|
Why didn't you buy my used NEX-7 and save yourself the money and me the hassle of finding a buyer?  That lens is $5000. If you've got $5000 to spend on it, go for it? Otherwise, if you want anything faster than f/2.8, you'll have to use adapters on the NEX-7 or buy the Sony 50mm f/1.8. Generally I found f/2.8 fast enough with the NEX, though, considering how good its low light performance is. Welcome to the "waiting for good E-mount lenses" club. Enjoy your stay - I'm heading out the door as soon as I can. 
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
LiquidRain posted:Why didn't you buy my used NEX-7 and save yourself the money and me the hassle of finding a buyer? I was thinking the same thing myself, but didn't find this thread until after I bought the camera. I hate that I missed out on your lenses though. Also, something that struck me as odd about the lens: the E mount version is $1100. Why so much price differential between the versions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Empty Pockets posted:Also, something that struck me as odd about the lens: the E mount version is $1100. Why so much price differential between the versions? I'd like to say because it's RF coupled, but it's also just because it's what the market will bear. The noctilux is $11k.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Startyde posted:I'd like to say because it's RF coupled, but it's also just because it's what the market will bear. The noctilux is $11k. I suppose that makes sense. I'm interested in it for the shallow depth of field more than the low light performance (for video purposes). At this point my questions are more about lenses in general than about the NEX 7, but given the current state of affairs, I'm wondering if it would be better to some day rustle up the cash for this lens, or go with an adapter and get a lens from another mount. I'd have to do a lot more research, but in the end I'd have a more flexible and probably cheaper system. I guess I just need to identify how important f.95 is to me. My only other "real" camera was a pentax K-1000, so manual focus doesn't really bother me. Especially with focus peaking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Empty Pockets posted:I suppose that makes sense. I'm interested in it for the shallow depth of field more than the low light performance (for video purposes). Anything faster than 1.4 starts getting crazy expensive and (for most people) isn't worth the extra cash-- pretty much the only two faster lenses that are awesome are the 85L 1.2 by canon and 50 1.2L by canon (I'm sure Nikon has an equivalent). That being said, lenses generally hold their value quite well so you're not pissing away money because if your needs change in the future, you can always resell it to recoup most of the cost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
The Voigtlander 50/1.1 is decent and under $900 on the used market, though I probably wouldn't spend that much on a 50mm lens unless I was going to use it on full frame or 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Empty Pockets posted:I was thinking the same thing myself, but didn't find this thread until after I bought the camera. I hate that I missed out on your lenses though.  I never noticed since I never use manual, and you mentioned you liked all the manual controls, so yeah. But hey if you know anyone else who wants a NEX-7...  Re: lens reselling, you say that lenses retain their value, but not all lenses do. The Canon 17-55 goes from $1300 new (not counting taxes) to $850-$900 on the market when you open the box. The more unique your lens, the more niche your lens, you'll have a harder time selling it. (see: something like the Canon 70-300 DO, sells new for $1500 but goes used for $650 - I want that lens to be honest but I actively avoid it because I worry about simply being capable of reselling it) e: taken my selling-of-wares to PM LiquidRain fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Aug 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:You didn't actually miss much, turns out, the buyer who took my 16mm prime found out that I must have banged it against a wall or something because there was a small, slight dent in the manual focus ring that made the manual focus ring very stiff. Which is why you should never buy new. If you buy a used lens for $900, 3 years later you'll be able to resell it for $850 unless you break it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
No lens is going to hold its new value unless they stop making it and dont replace it. (or the price goes up i guess)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
I should have been clear in meaning that used lenses retain their value quite well. I actually make an average of $150 on every lens I have purchased used, used for a year or more, and resold afterwards. It's all about knowing what you're looking for, the average price, and waiting for Canon rebates (or a natural disaster slowing down production or something) so that the used market takes a nice hit in prices. The only exceptions are really for high end lenses in which you can double dip on rebates/cashback/other things, for example, the 70-200 IS II I purchased for $1900 from B&H (And a deal I got on my 100L in which I got double rebates + eBay cash back). Reselling niche lenses is difficult because the market is much smaller, but the same strategy essentially holds in all the markets. e: And right now, for example, eBay is doubling eBay bucks rewards for another few hours. You can save upwards of $200 on a large purchase. Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Aug 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Uncle Ivan posted:Which is why you should never buy new. If you buy a used lens for $900, 3 years later you'll be able to resell it for $850 unless you break it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
