilt and shift with the LensBaby, it creates more of an exaggerated, dreamlike blur that is very cool, but probably not what you're looking for when photographing buildings. Hello, I think I can help. It sounds like in your case, you want to get a true tilt shift lens for architectural photography. Canon makes some very nice ones. Yes, they cost more, but those lenses will enable you to have the proper control of each axis to compose your subjects. They're also probably better optically and will probably give you auto focus control and all that nice stuff. The LensBaby follows the principles of a tilt shift lens, but is much more of a free form, special effect lens. When you tilt and shift with the LensBaby, it creates more of an exaggerated, dreamlike blur... » Read More Hello, I think I can help. It sounds like in your case, you want to get a true tilt shift lens for architectural photography. Canon makes some very nice ones. Yes, they cost more, but those lenses will enable you to have the proper control of each axis to compose your subjects. They're also probably better optically and will probably give you auto focus control and all that nice stuff. The LensBaby follows the principles of a tilt shift lens, but is much more of a free form, special effect lens. When you tilt and shift with the LensBaby, it creates more of an exaggerated, dreamlike blur that is very cool, but probably not what you're looking for when photographing buildings. « Show Less
1325254
A tilt-shift lens is larger, more flexible and various in its applications, and is used mostly with field cameras. A lens baby although similar in concept, is more limited and is made for 35 mm cameras.
714654
Totally different animal. For architecture you need a real tilt shift. Lensbaby is not built the same.
1451391
Matthew, Sigma has released information of a replacement lens which will hit the market towards the end of March. the lens is priced at $499 and boasts significant upgrades to almost every aspect of the lens. With that being said the price of this version of the lens has been slashed (lucky people like me found it for $289). I would consider your need for this type of lens. Most of the bad reviews come from earlier models of this particular version (matted black Vs smooth black). The defective lens's rightfully so get poor reviews, however the functioning models get high praise. I have tested the sharpness and autofocus and my unit is perfectly fine. I decided that $500 was too much for a new lens and $289 was a bargain for its older brother. If you look around you may still find that clearance price. I hope this helped!
1836801
I'm really a novice when it comes to photography. This lens does not have silent focus. As far as weight goes, a DSLR is already pretty heavy, and this lens does add a bit more weight to it. However, you have to balance that w/ the fact that you will most likely only carry around this single lens since it has a much wider range.
1580106
This lens is useful in many low light situations. it is like the 50mm 1.4G (only bigger, longer, heavier, sharper and a lot more expensive). Compared to the 50mm 1.4G, it also and requires more light due to the longer focal length. Is it suitable for museum or church or any indoor shoot? Yes. Is it worth the price? That depends. IMHO, 50mm can perform that just as well, except it does not that reach.
2170939
I own both lenses for the last three months. Initially had the 17-40mm on my XSi but after a couple weeks of frequent use of my camera i switched to the 10-22mm. Found the lense according to pics i was taking to be of more use to me than the 17-40mm. I guess what Bauista said is right, it all depends if you will go full frame in the future or not!!! Also the type of pictures you are taking is an important factor!! Both lenses are great but i think that 10-22mm is a bit ahead of the 17-40mm especially when you have a 1.6crop camera.Their prices vary, i bought through time both my lenses around $650!!! I own both lenses for the last three months. Initially had the 17-40mm on my XSi but after a couple weeks of frequent use of my camera i switched to the 10-22mm. Found the lense according to pics i was taking to be of more use to me than the 