|
powderific posted:If being a serious amateur means you need more than what Pentax offers, that means you're only serious if you need: Or like, a set of good autofocus f/1.4 lenses beyond the 50/1.4. I guess there's the Sigma 35/1.4 if that exists in K-mount, but if you want a 24/1.4 or an 85/1.4 or a 100 f2 or a 135 f/2 then you're kind of SOL. Personally I really like my NEX. The autofocus isn't quite as capable in really bad lighting and it suffers from a lack of high-end lenses as well, but it's got an APS-C sensor that can keep up with a K-5, can adapt any mount and can take Speed Boosters for quasi-FF, and the library of stabilized primes is getting pretty good and much more affordably priced than Canon's ($450 for a Sony 35/1.8 OSS vs $850 for the full-frame Canon 35/2 IS). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:21 on May 31, 2013 |
#
?
May 31, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Or like, a set of good autofocus f/1.4 lenses beyond the 50/1.4. I guess there's the Sigma 35/1.4 if that exists in K-mount, but if you want a 24/1.4 or an 85/1.4 or a 100 f2 or a 135 f/2 then you're kind of SOL. How many people "need" a 24/1.4 Man that sounds dumb. I don't think there's a "bad" camera system out there for someone getting started today. Just buy something you'll actually use.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Personally, I think it's a crying shame that Pentax doesn't have an affordable full frame DSLR. I'm thinking something D600ish and a sack full of old Takumars would be cool.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Or like, a set of good autofocus f/1.4 lenses beyond the 50/1.4. I guess there's the Sigma 35/1.4 if that exists in K-mount, but if you want a 24/1.4 or an 85/1.4 or a 100 f2 or a 135 f/2 then you're kind of SOL. OK, add 1.4 aperture lenses to the list of things that are required to be a serious amateur. Pentax has plenty of good AF primes if you can bear to go without that extra bit of f-stop. And the Sigma 35, 50, and 85 are available on K mount. But I think we're all forgetting the most important Pentax advantage: pancake lenses before they were cool  .
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
powderific posted:I think we're all forgetting the most important Pentax advantage: pancake lenses before they were cool I think you are forgetting Nikon's GN 45mm which came out in 1968, six years before Pentax released their 40mm. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
Yeah, well, Pentax has a 21mm, a 40mm, AND a 70mm.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:How many people "need" a 24/1.4 Man that sounds dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
$60 for a lens hood from Canon? Jesus christ. I think I will just pay $3 on eBay instead if you don't mind.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:How many people "need" a 24/1.4 Man that sounds dumb. Yeah, hipster cred granted, no one "needs" anything in particular, yadda yadda, but a fast 36mm-equivalent lens seems pretty useful. It's a focal length equivalent people seem to like on full frame, myself most definitely included (see: Pentax 35/3.5). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:56 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
xcore posted:$60 for a lens hood from Canon? Jesus christ. Canon hoods are cheap. http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Fuji-Fujifilm-GF670-6X6-Professional-lens-hood-/280522464053?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4150711b35 Or to get really dumb: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/CONTAX-6...0f607506&_uhb=1 Anyways, I found the Chinese ebay lens hood I got for my 17-55 was a much better fit and finish than the proper canon one I lost. And it cost like fourteen bucks.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
You can really use any system, I started out with an Olympus E-500 (god what a piece of poo poo) that I found on craigslist for cheap, got a couple lenses for it, traded the whole package in for a D200 a year later with no real loss. Just get a camera, and a lens, and shoot with it. There's no real 'wrong' choice.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:You can really use any system, I started out with an Olympus E-500 (god what a piece of poo poo) that I found on craigslist for cheap, got a couple lenses for it, traded the whole package in for a D200 a year later with no real loss. Just get a camera, and a lens, and shoot with it. There's no real 'wrong' choice. Yeah I agree with this. And also this post by Mike Johnston on the topic is a good read: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/05/false-shopping.html
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:There's no real 'wrong' choice. Except everything that's not a Leica 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Or like, a set of good autofocus f/1.4 lenses beyond the 50/1.4. I guess there's the Sigma 35/1.4 if that exists in K-mount, but if you want a 24/1.4 or an 85/1.4 or a 100 f2 or a 135 f/2 then you're kind of SOL. While you may not get a good autofocus 24 f1.4, there are a few options. If you want first party, the FA* 24 f2 is supposed to be a wierd lens. Optically its supposed to be flawed, but if you work around them the image quality is traditional FA* quality. If you don't want autofocus, the Samyang 24 f1.4 is there and its about the same quality as the Canon or Nikon while costing about $1400 less. If you want autofocus and third party, Sigma makes a 24 f1.8 and losing a half of a stop isn't that big of a deal in the end.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
OK, I need some help. All this research with differing opinions is doing my head in. I have just bought a 7D (OK, I'll be getting one tomorrow) along with a nifty 50 (cause hey, it's cheap and good at what it does). My ideal lens setup based on my needs/research would be: Canon EF-S 17-55 (to be purchased first) Canon EF 70-200 IS (a few months down the road) But I can't justify the money for both of these so I am going to have to get a 3rd party lens for one of these focal lengths. Should I go the with a cheaper 17-55 (I hear good things about the Tamron 17-50 or even just the cheaper Canon 15-85) Or should I go with a cheaper 70-200 (I have only read about the Sigma one which got reasonable reviews)
