lens – Tokina AT-X 120 Pro DX AF 11-20mm f/2.8 vs Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 Pro DX

for my Canon 80D am looking for a wide angle fast lens. Am considering the Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8.
Am confused though as I have found online two different names with apparently the same specifications.

Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 Pro DX
This is the most commonly found and reviewed, with a price going from 500+ EUR up.
The Tokina official site has this lens (discontinued in 2020 and replaced by the CF version for APS-C cameras)
Specifications:
Focal Length 11-20mm
Maximum Aperture 2.8
Minimum Aperture 22
Construction E/G 11E / 12G
Coatings Advanced Multi-layer
Angle of View 104.34 – 72.42°
Minimum Focus Distance 0.9 ft (0.28 m)
Macro Ratio 1:8.62
Focusing Mode AF
Zooming System Rotating
Aperture Blades 9
SD Glass 3 elements
Filter Size 82mm
Filter Thread 0.5
Maximum Outer Diameter 3.5 in (89mm)
Lens Width 3.5 in (89mm)
Lens Length 3.6 in (92mm)
Weight 1.2 lbs (560g)
Accessories Hood, Lens Hood, BH-821
Mounts Canon, Nikon

Tokina AT-X 120 Pro DX AF 11-20mm f/2.8
I have found this naming of the product only in three shops, with a price around 360 EUR
The Tokina website apparently does not list this.
Specifications:

  • P-MO & Glass-Molded Aspherical Elements
  • Local Length: 11-20mm
  • Maximum Aperture: 2.8
  • Minimum Aperture: 22
  • Construction E/G: 11E / 12G
  • Coatings: Advanced Multi-layer
  • Angle of View: 104.34 – 72.42°
  • Minimum Focus Distance: 0.9 ft (0.28 m)
  • Macro Ratio: 1:8.62
  • Filter Size: 82mm
    These are all the specifications available

I can’t find online any further information regarding the second lens. The price seems the only differentiating element. Is the second one an older version? In what is it different from the Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 Pro DX?

Which lens should i choose for bokeh while video streaming?

More blur == larger aperture, if other factors remain fixed.

From 85cm you’ll need a 35mm lens to get head & shoulders in shot, possibly a 50mm if you can drop the camera back a way.
You can get a f/1.8 for a reasonable price or a f/1.4 for a lot more. $£€100 1.8 to $£€ 500 for a 1.4.

The shorter your lens, the larger aperture you will need to blur the background.

Examples… (ignore the quality, these were lit by the computer screen & one room light & the ISO ramped up to max – not exactly ideal lighting)
Bear at 85cm, centre of flowers test print on wall another 165cm

50mm 1.4

enter image description here

35mm 1.8

enter image description here

This is on an APC-C with a 1.5 crop, the Canon is a 1.6 crop so your framing would be tighter.

Personally, I’d always go for the 50 & try to gain some distance rather than the 35 which can get a bit ‘pointy’ for me – big nose, little ears.

If you don’t want to hear the autofocus motor, don’t use the built-in mic.
Pulling focus to follow a talking head at 65cm on either a 35 or 50 is going to be pretty distracting. You will probably have to choose between razor-thin DoF & not making your audience dizzy by sacrificing some of your blur.

Late edit
Another idea, if you want to “outcool the other kidz” is a fake anamorphic lens (or a real one if you can afford it, but they’re expensive 😉
This is a 52mm lens (a Helios 44M) I got from a Russian lens mod company, for $55 USD. It has a ‘fake’ iris inside which gives the impression of an anamorphic effect on bokeh. It is totally manual, so no more follow-focus issues to worry about. Look at the light I put in the scene, which is a single LED point-light. It gives it a vertical oval shaped bokeh, characteristic of anamorphic lenses. It’s actually only an f/2, but it feels much wider because of the distortion in the out of focus areas. Crop to a more movie-style 16:9 or even tighter & there’s your fake cool lens effect…

enter image description here

Which lens should i choose for bokeh?

More blur == larger aperture, if other factors remain fixed.

From 85cm you’ll need a 35mm lens to get head & shoulders in shot, possibly a 50mm if you can drop the camera back a way.
You can get a f/1.8 for a reasonable price or a f/1.4 for a lot more. $£€100 1.8 to $£€ 500 for a 1.4.

The shorter your lens, the larger aperture you will need to blur the background.

