|
Also, the lensrentals blog is pretty interesting in general if you haven't checked it out.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 06:23 |
|
|
Has anyone used the Sigma 1.4x or 2x teleconverters? I'm looking for ways to get more reach and I'm debating on selling my Sigma 70-200 and going to something like a 70-300L/100-400L or buying a Sigma teleconverter instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
re: monitor chat, I'm still using a 17" Samsung SyncMaster 931BW I bought in 2007. Now that I think about it, it's seen me through high school graduation, a dorm, three college apartments, my college graduation, back home, and now my new apartment when I moved out having gotten a job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
dakana posted:re: monitor chat, I'm still using a 17" Samsung SyncMaster 931BW I bought in 2007. Now that I think about it, it's seen me through high school graduation, a dorm, three college apartments, my college graduation, back home, and now my new apartment when I moved out having gotten a job. Come to think of it, I think I bought my LG in 2006, which is still use. eesh
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
So some rear end in a top hat dropped my camera tonight and busted my Canon 50mm 1.8 lens. I got the lens back together, there is a small snag about at the halfway point of focus. Auto focus still works like a champ which amazes me. Debating if I should replace the lens for the same thing or just plunge for the Tamron 17-50... I am indecisive (and pretty loving angry to boot). EDIT: to clarify, I mainly use my camera for video work, so I use manual focus with the lens, which I could see causing me some frustrations in the future with the snag. iSheep fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
I bet you'd really appreciate the manual focus ring on the 17-50 in comparison to the... thing... on the 50 1.8. Or, you could keep the great thin DOF you get by buying a 50 1.4 instead. That's got a much better focus ring as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
dakana posted:I bet you'd really appreciate the manual focus ring on the 17-50 in comparison to the... thing... on the 50 1.8. Or, you could keep the great thin DOF you get by buying a 50 1.4 instead. That's got a much better focus ring as well. Bear in mind the 50 1.8 has gone through a few iterations, with the focus rings ranging from "what the gently caress were you thinking" to "actually pretty good". The current textured rubber one is pretty ok (the old hard plastic one was utter bullshit). It's also worth noting that screw-drive lenses CAN'T have really nice smooth focus rings - if they had that much dampening on them, the screw drive would poo poo itself trying to AF them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Well I got reimbursed for my broken lens, and buying a (new) $500 dollar lens just isnt in the budget right now, so I'm just gonna replace the broken 50m 1.8 with a new one. The Tamron is still in my future, however.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
I'd suggest older manual focus lenses with an adapter then. An SMC Takumar 50 1.4 will fit your budget nicely. The focus rings on them are a dream. You can keep your current 50 for quick photos since AF still works I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:It's also worth noting that screw-drive lenses CAN'T have really nice smooth focus rings - if they had that much dampening on them, the screw drive would poo poo itself trying to AF them. I assume you went away from the Canon gear discussed as Canon does not use any screw drive lenses; that said, you can definitely have decent manual focusing feel AND screw drive, go check out the Pentax 77/1.8 for instance. The screw drive autofocus is not attempting to turn the manual focusing ring on many lenses, but rather it is decoupled at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I assume you went away from the Canon gear discussed as Canon does not use any screw drive lenses; that said, you can definitely have decent manual focusing feel AND screw drive, go check out the Pentax 77/1.8 for instance. The screw drive autofocus is not attempting to turn the manual focusing ring on many lenses, but rather it is decoupled at that point. Yah, this is also the case for a lot of the Nikon pro screw driven lenses. For instance, the 200 f/4 macro is quite pleasant to manually focus; to switch between auto and manual you have to disengage a clutch. The focus ring doesn't turn during autofocus. The cheaper lenses tend not to have this feature, though. That said, I don't know of any AF lens that focuses manually as nicely as a real manual lens, so I'd second the suggestion to use a manual lens on an adapter if it's cheap enough to make sense for you. I've never used the Pentax 77 though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
I picked up a canon t3i along with the kit lens, a cheapo efs 55-250mm lens, a 40mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 a few months back. I put in some serious overtime and rather than being frugal I'm looking to get a new lens or two. I want to start doing more landscape and macro photography. I'm willing to spend about $400 per lens or more if I can get something a little versatile. I'm willing to go through Keh for something used if it'll net me a deal. Any recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