17-40mm. I guess what Bauista said is right, it all depends if you will go full frame in the future or not!!! Also the type of pictures you are taking is an important factor!! Both lenses are great but i think that 10-22mm is a bit ahead of the 17-40mm especially when you have a 1.6crop camera.Their prices vary, i bought through time both my... » Read More I own both lenses for the last three months. Initially had the 17-40mm on my XSi but after a couple weeks of frequent use of my camera i switched to the 10-22mm. Found the lense according to pics i was taking to be of more use to me than the 17-40mm. I guess what Bauista said is right, it all depends if you will go full frame in the future or not!!! Also the type of pictures you are taking is an important factor!! Both lenses are great but i think that 10-22mm is a bit ahead of the 17-40mm especially when you have a 1.6crop camera.Their prices vary, i bought through time both my lenses around $650!!! « Show Less
774987
Hi Mr. Hewitt (I wonder if we have any relation?) Anyway, for a true beginner (as in you've never used anything but a point-and-shoot) I'd recommend you get a Nikon D40 and an 18-200 VR. Keep the 18-55 kit lens, you'll find it lighter when your just taking snapshots of the family or whatever. The D40 is an excellent starter camera, it has almost all the tweaks of this much more expensive camera without the weight and cost. The D300 has many advantages over it, but I really feel you'll learn a lot faster with a simpler camera, and step up to this when your ready. I actually started out with a D40 a bit over a year ago, it made starting out quite fun. The 18-200VR will follow you as a great lens on the D300 too, and you can use any newer AF-S lenses on it. If you have older AF-D Nikon lenses lying around that you want to use, a D80 is also a good place to start. It's easier to make the custom tweaks you'll learn about in your photography classes on the D80, but it still has Auto modes as well to get you started. Checkout www.kenrockwell.com, especially his recommended camera page. He's a bit more eloquent than I am. And I wouldn't be so fast to recommend the D60 to anyone, it's just the D40x's guts (plus active D-Lighting, but without the other enhancements of the D300/D3) with a different name stamped on it. I wouldn't recommend the D40x or D60 to anyone, they exist to fill a price point to compete with Canon. If your eyeballing either, jump to the D80 and don't look back.
1463261
Did you ever get a lens? I'm making the same decision now. If so, what did you buy? Are you happy with your decision? Is there anything else you would add that would help me make a decision. Thanks!
1582486
Brandon. It doesn't say when you asked this question but I figured the answer out. First, I just purchased the last one that a storefront had for $289, so i'm sorry if I stole the lens from you :X. Second, the price is going to be interesting on this lens from here on out. It has been discontinued due to a recently announced new model. The question is how much will this new model cost? To my knowledge that hasn't been answered. I decided to snag it at this price because if the new model is upwards of $400 then it out of my price range anyway. If the new model comes out sub $400 this older model might tank in price. Supply and demand will dictate based on that information. As for big stores, I don't see you having much luck. Most did firesales and liquidated their stock already to mitigate the price risk. I can tell you that this is my first fixed lens for general photography. It hasnt even arrived yet, but when it does I plan to test it out. If its not to my liking I can resell it to you at the price I purchased + the tax I paid + shipping. I would generally just return it but that lowers your chance of it ending up in your hands. If this was a recent post just come back to me and I can show you proof that it hasn't even arrived yet :). Take care!
1190458
They're right sir. It is SUCH a superb lens (for the D7000 and D7100) I sold it and now regret it. I'll repurchase it soon. I can't even begin to tell you the "wow" photos I've taken with it. Make sure to get the B+W UV lens filter to protect it. Great for indoor and outdoor use too.
