|
kahm posted:I would think the benefits of vibration reduction would outweigh the differences in optics, but I'm having a hard time finding a comparison or any one else bringing up this point. How is VC going to cancel out poor optics if, for example, you're shooting stopped down on a tripod? How is VC going to cancel out poor optics if you're shooting kids indoors wide open? I'm not saying that the VC version is bad, just trying to understand what you were getting at with this comment? I used to think I needed VC on every lens, but in reality this lens really doesn't need it.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Mightaswell posted:How is VC going to cancel out poor optics if, for example, you're shooting stopped down on a tripod? I'm just wondering how poor the optics actually are - I find myself shooting in low light without a tripod more often than not, so VC would really help with my shooting habits. If it's one of those things where its 'a little soft on the edges wide open' compared to the non-VC, then it might be worth overlooking for my personal use. But one thing I noticed today that matters far more - price point. Non VC is affordable for me while the VC isn't. That will pretty much make the decision right there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
Once upon a time, someone did a side-by-side comparison shot with the two lenses. The VC version was slightly worse. That's not to say it was bad, just not as good as the non-VC version in a side-by-side comparison. It's the sort of thing you probably won't notice in real life situations, or at realistic print sizes. Between the fact that the cheaper one is slightly better optically and that a lot of people get by without stabilization in that focal range, the standard response is to get the non-VC version of the lens. If you want or need stabilization, by all means, get the VC version. It doesn't bite and it will still take nice pictures. I would if I wasn't already in a mount that offers in-body stabilization, it's a wonderful feature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
FWIW, I have the VC version and am perfectly happy with it. That said, I'm not in the habit of pixel peeping and it's worth bearing in mind that the VC version is noticeably larger and heavier than the non-VC. The stabilization is occasionally useful, but I doubt I'd really miss it if I didn't have it. Buying new I'd probably have got the non-VC, but I found a used VC at a really good price so went for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
kahm posted:I'm just wondering how poor the optics actually are. Good thing there's a guy who tests tons of lenses and offers a side by side test of them. The VC isn't horrific, but it's very noticeably worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
I bought my first polarizing filter this weekend. I knew what to expect, but I wasn't expecting it to be such a dramatic difference:    Yes I was taking test photos in Taco Bell I also noticed that it's possible to completely blank out LCD displays. From TVs to digital clocks. I'm excited to take this thing out on an actual sunny day BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jan 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Yeah, that’s what polarisers do. It’s one of two filters that remains widely useful in the digital age, the other being neutral density (all‐over, not graduated). Polarised sunglasses making LCD screens appear non‐functional trips me up ever once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I bought my first polarizing filter this weekend. I knew what to expect, but I wasn't expecting it to be such a dramatic difference: Wow, I've been living in Calgary way too long. I recognized where this picture was taken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Do monitors count as "camera gear"? I don't really see a suitable thread to put this in so I figure here is as close as it will get. I recently got an AOC E2752VH 27" monitor. I am blown away at the details I have been missing. I used CRTs before this monitor and a LCD on my laptop that only went to 12XX x 8XX resolution. Let's use an example: I took this photo. I can't even see his pores and facial hair on the other monitors. For $250, being able to see the finer details is worth every penny. I'm curious as to what monitors everyone else uses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Do monitors count as "camera gear"? I don't really see a suitable thread to put this in so I figure here is as close as it will get. I recently got an AOC E2752VH 27" monitor. I am blown away at the details I have been missing. I used CRTs before this monitor and a LCD on my laptop that only went to 12XX x 8XX resolution. Let's use an example: Dell Ultrasharp 2711. Fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
3x NEC EA231WMi
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Do monitors count as "camera gear"? I don't really see a suitable thread to put this in so I figure here is as close as it will get. I recently got an AOC E2752VH 27" monitor. I am blown away at the details I have been missing. I used CRTs before this monitor and a LCD on my laptop that only went to 12XX x 8XX resolution. Let's use an example: HP DreamColor LP2480zx primary, HP LP2475w as a secondary monitor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
xgalaxy posted:3x NEC EA231WMi This is what I roll and it's glorious. My only regret is that I didn't buy two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Holy hell some of you have expensive monitors. When it gets in that price range, what do you come to expect? Are these monitors strictly for business and/or personal use? I use mine for both. While we are on the topic. What monitor calibration software does everyone use, if any? Is it wrong to get prints and hold them next to the monitor and tune it that way? Because that is how I've always done it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