unleash the unicorn posted:Kind of disagree here. If the value holds up that well I might as well buy new. Lenses are like cars in a way--going from new--> used drops the value 10-20% (or more I guess). After that, as long as there is no abuse, they still hold their value quite well. This is because (and once again, I speak for Canon only because I'm only familiar with them) new/updated versions are only released every 5-10 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:
Funny thing is, I actually might. Could you point me in the direction of your thread and/or tell me what kind of deal you'd be willing to cut?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
Empty Pockets posted:Funny thing is, I actually might. Could you point me in the direction of your thread and/or tell me what kind of deal you'd be willing to cut? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3497180
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
Laser Cow posted:What adapter did you use? Some off brand one (can't even tell, has a small obscure logo on it) that is actually a nice chunk of metal. I think most adapters of this sort, having no electronics or aperture linkage to worry about, are fine to use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
Does anyone make better battery doors for the NEX 5N? Mine is a little too easy to open accidentally. The battery and card seem secure enough that I'm not worried about them falling out, but it's annoying and feels really cheap compared to the rest of the body.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
Sorry Empty Pockets, some guy called me on a Craigslist ad and came to pick up the NEX a couple hours later, so it's gone. And with that, I bid you mirrorless users farewell. Especially the E-mount-waiting-club. I'm off back to my old home in the Canononical one, where lenses abound and are cheap and plentiful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:Sorry Empty Pockets, some guy called me on a Craigslist ad and came to pick up the NEX a couple hours later, so it's gone. And with that, I bid you mirrorless users farewell. Especially the E-mount-waiting-club. I'm off back to my old home in the Canononical one, where lenses abound and are cheap and plentiful. No worries, my buddy ended up being broke at the moment any way. Congratulations I suppose? edit: just in case anybody was starting to get excited about the availability of an f.95 lens for E mount: http://lavidaleica.com/content/slr-magic-hyperprime-lm-50mm-t095#update Turns out it's held together with loc-tite. Empty Pockets fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Aug 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
The Samyang 8mm fisheye is listed on the B&H website as available for pre-order for the X Pro1 for $349. Hopefully we see Sigma and other third party manufacturers follow with more lenses for the system. I know SLR Magic have plans to release native XF lenses before the end of the year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 09:00
|
|
|
SAR says there's going to be a 35mm f1.8 prime (the size of sigma's 30!) in addition to a 11-18mm f4 pancake, and a 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 pancake at photokina. Things are looking up! I feel like sony's finally catering to enthusiasts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 10:57
|
|
|
18-50 pancake? That's a very interesting preposition-- I'd like to see the insides of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
Hey dudes and dudettes, I'm selling my Oly E-PL1 and other related accessories. If you know someone in the market for babby's first M4/3 cam with a couple of lenses, check it out. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3499921
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
getsuga posted:SAR says there's going to be a 35mm f1.8 prime (the size of sigma's 30!) in addition to a 11-18mm f4 pancake, and a 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 pancake at photokina. Things are looking up! I feel like sony's finally catering to enthusiasts. If the 35mm f/1.8 is anywhere even close to affordable, I'm hopping on that train ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
HPL posted:If the 35mm f/1.8 is anywhere even close to affordable, I'm hopping on that train ASAP. I might too, as I just found out my 42mm f/1.2 must have gotten bashed up on my bag... aperture ring is dented in a little bit on one side and I can't adjust it, focus is a little stiff on the close-up end too  Nice to see Sony not being idiots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:18-50 pancake? That's a very interesting preposition-- I'd like to see the insides of that. I'd assume that this is going to be a motorized collapsible lens, ala a point and shoot. (I think m4/3 has a similar pancake zoom?) This in no way implies that it will be bad, but it should push the system towards being actually pocketable. Is there some technical reason I'm not aware of that prevents anybody from making a prime in the 25 to 40mm and F1.8 to 2.8 range? I know the Sigma 30mm is supposed to be stellar, but it's still not even close to being as compact as the 16mm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
Can anyone verify whether or not there is a protective film on the NEX 7 screen? I just noticed a scratch, but now that I'm looking at it I can see a very thin border around the frame for the screen. I've also noticed that it sort of feels like plastic to the touch. However, I haven't been able to peel up any of the corners (I'm afraid to use much effort, just in case it's not a removable sheet.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
Empty Pockets posted:Can anyone verify whether or not there is a protective film on the NEX 7 screen? I just noticed a scratch, but now that I'm looking at it I can see a very thin border around the frame for the screen. I've also noticed that it sort of feels like plastic to the touch. However, I haven't been able to peel up any of the corners (I'm afraid to use much effort, just in case it's not a removable sheet.) I hope there is one on my 5n because it is gross and needs to be replaced
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 09:50
