ISO, I posted a similar question at the beginning of this month in the ALT forum. Many nice recommendations from members there, if you don't mind MF. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1177741/0
I think the Tokina 17mm AF will fit the need very well. 17/18mm is my favorite WA focal length, and I'd rather not even bother with a zoom in the range, if i can just get the FL I want.
I'd also prefer AF, as I just simply can't MF as well anymore.
You're talking about the Tokina 17mm AT-X? For that kind of money, I'd rather buy the EF 20-35/3.5-4.5, even if it isn't Canon's strongest, it has USM. And for just a couple hundred more, you could have a great 17-40/4L lens! I certainly wouldn't buy a Tokina at $300+.
You've got a great camera -- buy quality lenses, even if you have to wait a bit. I know you have experienced some of Canon's better offerings.
I may wind up with a 17-40L, it's the most likely L on my possible purchase list.
I am negotiating an offer on a Tokina AT-X currently. If i can get it for $300, that'll work for me. I'd rather spend $300 on the Tokina, then have ~$300 left over to get an 85/1.8 or 100/2.
ISO1600, why didn't you just buy faster glass rather than spending all of that money on a new camera? I read your response about lasik and dark viewfinder but faster glass helps remedy that by giving a brighter image seen through the viewfinder. It would also have given you better separation and allow you to shoot a lower iso setting. If you really want to shoot indoors, a dedicated flash gun will give you much better bang for your buck than trying to find the optical solution (lens).
Roger, I'm not stupid, and I know what I want.
This thread is not about my camera/lens selection, it is about cheap wide solutions.
I'd rather not use flash.
I have owned a crap ton of Canon/Nikon, both FF and Crop, and tons of glass on both systems, from cheap to L.
The faster glass that is worth a damn, in my opinion, is far too expensive for me at this time, compared to the gains that the 6D gives me over a 5D, 5DII, or D700.
1) I "need" video. 5D and D700 don't have that.
2) I NEED usable stupid-high ISO's. 5DII doesn't have that.
3) I am not a crop sensor enthusiast.
Only other camera besides the 6D that fits the bill is the D600, and it's pretty much a toss-up between the two.
So.... I'll buy a $2k camera that has wifi and gps built-in, fantastic OOC jpgs, a great finder, great low-light AF, throw some cheap AF lenses on it, and take pictures.
I'm enjoying life with my wife and baby- a cheaper camera but "better"/more expensive glass may not allow me to do so as easily or as care-free.
I cannot speak to the lens, but the best thing you can do is take all your pictures in RAW mode at the highest setting. Use the software that came with your camera to edit the best shots for sharing and then when you pick the ones you like, convert them to JPEG and at the size you want for sharing. You will have the original files and still be able to do everything you want. The best photos for me started coming when I changed my settings to RAW and then sat at my computer changing what I needed. They look 10x better.
I bought the older AT-X Aspherical. The newer one is called "AT-X Pro".
Old one has a built-in hood and seems slightly more compact, at least vs new one w/ hood mounted.
I'm not going to shoot RAW. I know that ultimate image quality will be obtained that way. I still have RAWs from 2004-2007 when i was still wasting my time and hard drive space with them.
The 6D is more than capable of giving me OOC jpgs that will outdo RAWs from Canons a few years ago.
Jim, I won't say I haven't thought about it. 1600 isn't as extreme as it once was!
That's a fine addition to the kit -- I had forgotten about that lens. After seeing the reminder I looked for one in Nikon mount for myself I think what you have will work great, and if you eventually get a 24-105 you will definitely be set. I totally agree with you about shooting jpeg -- I used to shoot everything in RAW but since getting a D600 I am finding that there really isn't a point for shots of my family, etc. I will probably still shoot RAW for landscapes, but I am pretty content with the images in jpeg.
Paul
getting a 6D and using crap lenses on it is like....buying a bottle of good wine and then pissing in it.
i ain t here to judge and you've explained your choice, yet if it was me.. i would have never gottrn on this road ( new high tech camera vs. crap glass).
i find alternative glass ( manual focus glass) to be far better than these consumer lenses. except the case where AF is crucial.
i always wondered the eternal question... cheap/mid level body & good (L) glass.. or new body & ordinary glass..
like i use the 5Dc with the 24 L II and 135L vs. OP's 6D + his lenses..
I wish a 5Dc would work for me, it's a GREAT camera, when paired with good glass.
I pretty much need AF these days. Combination of eyesight and laziness haha.
I don't think for the money I could have as well-rounded of an AF kit with anything near L quality, without a LOT of bargain hunting for alt lenses.
adrianb wrote:
getting a 6D and using crap lenses on it is like....buying a bottle of good wine and then pissing in it.
i ain t here to judge and you've explained your choice, yet if it was me.. i would have never gottrn on this road ( new high tech camera vs. crap glass).
i always wondered the eternal question... cheap/mid level body & good (L) glass.. or new body & ordinary glass..
like i use the 5Dc with the 24 L II and 135L vs. OP's 6D + his lenses..
I had a T3i with a kit lens and while it worked ok and produced good images, everything improved when I started purchasing better glass. The first was an 85 1.8 which showed me that the original kit lens was crap. Then I got a few L lenses and once I saw how much better they were, I wrapped up my kit lens back in the bubble wrap from the box it came. I cannot believe a small point and shoot wouldn't do the same thing as the OP wants considering the refusal to do anything but medium JPEG.
haha are you guys just trolling me? or are you really that narrow minded?
EF lenses aren't the ONLY thing I own, but they are what I do most of my shooting with.
MOST of my shooting these days is around the house/town family stuff, with occasional semi-serious little shoots of various sorts. For those, there is a very narrow set of FL needs, and I've got/am getting all the glass I need for that- Nikon 50/1.4 AIS, Tamron 500/8 Adaptal (for when 300 isn't enough haha), Tokina 17/3.5 now (apparently a very respectable wide)...
On top of all that, I have a local rental shop with most of the popular L's, for VERY reasonable rates. I can rent any single L he has, for less than $40 friday-monday.
NOW do you guys see why I don't feel the need to throw down $1200 for 16-35mkII, $1100 for 35L, $850 for a 135L, etc?
One thing you should never have to do is justify a purchasing decision to some mystery man behind a computer screen.
He posted a question on one of the wackiest photo gear forums on the internet. He should be prepared for any kind of answer, including those questioning the equipment choices he made for the type of photography he does (family & vacation).