ViewSonic VX2770Smh holla holla budget ips for not a lot of $$$
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 21:13
|
|
Cutie Pie Swag~
|
My monitor is an older model from NEC’s SpectraView line. It’s pretty good for professional work because it displays more or less all of the AdobeRGB colourspace, has a calibrator specced to match its RGB primaries, and has an internal lookup table (mine’s 10‐bit, but it looks like all the current ones are 14‐bit). The purpose of the latter is that you can calibrate the monitor without having issues with banding and such. DVI only has 8 bits per colour to work with, and if you start throwing colours away in calibration, you can quickly end up with too large a gap between some shades, e.g. skin tones, which the human eye is sensitive to. Wide‐gamut monitors are especially prone to this pitfall otherwise, because they have to space the colours out more to begin with since they’re working with the same 8‐bits per channel. This may or may not be less of a concern now that HDMI/DisplayPort have provisions for higher bit depth. I haven’t been in the market for a while, so I’m not sure how many monitors support that. What I really want is higher pixel density. e: It looks like 10– and 12‐bit monitors are here, but they’re limited to the same professional market and price range that high‐bit internal lookup tables are. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jan 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
The EA231WMi was cheap as hell when I bought it. It's expensive compared to other budget 23" monitors and is 1080p but it's IPS and the quality is second to none. Like I have a ViewSonic 27" something at work and it's certainly bigger and cheaper and I like the real-estate more but I notice the stupid TN flat panel stuff quite easily. That said, if I didn't care about photos I would probably opt for a big monitor these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Dell Ultrasharp 2711. Fantastic. I currently have an 8 year old Ultrasharp 2005FPW doing 1680x1050, but when I do eventually upgrade I'll be getting whatever Ultrasharp 27xx is current so I can rock the 2560x1440.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
I'm rocking a Dell Ultrasharp 30" at work right now (and a older Cintiq as my second monitor). That thing is almost too big holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Fun fact: some Dell monitors (and probably some monitors of other brands) can be overclocked. The 2209WA, for instance, nominally tops out at 60 Hz at full resolution, but with the right signal (front porch and such), it will display up to 76 frames per second without issue. You can test it with a high‐speed camera and they’re all there. It’s not silently dropping every fifth frame or something. It doesn’t much matter for photography, but it’s nice for games. ↓ Unless you have an expensive monitor that supports 3D, Deep Color, audio, or something like that, it’s exactly the same. The HDMI connector is better and the cables are usually thinner, but that hardly matters for a desktop. ↓ Platystemon fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jan 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Since we are on monitors ill ask this here; I just recently bought a new graphics card to replace the on board graphics and it has two dvI and a mini Hdmi out. I just plugged both my monitors into the dvi ports because that's what I've always done. Will there be a difference by using the HDMI port?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
No, afaik. HDMI carries the DVI spec, plus audio and other bits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Yeah, that’s what polarisers do. It’s one of two filters that remains widely useful in the digital age, the other being neutral density (all‐over, not graduated). Polarised sunglasses making LCD screens appear non‐functional trips me up ever once in a while. You can also get some cool as poo poo effects by making your LCD go all-white at full brightness, then photographing things in front of it with the polarizer blacking out the LCD. INVISIBLE BACKLIGHT 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Don't do this poo poo. Future-quoting or whatever is annoying. Just quote and make a reply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:You can also get some cool as poo poo effects by making your LCD go all-white at full brightness, then photographing things in front of it with the polarizer blacking out the LCD. You can achieve the same thing by gelling a flash (you’d have to gel the entire softbox, though) with polarising film. I’ll admit I hadn’t thought of using the LCD as a poor‐man’s substitute.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Don't do this poo poo. Future-quoting or whatever is annoying. Just quote and make a reply. Please do as the parrot says, I'm not gonna make a rule or something but if your post is already terrible AND you do this, it might not end well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Wow, I've been living in Calgary way too long. I recognized where this picture was taken. And yeah, I don't use my polarizer nearly often enough. SoundMonkey posted:You can also get some cool as poo poo effects by making your LCD go all-white at full brightness, then photographing things in front of it with the polarizer blacking out the LCD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