|
|
|
Not sure about the 5N and 7, but on the 5 there was a layer that was not supposed to be removed that ended up looking like crap after a while. Apparently you could get it off with some serious effort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Not sure about the 5N and 7, but on the 5 there was a layer that was not supposed to be removed that ended up looking like crap after a while. Apparently you could get it off with some serious effort. Sounds about right. I guess I'll leave it for now, but if I end up getting more scratches on it I might just put in that serious effort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
I think you can replace the glass if it gets bad enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
MarsellusWallace posted:I'd assume that this is going to be a motorized collapsible lens, ala a point and shoot. (I think m4/3 has a similar pancake zoom?) This in no way implies that it will be bad, but it should push the system towards being actually pocketable. I would presume that the simple physics of a 40mm lens would require it to be, at a minimum, 40mm in length, not even taking into account the extra distance required to allow the light to cover the APS-C sized sensor. I expect that making the lens fast, and stuffing a focus motor inside would further affect the size.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:I would presume that the simple physics of a 40mm lens would require it to be, at a minimum, 40mm in length, not even taking into account the extra distance required to allow the light to cover the APS-C sized sensor. I expect that making the lens fast, and stuffing a focus motor inside would further affect the size. There's a lot of work-arounds to that. The current Canon 40mm is a telephoto design IIRC and is shorter than 40mm. As for the flange distance, Fuji has been doing interesting stuff with large rear elements to get enough sensor coverage. It's not simple, but a lot can be done to make mirrorless lenses small. That's not even talking about the whole microlens situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
Sharizard posted:Hey dudes and dudettes, I just sold my Panny 20mm f1.7 for a cool $300  Considering I bought it from B&H for ~350 + shipping I think I came out pretty good (and it's listed for $500 on some sites). Now to get rid of this damned E-P3... I'm trying to let it go for $550 and I have all the original documents and accessories, but I'm seeing prices online all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
moonduck posted:There's a lot of work-arounds to that. The current Canon 40mm is a telephoto design IIRC and is shorter than 40mm. As for the flange distance, Fuji has been doing interesting stuff with large rear elements to get enough sensor coverage. It's not simple, but a lot can be done to make mirrorless lenses small. The 40mm would include the flange distance. That lens is actually a lot bigger than the standalone pictures imply when it's not sitting on a full frame DSLR body (which has a huge flange distance). On mirrorless bodies like the NEX, or even Canon's own new offering, you can't hide the flange distance from the lens size.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:I would presume that the simple physics of a 40mm lens would require it to be, at a minimum, 40mm in length, not even taking into account the extra distance required to allow the light to cover the APS-C sized sensor. I expect that making the lens fast, and stuffing a focus motor inside would further affect the size. The Olympus XA has a neat lens design to get around this: http://www.diaxa.com/xa.htm posted:Perhaps the most amazing thing about the Olympus XA is that, unlike the four other pocket 35´s already mentioned, it does not fold and its lens doesn´t collapse. And how, pray tell, can one achieve a pocketably slim full-frame 35mm camera that´s just over 1 ½ in. thick without bringing the lens forward for picture taking? By using optical ingenuity. The Olympus XA´s non-collapsible 35mm f/2.8 Zuiko lens uses an optical construction, that is, to put it mildly, unique. This six-element, five group optic is best described as a reversed retrofocus wide-angle lens which has been modified to shorten its overall length (approximately 31mm from front element to film plane) compared to its focal length in a manner resembling that of a true telephoto. In order to be able to cover 24 x 36mm format, large rear elements are necessary, and, for rigidity as well as shallow depth, internal focusing (by moving the third optical group back and forth) was selected. The optical problems that had to be solved as a result of this unorthodox approach were formidable - high-refractive-index glasses had to be used to control aberrations across the picture field, and optical elements had to be manufactured and aligned to very close tolerances.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
Man_of_Teflon posted:The Olympus XA has a neat lens design to get around this: wow that's pretty neat! (although unlikely to help a call for tiny 40mm APS-C system primes) I wonder if there's any other lenses that use that technique.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
I am curious, do you guys think it is doable to shoot events like concerts/weddings/etc with a omd and select lenses?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
^^^ Throw a Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 on there and call it a day. Concerts you might want something longer throw, I love my Tamron SP 35-80 for parades and things. Hell of a lot cheaper than the 12-35. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Don't forget to throw in a good flash too!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
I've never actually followed a product announcement at Photokina and their subsequent release. How soon will those new E-mount lenses be available for sale? Is it possible for them to be out by, say, Columbus Day weekend?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2012 00:48
|
|