Get a pentax 67 with a 75mm lens, shoot landscapes on MF and reverse mount the lens for macro. I'm only half joking. e. but seriously maybe a nice wide angle lens for landscapes and then just use extension tubes for the macro?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
Get the Tamron 17-50 2.8.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
hcenvirons posted:I picked up a canon t3i along with the kit lens, a cheapo efs 55-250mm lens, a 40mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 a few months back. I put in some serious overtime and rather than being frugal I'm looking to get a new lens or two. Extension tubes are cool and all, but macro lenses are optically designed for close focusing, and that makes a big difference. They also have a much greater focus range, which means you don’t have to take the extension tubes on and off all the time. Canon’s 100 mm macro is in the $300–$400 range on KEH. You can get the non‐USM version, too, but for the $15 difference, USM is a no‐brainer. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 08:31
|
|
|
Ended up getting the Tamron and the Canon 100mm. Sadly no Pentax was ordered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
I am thinking of getting a full frame camera on the cheap - I have potentially 700-800 bucks from selling a guitar amp so my budget would be pretty fixed. I assume that I should basically be looking at the Canon 5D based on recommendations here. Unfortunately all my camera gear is tied up in the Sony NEX with a few native lenses and adapted manual lenses so I would not have any lenses to work with. Any recommendations on what lenses I should look into at this price with the leftover from whatever the body would cost or bundled with the body? I have never bought cameras from ebay (except for a ME Super); is it fairly safe to buy used there or should i expect to pay more to be safe with keh or somewhere else? I will not have extra cash for lenses for who knows how long, so I definitely can't just get the body.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Why'd you want a 5D over your NEX?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
rio posted:I am thinking of getting a full frame camera on the cheap - I have potentially 700-800 bucks from selling a guitar amp so my budget would be pretty fixed. Just adapte the lenses you're using with your next to the 5d, it's pretty good about that (depending on the lens of course).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Why'd you want a 5D over your NEX? Mainly for more shallow dof for portraits and to have a scond body to minimize switching lenses. I am still up in the air about it - alternatively, I could buy more lenses for the NEX which is also appealing. Even though it is a bit much, that 35 1.8 is pretty appealing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
You could buy that Metabones Speedbooster and double your number of focal lengths and get full frame DOF. edit: assuming you can adapt your manual lenses to EF that is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
powderific posted:You could buy that Metabones Speedbooster and double your number of focal lengths and get full frame DOF. You mean the Metabones Speedbooster that literally costs more than a used 5d?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Somehow the price hadn't really entered my mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
powderific posted:You could buy that Metabones Speedbooster and double your number of focal lengths and get full frame DOF. It doesn't really change the DOF, only the light-capturing ability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:It doesn't really change the DOF, only the light-capturing ability. It does both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:It doesn't really change the DOF, only the light-capturing ability. That would be a really neat trick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:That would be a really neat trick. That’s how the numbers work out. The 0.71× on the focal length and extra stop on the aperture exactly cancel each other out, as any depth of field calculator shows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:That’s how the numbers work out. The 0.71× on the focal length and extra stop on the aperture exactly cancel each other out, as any depth of field calculator shows. Not sure we are talking about the same thing. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Framing and subject distance. What about them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Not sure we are talking about the same thing. If you mean light-capturing he's correct. More specifically, it captures the same amount of light but compresses it into a smaller area, making the image brighter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you mean light-capturing he's correct. More specifically, it captures the same amount of light but compresses it into a smaller area, making the image brighter. Yeah, like using a magnifying glass to kill ants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Not sure we are talking about the same thing. We are. The bare lens on a full‐frame camera and the lens with Speedbooster on a 1.41 crop factor (or, more precisely, √2 crop factor) camera will produce identical images, minus aberration introduced