|
SoundMonkey posted:I want some drat SCIENTIFIC RIGOR. The paper cutout is 1 pentax 40mm in diameter. That's accurate to nearly 2 orders of magnitude! Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Apr 12, 2013 |
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
8th-samurai posted:52mm 4lyfe Don't worry, they do marvelous things with adapter rings these days. It will live a happy and fulfilling life despite its disability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
.
maskenfreiheit fucked around with this message at 03:59 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
GregNorc posted:So I'm looking into a tripod, since I can't hand hold with my T3i much more if I wanna get any better shots. $85 is a pretty good deal. I think you'd be paying almost $150 for that combo if you bought new. The legs are certainly fine, but take a minute to compare the 293 with the 190XPROB.. the 190's do just a little bit more that may be worth some extra cash. It depends on what you need out of your tripod. I have the same head though, and love the heck out of it. It doesn't hold as much weight as the higher end heads but I don't have any monster lenses yet so it doesn't really effect me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
xzzy posted:$85 is a pretty good deal. I think you'd be paying almost $150 for that combo if you bought new. I mostly plan to use it for landscapes and low light situations where I can't hand hold due to longer exposures... I'm not very advanced (also, I'm a poor grad student) so I don't want to shell out too much...
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
I was looking at my news feed and I thought this was a left over article from April fool's: Sigma Announces 18-35mm f/1.8 - World's First Constant f/1.8 Zoom Lens Digital Camera Review posted:Is that my jaw that just hit the floor? I am pretty excited about Sigma's newest lens release: the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art lens -- the first zoom lens to give users a maximum aperture f1.8 throughout the entire zoom range. I can not wait to get my hands on this lens!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I was looking at my news feed and I thought this was a left over article from April fool's: That's actually a pretty cool lens, I really enjoyed my 20-35L- I can see that lens selling pretty well if it's not absurdly expensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
It's APS-C but yeah it's awesome. Wife would love it on her rebel, now she carries a kit and a prime everywhere with it. The problem is always going to be size/weight though: 17 elements and 72mm, and >800 grams is pretty hardcore (no far off what a 24-70/2.8 weights now).
evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Apr 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Cool. I expect it will be much more expensive than I can afford, but still cool. This side-comment is interesting, too: quote:Compatible with Sigma's USB dock, photographers will be able to update lens firmware and adjust focus parameters from their computers instead of having to send in their lenses and lose precious time with them. EDIT: I found this http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/sigma-usb-dock It is weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Huh? Is there a USB-based docking station for Sigma lenses now? What information would be stored or updated on the lens, rather than in the camera body? Or is this a bit of software, a virtual "dock", for when you have your camera (wearing the Sigma lens) attached to your computer via USB cable?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
There has been a big uproar from chart shooting measure-baters about Sigma's "quality control". People would insist that they have a bad copy of a lens and switch it out several times to get a "good" copy. They made the dock to shut these people up. I believe it allows them to calibrate the lens. As for myself, I've owned two wonderful pieces of Sigma glass and I've never have a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
They should charge more for it, the only people that would use it clearly have money to piss away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Ugh, art lens. "Oh this? It's an art lens. I only use art lenses  "
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Cool. I expect it will be much more expensive than I can afford, but still cool. Probably not as expensive as you would expect given the speed. I would guess that it's a 28-50 f/3.5 with a telecompressor built in. It's how Olympus pulls off their fancy f/2 zooms (they're pedestrian full-frame 70-200 f/4 designs licensed from Tamron or Sigma with telecompressors added in). If you could get telecompressors for medium format lenses most of them would qualify as superfast. It's about 2 stops from 35mm->APS-C, you could probably get another 2 stops going from 6x7->35mm. The 105mm f/2.4 would be like a 50mm f/0.9 or something like that on APS-C. Unlike real hyperfast lenses, it would also be quite sharp due to the resolution compression. The 55/4 would be a 28mm f/1.2. Someone should get on that. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Apr 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Ugh, art lens. They can call it whatever they like if they keep churning out superior-in-all-respect superfast lenses that weigh in at 30% less than the first-parties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Probably not as expensive as you would expect given the speed. I would guess that it's a 28-50 f/3.5 with a telecompressor built in. It's how Olympus pulls off their fancy f/2 zooms (they're pedestrian full-frame 70-200 f/4 designs licensed from Tamron or Sigma with telecompressors added in).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Got something to back that up? Pretty sure I read a while back that their f/2 zooms were f/2.8 with a 2x telecompressor and the max aperture closed down a stop. Seems awfully big and heavy for being based on an f/4 one. Not in specifically, no, I just remember they did it by telecompressor. Looks like you are correct and you can even half-unmount the lens to get the aperture to retract back to the full f/1.6.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
I just picked up a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 on ebay on impulse (it was cheap). For some reason I thought it was the fabled tamron 17-50. Have I made a $150 mistake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
It depends, there are several versions of that lens. Can you be more specific? (for starters, the only 17-70's I'm finding are variable apertures, so they aren't 2.8 when zoomed in), and I dunno if you have the version with OS or not. e. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-17-70mm-f-2.8-4-DC-Macro-OS-Lens-Review.aspx is a review of the OS model, comparing it to some other lenses including the Tamron. It doesn't look nearly as good as the tamron, but might not be terrible depending on how much you paid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
