|
Ethanfr0me posted:I'm thinking of getting a Nikon D7100 as my first DSLR. Is the kit lens worth getting or should I just get the body + 1.8 50mm Nikkor lens for around the same price. Also consider the Nikon 35mm 1.8 and the Sigma 30mm 1.4. I would prefer either of those for my first lens, compared to the 50mm.
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
Ethanfr0me posted:I'm thinking of getting a Nikon D7100 as my first DSLR. Is the kit lens worth getting or should I just get the body + 1.8 50mm Nikkor lens for around the same price. Are you familiar with photography in general already? If you're not, I would almost strongly suggest that you DO get the kit lens because it's likely you don't actually know what you like shooting. If you get the kit you should at least have the flexibility to learn your shooting style without investing in more expensive zoom lenses, or an array of primes that you may or may not like. The fact that sensors these days have good high ISO performance means that even a kit lens' lovely aperture will be more than usable. If you are already somewhat familiar with photography, ask yourself whether you'll be happy walking around with an 75mm equivalens lens. If you will, then there's no problem. If you think need something wider then I suggest you look at the 35mm or sigma 30.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Ethanfr0me posted:I'm thinking of getting a Nikon D7100 as my first DSLR. Is the kit lens worth getting or should I just get the body + 1.8 50mm Nikkor lens for around the same price.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Ethanfr0me posted:I'm thinking of getting a Nikon D7100 as my first DSLR. Is the kit lens worth getting or should I just get the body + 1.8 50mm Nikkor lens for around the same price. Get the 35mm 1.8 and then buy my Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens in the sales thread.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
If you have both a fast prime and a reasonably fast zoom (e.g., the 35 f/1.8 with the 17-50 f/2.8), when would you decide to use one over the other? 17-50 covers the 35 length already so the prime seems superfluous; or if you go with the old "zoom with your feet" adage, then there's no need to go slower and pay more ($200 vs. $300-$350 used) for the zoom. What's the reason for owning both?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Do get an 18-55 kit lens though. They're nearly free these days and it's a really useful focal range when you're just getting started (y'know, hence them often being included with cameras).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Plus, kit zooms have already bottomed out for price, so you can sell it if you don't like it for almost what you paid for it, assuming you don't damage it. There's enough of a difference between f/1.8 and f/2.8 that I don't think the 35/1.8 and 17-50/2.8 are redundant. Also, the experience of shooting with a zoom vs. with just one prime is different, forcing you to take pictures in different ways.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
404notfound posted:If you have both a fast prime and a reasonably fast zoom (e.g., the 35 f/1.8 with the 17-50 f/2.8), when would you decide to use one over the other? 17-50 covers the 35 length already so the prime seems superfluous; or if you go with the old "zoom with your feet" adage, then there's no need to go slower and pay more ($200 vs. $300-$350 used) for the zoom. What's the reason for owning both? Can tell if... One is smaller, more compact (barely), and more narrow dof, the other covers 17-50 with a constant 2.8 and is good for wide to normal fov. Both have uses even if they seem to overlap. One cannot do what the other does. The gap between 1.8 and 2.8 is large enough that they are not what I consider to be overlapping in terms of use. I carry multiple overlapping lengths. Give no fucks. Each lens I use has its purpose. Today my bag has a 50mm, 18-55mm, 35mm and 135mm.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
404notfound posted:If you have both a fast prime and a reasonably fast zoom (e.g., the 35 f/1.8 with the 17-50 f/2.8), when would you decide to use one over the other? 17-50 covers the 35 length already so the prime seems superfluous; or if you go with the old "zoom with your feet" adage, then there's no need to go slower and pay more ($200 vs. $300-$350 used) for the zoom. What's the reason for owning both?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
Hi guys, Currently I have a canon600d with the following lenses. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS II Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM I'm going to be upgrading to a 5dmk3 later in the year and as the EF-S lenses won't work on it I'm looking for a good replacement, I'll mainly be shooting live wrestling/other indoor sports, music gigs and the odd portait or two, As I do a fair bit of video work I purchased the 2.8 because of the constant aperture so that is also a fairly big thing. I honestly don't think I need anything near the 200m as nothing I've shot so far has required that but something above 100 would be nice. please shower me with your knowledge.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
I shoot similar sorts of events, and I'm also planning to upgrade to a 5d3 eventually. I got an 85mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/2 L. They both work great on a crop body. The 85mm is my favorite lens right now, I suspect that will shift to the 135L when I go full frame.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
I'd go with the 135mm f/2L that Bubbacub mentioned. I was going to suggest also the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, however that is double the price and I don't think you personally would get the use out of it to justify the difference. There's also the 100mm f/2.8L Macro, which is a brilliant lens at around the same price as the 135. Depends on what the ideal focal length is for what you're doing. Plenty of good options 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