1938141
I have used this lens almost exclusively thus far for Architectural photography. It is fantastic! You have to slow down and set up properly by going through a sequence to prepare for the shot. This lens is tripod use only. Manual focus and making the adjustments require that. Easy to use the variable adjustments once you get the hang of it. Stunning results! It requires some reasonable practice time, and a patient persevering attitude. I purchased just a few days before going on a trip to Australia, had great opportunities to use it while there and came back with the highest scoring images for local club competitions ever. -John I have used this lens almost exclusively thus far for Architectural photography. It is fantastic! You have to slow down and set up properly by going through a sequence to prepare for the shot. This lens is tripod use only. Manual focus and making the adjustments require that. Easy to use the variable adjustments once you get the hang of it. Stunning results! It requires some reasonable practice time, and a patient persevering attitude. I purchased just a few days before going on a trip to Australia, had great opportunities to use it while there and came back with the highest scoring images... » Read More I have used this lens almost exclusively thus far for Architectural photography. It is fantastic! You have to slow down and set up properly by going through a sequence to prepare for the shot. This lens is tripod use only. Manual focus and making the adjustments require that. Easy to use the variable adjustments once you get the hang of it. Stunning results! It requires some reasonable practice time, and a patient persevering attitude. I purchased just a few days before going on a trip to Australia, had great opportunities to use it while there and came back with the highest scoring images for local club competitions ever. -John « Show Less
2004342
I purchased the Nikon Brand VR 18-55mm DX f: 3.5-5.6 AF-S lens, used, last year for my Nikon D-90, and it is a happy combination. I am very pleased with the usefulness of the 18-55mm, expecially for the low price, I paid in the range of $125. It is actually on the camera at this moment. I am pleased that all of my "old" Nikon lens work with the D-90, although they, of course, lack vibration reduction. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 1400 printer capable of 13x19 prints and this lens is just fine in resolution for my use. OH!!! the lower priced Nikon d-40 does not operate in automatic mode with the older lens, so be watchful as your question implies, not all Nikons have the same capabilities. I purchased the Nikon Brand VR 18-55mm DX f: 3.5-5.6 AF-S lens, used, last year for my Nikon D-90, and it is a happy combination. I am very pleased with the usefulness of the 18-55mm, expecially for the low price, I paid in the range of $125. It is actually on the camera at this moment. I am pleased that all of my "old" Nikon lens work with the D-90, although they, of course, lack vibration reduction. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 1400 printer capable of 13x19 prints and this lens is just fine in resolution for my use. OH!!! the lower priced Nikon d-40 does not operate in automatic... » Read More I purchased the Nikon Brand VR 18-55mm DX f: 3.5-5.6 AF-S lens, used, last year for my Nikon D-90, and it is a happy combination. I am very pleased with the usefulness of the 18-55mm, expecially for the low price, I paid in the range of $125. It is actually on the camera at this moment. I am pleased that all of my "old" Nikon lens work with the D-90, although they, of course, lack vibration reduction. I have an Epson Stylus Photo 1400 printer capable of 13x19 prints and this lens is just fine in resolution for my use. OH!!! the lower priced Nikon d-40 does not operate in automatic mode with the older lens, so be watchful as your question implies, not all Nikons have the same capabilities. « Show Less
1794211
I actually compared the two a little bit, doing some research on them and looking at reviews (both individually and compared to each other). The general consensus that I found was that even though they each have their specific pros and cons, the Tokina suited my needs better, and at a better price point. I felt that in most regards it was superior lens; but considering the price difference it was the clear choice for me. I use a Canon 7D (crop sensor) and that's what the Tokina is made for; the downside is that I couldn't use it if I decided to step up to a full frame camera (that's an advantage of the Canon). But for now this is the lens I wanted for capturing landscapes (both photo and at some point video from an r/c quadcopter), as well as night photography - and it works great!