Examples… (ignore the quality, these were lit by the computer screen & one room light & the ISO ramped up to max – not exactly ideal lighting)
Bear at 85cm, centre of flowers test print on wall another 165cm

50mm 1.4

enter image description here

35mm 1.8

enter image description here

This is on an APC-C with a 1.5 crop, the Canon is a 1.6 crop so your framing would be tighter.

Personally, I’d always go for the 50 & try to gain some distance rather than the 35 which can get a bit ‘pointy’ for me – big nose, little ears.

If you don’t want to hear the autofocus motor, don’t use the built-in mic.
Pulling focus to follow a talking head at 65cm on either a 35 or 50 is going to be pretty distracting. You will probably have to choose between razor-thin DoF & not making your audience dizzy by sacrificing some of your blur.

lens – Which lenses should be included in a travel photography kit?

I literally just got back (a few days ago) from spending a few weeks in Europe with my 7D, 10-22mm, 17-55mm, 50mm and 55-250mm. I too have little interest in portraits, and took a lot of landscapes, architecture and “detail” shots on my trip. And I left my tripod at home… so perhaps some of my experiences/thoughts will be useful…

I carried the 3 zooms around with me most of the time, occasionally taking the 50mm out, and if I wasn’t really feeling up to carrying it all, I’d just take the 17-55. I remember at the time thinking the 10-22 and 55-250 were by far the most useful lenses, though oddly the proportion of all photos from each lens was:

  • EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM — 44%
  • EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 — 28%
  • EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM — 24%
  • EF 50mm f/1.8 II — 4%

I’ve yet to sort through my photos, so if I remember I’ll come back and update the percentages based on the photos I actually liked (; I’m quite sure the best will be from the wide and telephoto.

I remember thinking often that I’d have probably been happier with the 10-22mm and a better telephoto (70-200 f/4L or 70-300L), and just a 30mm in the middle (for weight reasons). The other thing I wanted was a second body… As much as I like my 17-55 (especially if it’s the only lens I’m carrying), I have a feeling that two bodies, one with a good wide angle, the other a good telephoto, and a ‘normal’ (30mm for crop) prime in the bag, just in case, is all one really needs… but it’s hard to justify a second body just to be switching lenses less frequently! But for travel or events, when lots of things are new and unexpected, it seems to make sense.

I found the 10-22mm great for the big old churches, even though the 17-55 has a wider aperture, 17mm just didn’t cut it in some of them. I think a similar lens that goes as wide as 11 or 12mm would also be fine (e.g. Sigma/Tamron/Tokina offerings), but the 17 or 18mm wide end of ‘normal zooms’ wouldn’t cut it.

The tele was great for odd details, especially interesting people (I’m not one to approach people to take a photo), a bit of wildlife and the like. Mine’s the kit one I got with my 450D a few years back which I’m saving up to replace with something with a wider aperture, but even so it was very useful and sufficient quality at f/8 to f/16.

The 17-55 was most useful when I didn’t want to carry a lot, since its kind of wide and kind of long, so I’d probably still take it again, (even if I had a 30mm prime), unless I was expecting to have all my gear with me at all times, and wouldn’t be comfortable leaving it behind somewhere on shorter day trips.

So if you want to stick to 3 lenses, I’d suggest an ultra-wide like the Canon 10-22mm, a good tele zoom like the 70-200 f/4L IS USM (or 70-300 if you like wildlife which I usually find I’m wanting more than 250 for) and a 30mm prime like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM.

Edit: I guess if you’re aiming for highest quality, I should be suggesting the 35mm f/1.4L instead of the Sigma.

Edit 2: In hindsight, with a bigger gap than I had between the wide and zoom (i.e. 22 to 70mm instead of just 22 to 55mm, you may be wanting more than just a 30mm or 35mm prime in the middle there… especially if you don’t already have a 30mm and use it regularly enough to be comfortable with it!)

Which is the better lens: Canon 28-80 USM I, 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 II or 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II?

I own a Canon 6D and I need a general purpose zoom but I can’t afford to buy an L lens, even an used one.

I’ve read here about 28-80 USM I and 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 II. The author claims that those lenses are sharp. I couldn’t find any MTF or chart with those lenses on a FF camera.

At about the same price I can buy a 28-105 f/2.5-4.5 USM but from charts it seem its resolution is horrible. Apart from bad sharpness, it has very poor contrast. I’ve seen chart shot with it on this site .