It appears to be the non OS model. I paid $150. Being a poor sucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
I'd say it is a step up from a kit lens, but a step down from the Tamron. $150 sounds reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Goddammit, anyone else end up with one of those bum SD cards from Sandisk that won't format?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Goddammit, anyone else end up with one of those bum SD cards from Sandisk that won't format? Where did you get it? Probably a fake 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Goddammit, anyone else end up with one of those bum SD cards from Sandisk that won't format? If it is a fake, this story might provide a bit of cheer: http://mattdelito.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/fraud/
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Where did you get it? Probably a fake Brand new at a camera store. I wanted to shoot an event but I'd left my other cards at home, so I ran across the street to a Hunt's Photo. At least I still have the packaging with the serial number, so I can talk to Sandisk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
That lense arrived and it seems pretty good, no lens cap though just a dumb UV filter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
I have a huge and awful issue with my Tamron 17-50/2.8 that suddenly happened tonight and I have no idea what to do. I was out shooting and suddenly out of nowhere it decided the zoom wasn't going to zoom without feeling kind-of sticky, almost like there was grit or something inside the barrel. I sat there for a minute and blew in it a time or two to see if something had gotten in there, and then tried it again and when I did the whole drat barrel spun, it had come unattached to the stupid mechanism inside that controls the zoom. Now the whole drat thing is completely busted and I don't know what to do. I bought this lens secondhand, so I don't know if it was ever registered with Tamron (or how old it is, so if it's even covered under warranty) but I have emailed the person I got it from to try and find out. Google tells me that this is a problem that these lenses has, but unfortunately it's not being so helpful on whither this is something that might get repaired. I guess I don't really have a question but man this is awful and I've babied this drat lens since I got it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
I don't know about the problem specifically, but from my machining experience it sounds like your track seized then broke the guiding peg things. I used to own one of the lenses so I've seen the track, I think the entire assembly is plastic. It's tough luck. You can probably reverse engineer the thing to see if you can repair it. Use this video as refernce. The three screws visible hold the front element in, allowing you access to the inside if you remove them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKMTgw-NCa0 Of course you should probably contact Tamron first to see if it's worth voiding a possible warranty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I don't know about the problem specifically, but from my machining experience it sounds like your track seized then broke the guiding peg things. I used to own one of the lenses so I've seen the track, I think the entire assembly is plastic. It's tough luck. Yeah, I'm not certain I'm willing to disassemble it until I've had a chat with Tamron to see if they'll cover it. Thankfully I've already heard back from the person I bought it from and have all the info on when it was purchased, and it's barely two years old so surely they'll at least be willing to look at it and give an estimate if nothing else. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
Supposedly tamron has massively improved their customer support and repair over the past few years, so maybe it won't be too bad to get it fixed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Just switched back to my $15 ebay lens adapter that wiggles a bit because my $80 fotodiox pro has stopped locking. I should look into finally buying a canon lens for my canon camera.  e: 40mm f/2.8 STM on the way. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Apr 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
Is the canon FD 85 f/1.2L worth it? Or should I just get a humble rokinon 85 f/1.4?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
teraflame posted:Is the canon FD 85 f/1.2L worth it? Or should I just get a humble rokinon 85 f/1.4? Do you want an f/1.2 lens and can you mount it on your camera (i.e. not EOS)? Then yes. If you can deal with manual focus the Rokinon is OK. The Canon 85/1.8 isn't glamorous but it's a solid lens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
Supposedly the 85 f/1.8 focuses faster than the f/1.2, so keep that in mind. I'm really happy with my f/1.8, the f/1.2L seems way overpriced. Edit: Oh, FD. Huh. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Apr 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
I never used a 85 1.2, but I hear it being called a "studio lens" since it's difficult to focus on the fly when it's wide open (which is the reason you want to shoot with it). It also costs a lot of god drat money. You may as well get a 85 1.8. 1.8 on a 85 is already pretty drat shallow. Even if you decide you want something faster down the road, you'll have no trouble hawking it for a good price. As for the lens itself, I've had one and I can say there is no good reason why it's not an L lens. It's one of the sharpest pieces of glass I've ever used, focuses super fast, and the build quality is excellent. One of the best bangs for your bucks in photography. I regret that I sold mine and I think I'll be buying one again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
I had the chance to use both a 50 1.2L and the 85 1.2 a while back and I can't even imagine trying to use those lenses wide open on something even remotely moving. Studio glass indeed and I commend anyone who is able to do otherwise. Edit* - Yes I'm completely blind and somehow missed the FD part. I used EOS. Verman fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Apr 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
teraflame posted:Is the canon FD 85 f/1.2L worth it? Or should I just get a humble rokinon 85 f/1.4? I think some of the other people who replied to you missed that you said FD. For what FD 85mms are going for, get something else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
teraflame posted:Is the canon FD 85 f/1.2L worth it? Or should I just get a humble rokinon 85 f/1.4? Is outdated mount thats optically inferior to other products, a good use of money? No. Get the Rokinon unless you are stuck in 1978 and can only use an AE. I doubt you will miss TEH BOKEY.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Update: I love the 40, even after only a midday sun 'does it work' outing.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Agreed. It's a fantastic lens and it rarely leaves my camera these days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 03:56
|
|