648860
It really depends on what your needs are. Although this is an amazing lens for the price (especially in portability) I find it to be a little too long for me. It's a bit long for street photography; a 28 or 24mm could get much more of the scene in. But really, it's like any lens. Know your gear. Know your limitations. You might buy a 24mm and find that you prefer something a bit tighter. Great for portaiture. If you do more indoor things or landscapes, you might want something wider and faster. If you do outside portraiture or have a bit more room to move about, go for it. Actually, either way, go for it. The product is amazing for the price, and build quality is twice as good as the nifty fifty. It really depends on what your needs are. Although this is an amazing lens for the price (especially in portability) I find it to be a little too long for me. It's a bit long for street photography; a 28 or 24mm could get much more of the scene in. But really, it's like any lens. Know your gear. Know your limitations. You might buy a 24mm and find that you prefer something a bit tighter. Great for portaiture. If you do more indoor things or landscapes, you might want something wider and faster. If you do outside portraiture or have a bit more room to move about, go for it. Actually, either... » Read More It really depends on what your needs are. Although this is an amazing lens for the price (especially in portability) I find it to be a little too long for me. It's a bit long for street photography; a 28 or 24mm could get much more of the scene in. But really, it's like any lens. Know your gear. Know your limitations. You might buy a 24mm and find that you prefer something a bit tighter. Great for portaiture. If you do more indoor things or landscapes, you might want something wider and faster. If you do outside portraiture or have a bit more room to move about, go for it. Actually, either way, go for it. The product is amazing for the price, and build quality is twice as good as the nifty fifty. « Show Less
1139200
It's a phenomenal lens ... One of my favs ! It does however have a very specific place in my lenses , meaning : it's not for everything . It's an ultra wide lens and in as much there is image distortion around the outer rim (like a bubble /fisheye but not as pronounced) ...when used correctly it's breathtaking though -- I also shoot a lot of weddings and this lens may only come out once or twice at a wedding ...maybe you're looking for something a little more rounded (productivity wise) ? You can see some sample images on my Facebook page Dreamshift Photography ...my cover photo (among others ) are with the 14mm ...if you have any further questions I'll be glad to answer them :) Jeremiah.gribble@gmail.com or dreamshift photography on Facebook :)
1276663
I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut yourself on the sharpness. LOL. I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut... » Read More I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut yourself on the sharpness. LOL. « Show Less
2026949
So basically what they are talking about is the difference between cameras with an auto-focus motor built right into the camera body so that all lenses you use will be auto foucusing. Or at least allow you to choose autofocus if yo so desire. And, the cameras that require a lens with a motor built in. For nikon, those are the AF-S lenses. You can go either way. I had the 3100 without the motor which made this "nifty 50" lens exclusively manual focus for me and would also be your experience. I had a great time learning to control that but if you ever get into charging people money for your photos, you probably want something a little more reliable in terms of auto focus. So basically what they are talking about is the difference between cameras with an auto-focus motor built right into the camera body so that all lenses you use will be auto foucusing. Or at least allow you to choose autofocus if yo so desire. And, the cameras that require a lens with a motor built in. For nikon, those are the AF-S lenses. You can go either way. I had the 3100 without the motor which made this "nifty 50" lens exclusively manual focus for me and would also be your experience. I had a great time learning to control that but if you ever get into charging people money... » Read More So basically what they are talking about is the difference between cameras with an auto-focus motor built right into the camera body so that all lenses you use will be auto foucusing. Or at least allow you to choose autofocus if yo so desire. And, the cameras that require a lens with a motor built in. For nikon, those are the AF-S lenses. You can go either way. I had the 3100 without the motor which made this "nifty 50" lens exclusively manual focus for me and would also be your experience. I had a great time learning to control that but if you ever get into charging people money for your photos, you probably want something a little more reliable in terms of auto focus. « Show Less
1046019
The link for the comparison at cameralabs.com is not applicable because it tested the Sigma 18-200 DC prior to the release of the OS version. The OS version is much better optically than its predecessor and also includes HSM (High Speed Motor). I have read test reviews and comparisons at other sites such as popphoto that indicate the Sigma is sharper and has less distortion than the Nikon 18-200 VR, but they also state it is slightly louder. I just received my Sigma 18-200 OS today and have done limited testing, but I can tell you the AF and OS noise are not bad (the OS chirps when it turns on and off). The Sigma AF is louder than my Nikon 18-135 (w/SWM), but quieter than the AF on my Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime (wo/SWM). The HSM AF seems just as fast as my Nikon lenses. The build quality feels better than the Nikon 18-135; the zoom is smooth and solid. The first things I tested today were barrel distortion and OS functionality. Barrel distortion is present at the wide end on ALL wide-range zooms, but the Sigma controls it better. The Sigma has noticeably less barrel distortion at 18mm than my Nikon. This benefit of the Sigma is moot really, because barrel distortion of both lenses can easily be corrected with software. The OS functions very well, I can shoot hand-held down to 1/10th of a second with no blur. I will post again after I have time to do more testing.