|
Clearly you should be getting the TS-E 24/3.5 LII
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:My girlfriend got a T2i like a week ago and said she wanted her setup to be exactly like mine (T2i with Magic Lantern, Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and Canon 50 1.8). I tried to convince her to go with the pancake instead of the 50, because she said she wanted a wider prime than the 50 and it seemed like more of a walkaround lens from all the sample shots I've seen from it. Plus she got the kit 18-55 3.5-5.6 with her T2i and said it's a slow piece of poo poo and refuses to use it, even though I didn't find that when I had my kit lens after first getting my T2i (it wasn't outstanding but it wasn't unusable either), so she's confining herself to one lens right now until she can save up for the Tamron zoom and it'd make more sense to have a slightly wider one that can be used in more situations. But she ended up getting the 50 1.8 anyway. If she's new to photography, what exactly is her problem with the kit lens? They bundle that thing for a reason, and it would be a shame if she's already getting a gear fetish. Generalizing here, but in my experience, girls tend to not get so wrapped up in gear. Some lady friends of mine take excellent photos with nothing but the kit lens, and they seem to have no lust for anything else. Photography is a cheap hobby for them. Meanwhile, I have loads of fast primes and other things, and I have to periodically tell myself to stop obsessing about what poo poo I'm using and to just make photos. The 1.8 is cool, and at that price there's no reason to NOT have one, but I wouldn't suggest she forsake the kit lens. 50mm is kinda long on a crop sensor. Although I sold mine pretty early on, I think that saying that the kit lens is a "piece of poo poo" is an unnecessarily strong statement, especially from a novice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:I would if I had the room in my bag, but it's packed as full as I could get it, and there's just one little space that could fit either. The 40mm is tiny, I literally use it instead of a bodycap. It only takes up about one inch more than the width of the camera with it on. The 40mm build quality is also vastly superior to the 50mm: 40mm 2.8 on left, 50mm 1.8 on right  The 40mm has a nice metal mount and feels a lot sturdier. It's also made of metal (I think) and has a rubber focus wheel (It's the weird ever-rotating wheel some other lenses have, focus by wire or something like that). The 50mm is made of cheap, horrible plastic and the focus wheel feels like complete rear end.  The 40mm is also a lot smaller in terms of space. It's tiny. Rageaholic Monkey posted:I tried to convince her to go with the pancake instead of the 50, because she said she wanted a wider prime than the 50 She's probably right, the 40mm isn't really a portrait lens, it's just that bit too wide. The 50, especially on a crop, is a much better option if she only shoots portraits. It also goes to 1.8 which is cool for portraits. Also there's nothing wrong with the kit lens, it's not fast but it's handy unless you're super rich and can afford a very wide lens for a crop body.. Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 10:59
|
|
|
BeanTaco posted:What is wrong with you people why would you recommend the 50 over the 40. Easy. For some, the cost difference is not nothing, and for some the point of a prime is speed AND sharpness, and the 40 only does one of those.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 11:45
|
|
|
Ya'll also need to remember that 1.8 is a full stop + a third vs 2.8. So, double your shutter speed and then add another click.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
I stumbled across this looking for something else:quote:If anyone doubts this: The 6d can also shoot with 1/8000 shutter, the Magic Lantern devs discovered this, it's just that the Canon firmware has a "5d3 protection lock" that keeps resetting it to 1/4000 :-o --edit: Also, why can I assign all function to the DOF preview button that I can to the AE lock button, but not assign DOF preview to the AE lock button? I'm just wondering because I used the AE lock button for AF on my 550D, set up my 6D the same and only now figured that I have the AF ON button for this. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Inf posted:If she's new to photography, what exactly is her problem with the kit lens? They bundle that thing for a reason, and it would be a shame if she's already getting a gear fetish. Generalizing here, but in my experience, girls tend to not get so wrapped up in gear. Some lady friends of mine take excellent photos with nothing but the kit lens, and they seem to have no lust for anything else. Photography is a cheap hobby for them. Meanwhile, I have loads of fast primes and other things, and I have to periodically tell myself to stop obsessing about what poo poo I'm using and to just make photos. She's not new to photography. In fact, she used to have a DSLR (Nikon D40) which prompted me to get into DSLR photography in the first place, because I used to love playing around with hers. Hers got stolen a while back, though, and she's been using my gear recently when she does paid photoshoots for friends of hers. After playing around with the kit lens for....less than half an hour after getting it, I'd say, she decided that it was way too slow to take the kind of pictures she often takes and said she wouldn't