Skip to toolbar

Canon 50mm f/1.8 vs Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (sharpness)

Forums Forums Get Technical Hardware Canon 50mm f/1.8 vs Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (sharpness)

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1388
    Killerclaw
    Participant

    How does the tokina 11-16 compare to the 50 in terms are sharpness?

    #18453
    staplermofo
    Participant

    Which 50?

    #18454
    Killerclaw
    Participant

    Which 50?

    The one in the topic, the f1.8

    The cheap one.

    #18455
    Elsinore
    Keymaster

    I like the lens reviews at http://www.photozone.de/ a lot. They include OEM lenses as well as third party stuff.

    Here’s their review on the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8:
    http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon

    And the one on the Canon 50mm f/1.8:
    http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/160-canon-ef-50mm-f18-ii-test-report–review

    Comparing aperture-to-aperture (f/2.8 and up) on the sharpness/resolution chart, they look pretty close.

    #18456
    Killerclaw
    Participant

    I’m not sure why they didn’t just make it a 11mm prime lens.

    Anyway, how much more challenging would this thing be for low light work compared to the 1.8 that I’m used to working with?

    #18457
    Elsinore
    Keymaster

    Well, f/1.8 is what, 2/3 of a stop faster than f/2.8 I *think*, so your shutter speeds won’t be as fast for the same ISO. Depending on your shooting conditions, that may or may not be a problem.

    #18458
    staplermofo
    Participant

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

    1 1/3 stops according to them.
    But depending on how smokey the places are and how fast the people move you might more than make up for it by being closer and using slower shutters.
    I have an 8mm and a 12mm, and man, lemme tell you, you have to be right on top of people.

    Do you have the kit lens or anything that wide to see how much of a difference being that close makes?

    #18459
    sleeping
    Participant

    Well, f/1.8 is what, 2/3 of a stop faster than f/2.8

    No, 1 1/3 stops – 2.8 to 2 is one stop. You’d probably get at least an extra stop of handholdability with a lens that wide, though, but that only works if motion blur is not a concern.

    #18460
    Killerclaw
    Participant

    I know how F #s work, I just was wondering if I would be able to handle losing those stops when shooting concerts

    #18461
    Elsinore
    Keymaster

    Well, f/1.8 is what, 2/3 of a stop faster than f/2.8

    No, 1 1/3 stops – 2.8 to 2 is one stop. You’d probably get at least an extra stop of handholdability with a lens that wide, though, but that only works if motion blur is not a concern.

    Yeah, see, how my mathtarded ass got into a hobby that is so numbers oriented is beyond me…

    Killerclaw: for concerts, I’ve always heard the faster the aperture the better. I know it was difficult to get hand holdable shutter speeds with my digicam on f/2.8 and ISO 200 at a recent concert I went to, but then you’ll have more usable ISO speeds to work with on your DSLR. I don’t shoot a lot of concerts, though, so YMMV.

    #18462
    staplermofo
    Participant

    Where’s Analogy?

    #18463
    Elsinore
    Keymaster

    That’s what I was wondering 😆 . He’d be the man to ask, Killerclaw.

    #18464
    swampa
    Participant

    For concerts go the 1.8, it will make a huge difference. I have a sigma 2.8 lens and I can’t get enough light for it to be useful most of the time (I have to put the ISO to 1600 or greater which makes the image full of noise).

    How far from the stage will you be taking photos? Unless you are going to be about a metre from the band then I feel the 11-16 will be way to wide. The 50 will give you good head shots from a metre away to full band photos from about 5 metres (depend on the spread of the band)

    #18465
    Killerclaw
    Participant

    For concerts go the 1.8, it will make a huge difference. I have a sigma 2.8 lens and I can’t get enough light for it to be useful most of the time (I have to put the ISO to 1600 or greater which makes the image full of noise).

    How far from the stage will you be taking photos? Unless you are going to be about a metre from the band then I feel the 11-16 will be way to wide. The 50 will give you good head shots from a metre away to full band photos from about 5 metres (depend on the spread of the band)

    Maybe get the Canon 28 or sigma 24mm instead?

    I kinda wanted a really freaking wide lens for landscapes that I could also use for concerts. I get between a meter and 10 meters from bands.

    #18466
    swampa
    Participant

    The last concert I went to, I used a 30mm (borrowed it from SClark to have a play :D) and it was great for getting group shots (without having to head to the back of the room or mingle with the crowd). I felt the 50mm gave more intimate photos of the performers, as you could be further away so it wasn’t as obtrusive (with the 30mm, you nearly need to be right up in their face to get a headshot).

    It isn’t going to matter too much between 24-85mm, it is more important getting a low f numbered lens (you can always move to get a shot with any sizes in that range but you can’t get more light if it is a dark venue)

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.