Can 28-80 or 28-70 be any better?

Is there any better old, cheap consumer zoom from Tamron, Tokina or Sigma which can be had for around 100 USD used?

Lens for shooting paintings with Canon 550d

When photographing artworks for sale, I use Canon’s 24-70 f/2.8, which is way out of your budget; However, the reasion I do this is that with a compatible camera body, it stores a lens profile in the image produced that can correct for distortions during post-processing. A list of currently supported lenses is available from the Adobe website

You don’t need a lens that expensive though; If you use the RAW mode on your camera and use Adobe Lightroom, then you can correct most distortions by hand, if a lens profile is not available. In which case, I’d probably look to recommend a lens that is going to be flexible and allow you to work in tight situations, such as in the artist’s studio. You won’t be needing a particularly wide aperture/narrow depth of field for this (otherwise the 50 f/1.8 is one of the best value for money Canon lenses), but you might need some fairly wide angles for some of the larger pieces, if you are in confined spaces, in which case, I’d probably err towards the 18-135 that you’re already considering – it might mean a little more work getting the post-processing sorted, but it is a good all range for use as a general purpose lens.

lens – How do I fix a stuck zoom ring on Nikon 18-55mm AF-S?

Best option : Get it serviced from an expert.

Risky option :

I had a similar experience with my Nikon D3100. The camera fell slightly. The zoom was stuck about mid-way. I could not zoom any further. After having a heart ache, I held the lens and slowly turned, did not work. Then held tightly and it worked. I dont know what had happened, but things came back to normal. I have been using it in that condition for past 6 months and am careful not to do things v fast. Zoom works good, focus is good.

I think, in my case, the issue is, the fall broke one of the gear teeth and when I give it a little push, the gear continues its motion.

equipment recommendation – What lens do I need to do super-close-up macro shots?

If you own a Canon camera, then to really do macro photography like that you probably want the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Zoom Macro lens. Unlike most macro lenses which max out at a 1:1 reproduction ratio, which is usually not quite enough to get close-up shots of bug parts, the MP-E 65mm macro is a zoom macro. It supports a magnification ratio between as low as 1:1 and as high as 5:1, or 5x magnification. With the MP-E, which BTW is a lens entirely unique to Canon, you’ll be able to get those amazing super-close macro shots of insect eyes, “hair”, etc.

Alternatively, you want to get at least a “true macro” lens. The lens you have now is not a macro, which means you cannot even get a 1:1 magnification. Your lens is limited to less (probably much less) than 1:1 ratio, which greatly reduces the amount of detail you can get onto the sensor. Canon offers several macro lenses, including the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro USM, and the EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro, all of which support a true 1:1 magnification.

photography basics – I’m trying to find a close-up lens for a beginner camera

My young daughter is excited about photography, so I bought her an entry level camera for her birthday. There are two problems:

(1) She likes doing close up pictures, and the camera is a fixed focus one.

(2) I don’t know how to determine what standard the threads on the camera are.

The camera is a Sereer, ASIN B08JCFDBZX.

There are some threads on this camera, and so I tried out some optics from my older digital Kodak and the radius of the fitting was different.

So my question is, how can I locate a compatible close-up lens?

Any help would be appreciated.

canon – Why does my lens aperture stop working a few hours after attaching the lens?

I recently purchased a used Sigma 105mm f2.8 DG OS Macro lens, and when I tested it during the purchase everything worked fine. A few hours later when I tried it again, I noticed that my pictures were really overexposed at anything other than f2.8 (the min is f22). I detached and reattached the lens, and then all my pictures were fine again, properly exposed, and I verified that the aperture blades were indeed working – I turned the camera off and on and it was still fine. A few hours later, I tried again, and the pictures were again overexposed aside from f2.8, and the blades were not moving. I’ve been able to replicate this several times now, and I’m not sure what could be causing this – the blades are not oily, and they clearly work for a period of time after the lens is attached. For reference, I have a Canon EOS M50, with a third party adapter for non-M-series lenses. The adapter works great for the other non-M-series lenses I own (one Canon lens and one Yonguo). Something peculiar I noticed is that the Sigma lens is very difficult to attach and take off compared to my other two lenses, I really have to give it a good twist when adding/removing it from the adapter. Any insights or advice would be greatly appreciated!