It's not super sexy but I loved my 24-105 f4 L for video. The IS worked great and they're a particularly durable little lens. I wish Nikon's f4 zoom was as nice—it's the only thing I really miss from Canon's lineup.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Bang3r posted:Hi guys, You're probably going to want a 70-200. 600D is a 1.6x crop factor, so 200mm on the 5D3 will look like 125mm on the 600D.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Bang3r posted:I'm going to be upgrading to a 5dmk3 later in the year and as the EF-S lenses won't work on it I'm looking for a good replacement, I'll mainly be shooting live wrestling/other indoor sports, music gigs and the odd portait or two, As I do a fair bit of video work I purchased the 2.8 because of the constant aperture so that is also a fairly big thing. If your budget can allow for it, I'd suggest the 70-200/2.8 IS II and the new Sigma 35/1.4. These 2 lenses should cover most of the focal lengths you need to cover events. Alternatively, get a 24-70/2.8 and rent the 70-200 for each event until you get enough events regularly to warrant buying it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
Is there a thread for video cameras? I'm going on a trip with my organization and I was asked to put together a short film about the trip, I don't have a super large budget, under a grand, and it needs to not be bulky-because it's not a very safe place so I don't want to be sticking out. On the other hand if I show up with a cannon point and shoot on the video setting I feel like people wont take me seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
Umph posted:Is there a thread for video cameras? I'm going on a trip with my organization and I was asked to put together a short film about the trip, I don't have a super large budget, under a grand, and it needs to not be bulky-because it's not a very safe place so I don't want to be sticking out. On the other hand if I show up with a cannon point and shoot on the video setting I feel like people wont take me seriously. There's a cinematography thread in CC that seems to focus more on dedicated video cameras and gear http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3144982 and then there's the DSLR video thread http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3294359&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 where the focus is on well, using dslr's for video.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
Just ordered a tamron 28-75 2.8 to fill the gap left by getting a FF. Couldn't justify getting the more expensive canon 24-70. I have really enjoyed the tamron 70-300 and the 17-55 so hopefully this one is the same.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Sigma versus Tamron for a 24-70mm/2.8? Reviews suggest the Tamron's sharper along all apertures and focal lengths. However my dad owned a Tamron whatsit a while ago, and it's zoom barrel zipped out on its own every time you'd point it to the ground or swung the camera around a little too fast, unless you used the lock button. Seemingly a design flaw, not manufacturing fault, so I'm a little wary.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
I loved my Sigma 24-70 2.8. I had the first revision which was notably softer and more prone to flaring than the second version. It was built like a tank and I could have beat someone over the head with it and then taken a quick photo of their cold, lifeless body. It also weighed a ton. I have no experience with the Tamron but if you look at the Sigma I would suggest looking at the newer, updated version. The older version that I had is really cheap these days, but it's also optically inferior. Not inferior to the point where I would say it was a bad lens though. I would probably recommend stopping it down to f/4 to be truly good.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
Hmm, thanks. I have to get my hands on a rented lens to test before buying. My alternative plan is to get a 24mm prime and something longer than 50mm. On my old crop body, most pictures I've made with my 18-50mm were either zoomed completely in or completely out. And way more were at 18mm than 50mm. Considering I do a lot of landscape and urbex, a 24mm prime might be a cheaper solution. A zoom lens however is less switching lenses around for random shots.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
What camera are you shooting with? By which I really mean what crop factor are you using?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
I've gotten a Canon 6D with a Sigma 50mm/1.4 a few days ago. Once I've ditched my 550D and EF-S lenses on Ebay or wherever, I'm looking for at least one other lens for my new cam.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Oh nice, so you're running full frame. You might want to look at the 85 prime then, and a 24 prime or lower. But overall it's hard to give recommendations since I'm not terribly familiar with the Canon lineup. It'll also almost certainly be more expensive to go with two primes.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
I'll be going for third party lenses. The Canon stuff's too expensive, given that there's other brands that can deliver similar performance at half the price or less, if you pick the models accordingly. During the night, I've stumbled across Samyang lenses (realizing they're completely manual), which seem to be pretty sharp and good quality. I think I have to go through my shots and see the common focal lengths (I wish Lightroom could create statistics like this), and see whether I need the longer prime later than sooner.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 09:39