use it. I encouraged her to play around with it more and fiddle with the settings so she could make it work for her, but she was like "No, I just want exactly what you have." The 50 was a good choice for her since she tends to use my 50 more than my Tamron zoom on photo gigs, and it's better for portraits. But yeah, I tried explaining aperture and stuff to her, and why certain lenses are better than others, but she isn't really into much of the technical side of photography. She just wants to use fast lenses to take portraits without knowing why they're fast. When I had my kit lens, I thought I took some pretty alright pictures  I wanted faster lenses and eventually got them, and now I think the quality of my pics is better than it was when I had the kit lens, but yeah, it certainly wasn't unusable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
I am genuinely curious in seeing some of her "paid gig" shots if she isn't interested in even learning the basics of aperture. Maybe she is some sort of photo taking genius but every person in the world who takes photos would get better by knowing the basics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
I'm always tempted to snag a 40mm pancake for when I want to go light and pull the grip and 24-70 off of the 5D. Maybe I'll watch Canon refurb now that they're doing 15% off select lenses again. Edit: they have it right now for $135
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Went and got a 50mm f1.8. Take a picture, and hear a strange beep I've never heard before. drat it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:Went and got a 50mm f1.8. Take a picture, and hear a strange beep I've never heard before. So, did you clean the lens contacts?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Yes, but it still occasionally pops up. I'll swap it with another at the store and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Edit: they have it right now for $135 I'm still upset that I missed the 40mm when it was about 100 bucks. What a great deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Claw Massage posted:I am genuinely curious in seeing some of her "paid gig" shots if she isn't interested in even learning the basics of aperture. Maybe she is some sort of photo taking genius but every person in the world who takes photos would get better by knowing the basics. Yeah, some of my aforementioned lady friend photographers don't really have any understanding of the technical side of photography, but they take good photos just based on the non-technical aspects (i.e. composition). I don't personally understand how someone can be satisfied with that approach, but I'm an engineer so I tend to totally nerd out on details and the how and why of pretty much everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Inf posted:Yeah, some of my aforementioned lady friend photographers don't really have any understanding of the technical side of photography, but they take good photos just based on the non-technical aspects (i.e. composition).       One of these days I need to take that IR-converted body for a spin. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Jun 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:I'm still upset that I missed the 40mm when it was about 100 bucks. What a great deal. I managed to pick it up on the gear trade thread for €85, which is amazing. I'm not sure if I'd have paid full price for it but at that prices, total steal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:A good friend has no clue about the technical side of photography if I try to talk with her about it, but she takes some pretty great shots; especially her infrared stuff: It's a lot harder to teach creativity than technical stuff. I'd rather look at some teenager on flickr's work shooting on Auto with a Rebel than a 60 year old camera enthusiast with the sharpest lenses. The frustrating thing comes when their creative work gets them to a postion where they can enhance their work with improving their technique but they don't because why change what got them there in the first place? I had a full shouting fight with a photographer I assisted about shooting RAW.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 11:40
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I had a full shouting fight with a photographer I assisted about shooting RAW.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Details please. Oh, they mostly shot JPG and never really put out work bigger than 2000px x 2000 px but they were super good and awesome and I was handling like admin and such for them as well as assisting on shoots. They had interest from a licensing company for book covers but the company freaked out when the highest res images we had were like 2000px at 72dpi (the photographer's archive was flickr) The fight was basically me being like "you should start shooting raw" and them being like "why should I, jpg has gotten me this far" and basically escalating from there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Oh, they mostly shot JPG and never really put out work bigger than 2000px x 2000 px but they were super good and awesome and I was handling like admin and such for them as well as assisting on shoots. They had interest from a licensing company for book covers but the company freaked out when the highest res images we had were like 2000px at 72dpi (the photographer's archive was flickr) This is actually not uncommon. A lot of (especially older) people are not comfortable with computers in general, and switching from film to digital (jpegs) was a big enough leap without having to worry about "whatever this whole RAW thing" is all about. It also comes down to a lack of technical understanding of the difference between RAW and jpeg. I would venture to guess that even most enthusiasts who shoot RAW don't even fully understand what the point is aside from what they can do with the sliders in Lightroom on RAW files vs jpegs. It's one of those topics I've decided to not argue with people about. If they want to keep shooting jpeg, that's not my problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
