Sigma 50/1.4 and a new lens...

[bill_keane2]

<p>I am so far having a blast with my Sigma 50/1.4... Now, since I returned my sample of the Tokina 11-16mm, I have a credit at B&H... Plus, I have a little more Christmas $ to spend.<br>

One option is to simply get a new copy of the Tokina when they arrive. Or should I go in a different direction?<br>

Right now, I have: Tamron 17-50/2.8; Sigma 50/1.4; Nikon 85/1.8; Sigma 150/2.8Macro; Sigma 300/4.0<br>

I like the performance of all of these... I could go for a Nikon 80-200/2.8 and just forget super-wide shots...<br>

I could simply get the Tokina and also an SB-800, selling the SB-600... <br>

What do you think?</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>As nice as a fast something in the 70/80-200 range is, you've got some of those focal lengths represented already. The ultra-wide end of things (a la the 11-16, or a 10-20) is really something I'd miss. Your 17-50 is pleasantly wide, but there's just nothing like the 10 or 12mm end of things for certain types of shots. Whether that's more useful to you than some f/2.8 zoom capabilities in the 80-200 neighborhood.<br /><br />As for selling the SB-600 and getting an SB-800... you need a good reason for that one. I can think of some, but I don't know if they apply to your shooting style. Your camera can remotely control either of them, and unless you're going to get a second of either, you don't really need the 800's ability to act as a commander while mounted in the hot shoe. The 800 has a PC connector, so it lends itself more gracefully to using radio triggers and whatnot. A little more power, and some other pleasantries (like an included diffusor cup, WB gels, etc)... but none of that may matter to you. How do you find yourself using the 600, now? </p>

[bill_keane2]

<p>Well, come to think of it, the way I use my SB-600, an SB-400 might be a nice pickup for less weight, more convenience (keeping the SB-600 as well).<br>

And yes, I have done super-wide, and enjoyed it very much.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>You seem to like Sigma, why not get their 10-20? It's supposed to be a good lens.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Careful with that SB-400 through, Bill. You can't rotate it for ceiling bounces in portrait orientation, you can't use it off-camera as a slave, and its pattern is an issue with wider lenses. Just sayin'.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>the 80-200mm will be a nice complement to your 17-50mm. you got yourself covered with primes but there are times that you long for the convenience and versatility of the long zoom.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Check out the Tokina 50-135/2.8. Ligher weight then the 80-200/2.8 and it is IMO an optical gem.</p>

[bahrammonshat]

<p>I used to have Nikon 12-24, excellent (sold), Sigma 10-20, excellent (sold), Tokina 11-16 first copy, sort of decentered (retuned) and Tokina 11-16 2nd copy, excellent (Kept). I don't think I can do without an ultra zoom. If that can help!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'd wait on a new copy of the tokina 11-16, since you have two tele lenses already but no ultra-wide. if that one doesn't work out either, then it wasn't meant to be.</p>

[bill_keane2]

<p>"i'd wait on a new copy of the tokina 11-16, since you have two tele lenses already but no ultra-wide."<br>

Yeah, I'm gonna do that. </p>