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I think I have to go through my shots and see the common focal lengths (I wish Lightroom could create statistics like this), and see whether I need the longer prime later than sooner. If you go to your library filters, you can change the category on one of the columns to be focal length and see where your shots tend to group.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
404notfound posted:If you go to your library filters, you can change the category on one of the columns to be focal length and see where your shots tend to group. Surprisingly, I've shot more at the far end of my 18-50mm than on the wide one last year. That's strange, because when scrambling around in ruins, I was being annoyed that it wasn't wider (the 30mm peak comes from my 30/1.4). 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 10:39
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I've gotten a Canon 6D with a Sigma 50mm/1.4 a few days ago. Once I've ditched my 550D and EF-S lenses on Ebay or wherever, I'm looking for at least one other lens for my new cam. How do you like that Canon 6D/Sigma 50mm combo?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Someone talk me out of (or into) getting this Nikon D3100 2-Lens Kit for $500 (on sale at various B&M retailers). I've been looking to get a DSLR for a while, but I haven't really used an SLR of any kind since I had a Nikon FG about 10+ years ago. I really don't think I'm going to find a better deal and that if I decide to upgrade within a couple years I could probably sell the kit without losing any money.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Megiddo posted:Someone talk me out of (or into) getting this Nikon D3100 2-Lens Kit for $500 (on sale at various B&M retailers). I've been looking to get a DSLR for a while, but I haven't really used an SLR of any kind since I had a Nikon FG about 10+ years ago. I really don't think I'm going to find a better deal and that if I decide to upgrade within a couple years I could probably sell the kit without losing any money. DSLRs are like cars. Open the box, they depreciate. Entry level cameras never retain their resale value for more than a few weeks after launch. Nevertheless its a good deal.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Instrumedley posted:How do you like that Canon 6D/Sigma 50mm combo?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
I've been using my 50 almost exclusively on the d800. Owns.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Megiddo posted:Someone talk me out of (or into) getting this Nikon D3100 2-Lens Kit for $500 (on sale at various B&M retailers). I've been looking to get a DSLR for a while, but I haven't really used an SLR of any kind since I had a Nikon FG about 10+ years ago. I really don't think I'm going to find a better deal and that if I decide to upgrade within a couple years I could probably sell the kit without losing any money. It's a good camera, and a good deal, but don't buy it if getting all your money back in a couple of years is important to you, because that will not happen. You are correct that unless you go used, you will probably not find a better deal any time soon. On the other hand, if you think you will grow out of it too quickly, you might be better off buying a used, higher end model instead.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
I guess I should have phrased it as "without losing too much money." I went ahead and bought it since it seems like there's really no way I'll totally lose my rear end on it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
I have a 18-35 AF D ED lens hanging around that used to be my dad's. I was about to try it out on my D600 but I opened it and saw there's a little bit of damage. It appears that the mount part of the lens has some scratches on it, like it's been worn away from excessive force. And the contacts look tealish. Like oxidized copper. Is it a bad idea to use this lens? The scratches I think are incidental, but the contacts seem like they may mess something up in the body.  
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
It's probably fine. Probably a good idea to take a wire brush to the contacts to polish them up a bit though. Might even come off with a damp towel.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
I'm looking for some first DSLR purchase feedback. I pretty much have it narrowed down to a 7D/D7100 OR 6D/D600 but need advice on whether or not the full frame is worth it for me. I'm not really concerned about money but would prefer to get a body + kit lens + 50mm prime for around $2500 new or used. I have a friend that has already mentioned the 5D mark ii but that would require me to go used. I bought a Kodak Z990 super-zoom about 8 months ago to start taking pictures for my girlfriend's fashion/graphic design blog. It takes ok pictures for a blog, but my mom taught me photography 20 years ago on a Pentax K1000 so I can't stand having settings buried in digital menus. The Z990 is just slow and not enjoyable to take pictures with compared to the SLR I learned on. It also can't produce bokeh at all at portrait zoom. Other than fashion portraits/street photography for the blog, I'll be moving out to the PAC NW and hopefully doing a lot of hiking and outdoor sports that I'd like to shoot. We may also be doing low-light, indoor photography for the blog during the rainy winter months. I think ideally I'd grab a D7100 and save a bunch for nice lenses, but searching the internet for full frame vs cropped hasn't really given me a better feel for whether or not it's worth it for me to get full frame given my subjects. fake e: I have a $100 gift card for Amazon so if you can point me in the direction of good deals there would be much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
From what you're shooting (fashion, stuff where super thing DoF can help) a FF camera makes sense, especially on your budget. A refurbished d600 only runs around 1600 or 1700 last I checked, so you'd still have a good chunk left over for lenses. e. Also buy an ME Super
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 16:58
|
|