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
xcore posted:My ideal lens setup based on my needs/research would be: First of all, which 70-200 IS are you referring to? The f/2.8 IS is ~$2k and the f/4 IS is ~$1k. Also the f/2.8 is a pretty heavy lens compared to any consumer lens. Just something to keep in mind. Personally, I'd go with the 15-85 (which while cheaper, is certainly no cheap lens. It's incredibly sharp in my opinion) as well as the 70-200 f/4 IS (I do go with this combo, actually). I don't feel you'd be sacrificing anything with this setup and it will save you money. Hell, after looking at the price of the Canon 17-55, there are a couple different L lenses you could pick up and save money, which would also carry the benefit of being usable on a full frame if you decide to go that route later. The 17-40 f/4L is nice as well as the 24-105 f/4L. A nice, less expensive alternative to the 70-200 would be the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM. I've used this one for about six months (and will be replacing it with the 70-200 f/4 IS), and it is a great lens. The extra 100mm is very nice for birds and whatnot. Hope this helps at all. I didn't see a bad lens mentioned, so I think you'll have a kickass time regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:First of all, which 70-200 IS are you referring to? Yeah, I was referring to the f/4. Thanks heaps for the input. Any other advice from people is appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
I've been really happy with my Tamron 70-300: http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B003YH9DZ4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370105576&sr=8-1&keywords=tamron+70-300 $350 after rebate, incredibly sharp, VC (IS) works great, and I really haven't encountered a situation where I'd need that constant aperture yet; I'm sure that somewhere down the line I'll probably want to upgrade but for right now it's meeting all my needs and was a great deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
xcore posted:OK, I need some help. All this research with differing opinions is doing my head in. Did you note the thread title? It has your answer. Second party lenses are not as good as the 70-200 canons, but the tamron 17-50 is no sacrifice in quality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:but the tamron 17-50 is no sacrifice in quality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:I've been really happy with my Tamron 70-300: http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B003YH9DZ4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370105576&sr=8-1&keywords=tamron+70-300 I have this lens as well. Love love love it. It's a touch slow for fast moving things (birds for example) but patience and predictive shooting helps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
xcore posted:OK, I need some help. All this research with differing opinions is doing my head in. The Tamron 17-50 is pretty good for the price and if you're just starting out, I'd get that. Granted I haven't used the Canon version, but I kinda doubt the Tamron is just as good. The AF on the Tamron is a little slow and it's no where close to L level sharpness/ colors. I have heard around here that the Sigma 17-50 2.8 is as good as the Canon version but I can't confirm that. I've been debating upgrading my Tamron to a Sigma or Canon or just selling it off and saving up $5000 to go full frame with a 24-70 2.8 and a 5D3. As for the 70-200, I'd go with the Canons are all great and I'd go with the most expensive one you can afford. 70-200 2.8 IS II is heavy but I have no problems carrying it around in the sun all day if I have a black rapid strap or my messenger type camera bag (think tank retrospective 20).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:You can really use any system, I started out with an Olympus E-500 (god what a piece of poo poo) that I found on craigslist for cheap, got a couple lenses for it, traded the whole package in for a D200 a year later with no real loss. Just get a camera, and a lens, and shoot with it. There's no real 'wrong' choice. It's really funny how my tastes in camera gear went from P&S to "want to look like a pro with a DSLR body and probably a grip" to "a nice rugged body with a grip and a huge lens" to "holy poo poo I want the smallest camera I can get away with, jesus christ I don't want to carry that 9lb sack of glass around with me"
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:It's really funny how my tastes in camera gear went from P&S to "want to look like a pro with a DSLR body and probably a grip" to "a nice rugged body with a grip and a huge lens" to "holy poo poo I want the smallest camera I can get away with, jesus christ I don't want to carry that 9lb sack of glass around with me" I hung my 50d and the new 5d3 off me with the 24-70 and 70-200 attached and looked in the mirror; lol no that looks like itd be hard work very quickly  Anyone used one of those dual camera tactical pro strap systems?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
I was playing with a friends P&S and they're so tiny these days that I could barely use it. I'm probably stuck with DSLRs for life because of my ape-hands. It's just so comfortable to hold! I generally carry one lightweight lens though, look at this hobbyist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
The carry case for my Pentacon Six broke the other day so now I'm just wandering around carrying 2.5kg of glass and metal in my hand. Secondary lens goes in my pocket, nbd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Haggins posted:The Tamron 17-50 is pretty good for the price and if you're just starting out, I'd get that. Granted I haven't used the Canon version, but I kinda doubt the Tamron is just as good. The AF on the Tamron is a little slow and it's no where close to L level sharpness/ colors. I have heard around here that the Sigma 17-50 2.8 is as good as the Canon version but I can't confirm that. I've been debating upgrading my Tamron to a Sigma or Canon or just selling it off and saving up $5000 to go full frame with a 24-70 2.8 and a 5D3. The tamron is excellent but not as good as the canon...which is much more expensive. The best trade off is the non VC tamron and the canon 70-200. I think the sigma OS version is supposed to be excellent, but somewhat more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