by the Speedbooster. Same subject distance, same framing, same depth of field, and with ideal sensors, same noise. Let the subject distance be 5 m. On full‐frame (circle of confusion = 30 µmm) with a 50 mm lens at f/1.4, depth of field is from 4.62 m to 5.45 m. On 1.5 crop (circle of confusion = 20 µm) with a 35.5 mm lens (50 mm lens with the Speedbooster attached) at f/1.0, depth of field is from 4.63 m to 5.43 m. The small differences that remain are because 1.5 crop isn’t quite the ideal √2, because the Speedbooster multiplier is rounded from 1/√2, and because the full‐frame aperture value is rounded from √2. These factors partially cancel out or the difference would be larger. The Speedbooster doesn’t really add a stop of light. The marketing is dumb. That extra stop cancels out with the smaller photosites. At f/1, each of the crop camera’s photosites will receive the same number of photons as the full‐frame camera’s at f/1.4, assuming the same pixel count and shutter speed. With ideal sensors, ISO 100 on crop will have the same noise as ISO 200 on full‐frame. You are paying $600, carrying a few ounces of glass, and dealing with some aberration. In exchange, your mirrorless crop camera behaves like a mirrorless full‐frame camera with bad or non‐existent autofocus. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2667195592/first-impressions-metabones-speed-booster I like how over half of the images are extreme corner detail crops - in any case I would certainly love to gently caress around with this but not spend 600 bucks for essentially manual focus only EF lenses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
Yeah, EF mount seems like the worst possible mount to do it on. I can't help but imagine if they did this for M42, or even FD/MD mount with no electrics and a bit cheaper, they would be flying off of the shelves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 08:34
|
|
|
Trambopaline posted:Yeah, EF mount seems like the worst possible mount to do it on. I can't help but imagine if they did this for M42, or even FD/MD mount with no electrics and a bit cheaper, they would be flying off of the shelves. You can still use an adapter to make m42 or K-mount or whatever work with this. I think they chose EF because it's a totally electrical connection as opposed to some of the older AF mounts where they might use a screw drive from the camera body. That plus Conurus, who developed Metabones' original EF-to-NEX adapter used to do a lot of work adapting Contax lenses to EF.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:We are. Yes, no disagreement there, however I was referring to what happens when you stick the speedboster on e.g. a 50/2.8 on a crop camera, vs shooting the "naked" 50/2.8 on the same crop camera. I was not debating the equivalency or lack thereof with the lens being used on full frame. And they are right in saying it "adds a stop of light" if you look at it from this point of view. If your options are shooting a naked 50/1.4 or a "boosted" 35-ish 1.0 on the same NEX-7 then you are indeed gaining a stop of light, no?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:And they are right in saying it "adds a stop of light" if you look at it from this point of view. If your options are shooting a naked 50/1.4 or a "boosted" 35-ish 1.0 on the same NEX-7 then you are indeed gaining a stop of light, no? Of course. You gain a stop v. the naked lens on the NEX. The conversation started as a comparison v. full frame, though, and while it appears you gain a stop v. the naked lens on full frame, it’s an illusory one. I think a lot of people are confused by that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Of course. You gain a stop v. the naked lens on the NEX. That we can agree on. It boils down to the whole "equivalency" debacle, where the takeaway is that unless you need to shoot near wide open then full frame does not have a real advantage, as you can shoot at a larger aperture on crop and retain the same depth of field for a given subject distance and field of view. That one is always fun to bring up when people get all starry eyed waxing lyrical about full frame. As for the original post, yeah, you do gain an actual aperture stop (after all, that is how telecompressors work) but comparing to the lens on full frame the total light collection for the sensor has not increased.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 11:36
|
|
|
On the other hand, it’s usually not possible to get APS‐C lenses one stop faster than their 135 equivalents, or µFT lenses two stops faster. Panasonic’s 20 mm f/1.7 pancake and Olympus’ 14–35 mm f/2.0 and 35–100 mm f/2.0 lenses look impressive on paper. Then you do the math and realise that they are equivalent to the rather pedestrian 135 format 20 mm f/3.3, 28–70 mm f/4, and 70–200 mm f/4 lenses, respectively. In the case of the Olympus zooms, you’re paying over two thousand dollars each for the privilege.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 06:23 |
|
|
In terms of monitor alternatives, has anyone tried using the newer retina iPad 3/4 + something like PhotoSmith for reviewing? I'm considering a 27" IPS (Dell S2740L) monitor for review/post work but something high-res that I'd be able to flick through in bed or at the kitchen table with a cup of coffee would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 03:20
|
|