Ordered a Tamron 70-300 for canon yesterday on amazon for like 349 after rebate, very excited. I know it's no L lens, but for the price it gets great reviews and it has to be better than the 55-250 efs I have been using. Plus it can be used on full frame cameras if/when I ever move on. If its half as nice as the 17-50 2.8 Tamron was over the kit lens I'll be satisfied.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:I currently have an 8 year old Ultrasharp 2005FPW doing 1680x1050, but when I do eventually upgrade I'll be getting whatever Ultrasharp 27xx is current so I can rock the 2560x1440.  I've used a 2005FPW for the last eight years as well. Four members of my family bought them at the same time and all of them are still going strong. It's insane how reliable (the higher-end) Dell monitors are.I decided on an upgrade to the U2711 a few days ago, but it looks like I just missed a deal on it earlier this month ($650 on Dell and Amazon). Once it goes back on sale, I will be living in huge-monitor-heaven.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Just wanted to say that I also recently upgraded from a 2005FPW. It was a great monitor but it was starting to show signs of age. It was starting to lose it's brightness and contrast and there was this weird flicker thing going on on the left side of the panel. Dell Canada had a pretty decent deal on the U2412M that I just couldn't pass up on. It doesn't look nearly as great as a retina screen but the increased screen real estate is just something that you can't overlook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
If I were looking to bail on my Sigma 70-200 2.8 and go for something with more reach, where would I look? I'd budget right around $1k at most, if at all possible. Thinking about renting the 100-400L and/or the 70-300L and taking it for a spin when I have an extended weekend off. This is going to be mostly a wildlife/birding lens, and low light isn't horribly important. A lot of my shots are either of still animals, or birds with good enough light I can shoot at f/6.3 or lower and be fine still. Edit: Monitor chat. I picked up a U2412M and while the color production isn't as good as some of the IPS monitors I had while at school, it is a drat great upgrade from processing photos on my T400.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 10:05
|
|
|
I have a couple of 24 inches dells but I use an 27 iMac to edit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 10:13
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I have a couple of 24 inches dells but I use an 27 iMac to edit. How do you find the iMac compared to the Dells? I'm currently using a Dell U2411 but I'm considering a switch to an iMac eventually down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 11:32
|
|
|
My 24 inches are loving old, and the extra res on the 27 really helps. LR needs a stupid amount of UI real estate. I don't know if I'm vain enough to get an ACD for the mac yet. The one thing that aggravates the poo poo out of me is the glass reflectiveness; I might just get a newer mac instead of the ACD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 12:42
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:I'm rocking a Dell Ultrasharp 30" at work right now (and a older Cintiq as my second monitor). That thing is almost too big holy poo poo. You can never have too much desktop space  I have a 30" Dell flanked with two portrait 19", 4960x1600... Plenty room for fullscreen editing and all your tool pallettes plus a browser open. Only trouble I have is my 30" is probably coming up on 5 years old now and it's getting distinctly yellow, especially compared to the two newer 19"ers. Time to look at costing replacements 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:
My 2005FPW died last month.  It still mostly works, but it flickers really badly at power on. At first it was just a few seconds, eventually getting to the point where it lasted for several minutes. Once it warmed up it was fine, but it was clearly on its last legs so it was time to go. It really surprised me to think back how long I'd been using that screen. I tried pretty hard to find a similarly featured display (with lots of video inputs and usb ports) but no one seems to be making them anymore. I really miss my PIP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:
You can currently get an Ultrasharp U2713HM for $630 on Dell Small Business. Use LDSM7VQCS8??0B for 10% off through Jan 31st. Details here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Just got the Tamron 70-300 and stuck it on my t2i. Even with the battery grip, the lens probably still outweighs it. This thing is heavy. The zoom is interesting in that its very smooth until about 225-250 mm and then it gets tighter, and then goes back to smooth at 300. I wonder if it will even out over time, I got a sticky one, or that's just the way it is. The vibration compensation is AWESOME. With it turned off, it's a shaky mess handheld at 300. Turn it on and press the shutter halfway down and it just dead stops. Maybe that's a common thing for decent lenses but I just can't stop playing with it. Picture quality is just as nice as the tamarin 17-50, and way nicer than the canon 55-250 I was using before. I think I am starting to understand the obscene amount of money people are willing to spend to upgrade their lenses. And ths thing was cheap (350 after rebate).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Claw Massage posted:Just got the Tamron 70-300 and stuck it on my t2i. Even with the battery grip, the lens probably still outweighs it. This thing is heavy. The zoom is interesting in that its very smooth until about 225-250 mm and then it gets tighter, and then goes back to smooth at 300. I wonder if it will even out over time, I got a sticky one, or that's just the way it is. The zoom ring on my is fairly sticky all the way through, although it does get a bit looser on the line side. Makes it stay in place real well, so I like it that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Not sure if this was the thread I posted about the Metabones adapter in- but the Lensrentals guy took a look at it, and was impressed that it did everything it claimed to do: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/metabones-magic e: searched my own posts and it was this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 16:09
|
|