The 85 1.8 is one hell of a value. Holt crap this lens owns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Inf posted:It's one of those topics I've decided to not argue with people about. If they want to keep shooting jpeg, that's not my problem. Not having to ever worry about your color balance setting ought to be enough to convince most people. dakana posted:The 85 1.8 is one hell of a value. Holt crap this lens owns. Yes. My absolute favorite lens. They could paint a red stripe on it and charge twice as much, and it'd still be a good buy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
I shot a wedding this weekend and rented a few lenses for my 50D. A 35 1.4L, 70-200 2.8L, and 40 tilt shift. My mind was blown. I mostly used the 35L and my 17-50 2.8, but the 70-200 was absolutely awesome just loving MASSIVE. It honestly felt more like a heavy piece of industrial equipment than a camera lens but it was really fun to shoot with ... I just had to go across the street to use it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
I'm guessing because you have a 17-50 2.8 that you were shooting on a crop body?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The fight was basically me being like "you should start shooting raw" and them being like "why should I, jpg has gotten me this far" and basically escalating from there. Yup, I've had this same exact conversation before 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I'm guessing because you have a 17-50 2.8 that you were shooting on a crop body? He shot on a 50D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
1st AD posted:He shot on a 50D. I definitely found my 70-200 a bit too tight for shooting events on my 7D, but on full-frame it's perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Yup, I've had this same exact conversation before "You're doing the conversion from RAW to JPG anyway, you're just letting a lovely little embedded CPU do the best it can in a tenth of a second instead of letting a real processor do higher quality algorithms (and potentially even better ones at a later date)". If that doesn't work they're probably a lost cause.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Some people don't like using computers, or want to know that their pictures will look exactly the same when they get home as they did on the back of the camera. No amount of explaining how a baby picture is formed will dissuade them... JPEG is better than RAW because they tried it once and couldn't figure it out once and it looked different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I somehow glossed over that critical point. It was a really nice lens and ridiculously far reaching as I ran down the block to capture a shot of the party walking towards me. I would kill to own this lens, just as long as I have an assistant to carry it for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Oh yeah, RAW isn't for everyone but when you start shooting for bigger clients and such and you're not managing the post workflow shooting in RAW is a bit of a courtesy to whoever is handling your files.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Some people don't like using computers, or want to know that their pictures will look exactly the same when they get home as they did on the back of the camera. No amount of explaining how a baby picture is formed will dissuade them... JPEG is better than RAW because they tried it once and couldn't figure it out once and it looked different. That's what RAW+JPG is for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Sheeet, I shot a bit for some friends when the cherry blossoms were going on in DC and I still used RAW
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
If I'm not doing any post at all I'll just shoot JPEG. Why do people keep saying RAW? It's not an abbreviation/acronym.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
tarepanda posted:Why do people keep saying RAW? It's not an abbreviation/acronym.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
No, I mean people keep capitalizing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
tarepanda posted:No, I mean people keep capitalizing it. Or maybe it's just that street photography is so popular that photogs are picking up on the street slang where "raw" means loving without a condom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
The same reason people capitalize JPEG or TIFF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:The same reason people capitalize JPEG or TIFF. No, it's not. Those are both acronyms, which raw is not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
tarepanda posted:No, it's not. Those are both acronyms, which raw is not. They're all file extensions 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 03:21
|
|