How is the Tamron (or Sigma) 70-200 2.8 compared with the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS if you plan to shoot by hand? Didn't know how stability was on those types of zooms wide open without IS, or if it's pretty much for tripod shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:How is the Tamron (or Sigma) 70-200 2.8 compared with the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS if you plan to shoot by hand? Didn't know how stability was on those types of zooms wide open without IS, or if it's pretty much for tripod shooting. First off, the rule of thumb is that if you want a sharp shot handheld, your shutter speed needs to be 1 / focal length. So at 200mm you'll want to shoot at 1/200 or faster. That's not a hard number and it doesn't factor in IS. With the f4 you have IS which helps and the 2.8 helps by letting in more light. Canon claims that the f4 IS will give you 4 shutter stops which means you could theoretically get a sharp shot at 1/15th (if you're very steady)With a 2.8 you get 1 extra stop of light which will allow you to shoot at 1 stop faster shutter speed. So I guess that makes the f4 IS better for handheld shooting. However, that doesn't mean that the f4 IS is necessarily better than a 2.8. With a 2.8 you can get shallower depth of field which gives you more creative control over your images. I can always crank the ISO or put the camera on a tripod, but I can't switch the aperture out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
This is all assuming you're shooting something that isn't moving. For action you're going to want a minimum of 1/640th at which point is isn't going to do anything. Is is very nice for panning and still subjects though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:I hung my 50d and the new 5d3 off me with the 24-70 and 70-200 attached and looked in the mirror; lol no that looks like itd be hard work very quickly I sort of have? Two Black Rapid RS-7s linked together with duct tape with a Canon 40D with 70-200 f/4.0 and Canon 60D with 24-70 f/2.8. I'm more of a pack mule when it comes to what I'm willing to carry so it didn't bother me too much. I was the nerd in high school with the 30 lbs backpack. To be honest, I would enjoy using that setup to walk around NYC instead of carrying my camera bag. I'd look like a tool, but I'd be ready for anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
Yeah, I should have mentioned that the other side of owning a small inconspicuous camera is that I enjoy walking down the street without looking like I'm getting ready for some SWAT mission with a camera bandolier or something 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
I have one of those lowepro toploader bags that's can sit on your chest for QUICK TACTICAL ACCESS but I'm not on skis when I walk around so it just hangs on my side/behind me. I do really like having my connection point for the strap on the tripod mount however. Makes carrying a larger camera so much less of a hassle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:I hung my 50d and the new 5d3 off me with the 24-70 and 70-200 attached and looked in the mirror; lol no that looks like itd be hard work very quickly Borrowed a friend's dual black rapid setup for an nfl game. It worked pretty well but if you're running, you're gonna want to hold the cameras down to your sides so they don't bounce around so much. As far as access goes, though, it works well. You can even throw a third camera into the mix (300, 70-200, 16-35 for example) either on a monopod in front or around your neck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
I'm looking for a nice leather hand strap for my 7D. Has anyone used the Handy Dandy Hand Strap by Photojojo? http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/camera-hand-strap/
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:I'm looking for a nice leather hand strap for my 7D. Has anyone used the Handy Dandy Hand Strap by Photojojo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:I'm looking for a nice leather hand strap for my 7D. Has anyone used the Handy Dandy Hand Strap by Photojojo? I use a Gordy's strap. Lots of customizability, and they're cheaper than the one you posted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 12:54
|
|
|
bobfather posted:I use a Gordy's strap. Lots of customizability, and they're cheaper than the one you posted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 15:08
|
|
Cutie Pie Swag~
|
A friendly reminder to buy used. I just ordered, after a lot of trepidation, an "BGN" rated Nikon 80-200 2.8 from KEH. I borrowed one in perfect condition a few months ago and liked what I got out of it, but wanted to save money on this lens ($800 as opposed to $1400 or more for something of similar quality, new). I'm making very large prints so little imperfections would be a pain, but I bought it anyway. I remain amazed at how conservative KEH is with gradings. BGN is "70-79% of original condition. Shows more than average wear for the age of the item. May have dents, dings and/or brassing and finish loss. Glass may have marks, dust, anomalies and/or blemishes that should not affect picture quality." The glass is perfect on the lens I ordered, there's a tiny amount of dust in the lens (which was gonna get there anyway and doesn't matter), and there are some very, very, tiny, maybe 1/8th inch marks near the label. Mechanically it is perfect. If you're buying any remotely well made piece of equipment, buy used. Here's a list of things I've bought used, almost all from KEH, in the past ten years: D300, D700, D800e, D1h, 20mm f/4 Ai-s (was BGN), 135mm f/2 (also BGN), the 80-200 2.8, 17-55 2.8 DX, and probably more that I'm forgetting. The only lens I've bought new I couldn't find on KEH, and I called them to ask if they had even ever had one (they hadn't).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
Yeah, KEH's BGN and even most of the time UG rated items are still fantastic looking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:19
|
|
