|
Chitin posted:No. Cool. Which ones aren't? I had some Wasabi ones for my 5d that lasted about a quarter as long as the Canon ones.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:So are all off-brand DSLR batteries garbage? umm I can't remember the brands but there are some that always pop up on Amazon and eBay that are good and basically the same as the Canon ones. Sterlingtek? Is that one of the good brands? also I was deciding between the ol' 35 f/2 and the 40 mm pancake and pulled the trigger on the 40. And thanks to Amazon and Japan being small, I'll get it with free shipping in two days' time. Perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:Cool. Which ones aren't? I just got some Wasabi ones for my 6D. They seem to work great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
I got two non-brand LP-E8 batteries with the vertical grip I ordered and I literally can't tell the difference between them and the official ones. Unless you see extremely negative reviews, I say go off-brand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:Cool. Which ones aren't? I use Photive brand batteries and they destroy the Canon batteries. Like $15 and last half again as long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Some off-brand ones are actually better and hold a larger charge. http://sterlingtek.com/ Throw in a couple of these extra power ones into a grip and you can basically shoot until the end of time itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Thanks guys, I'll give Sterlingtek a shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:So are all off-brand DSLR batteries garbage? Sterlingtek batteries would like to disagree with you. I actually prefer them in my 50D than the original Canon batteries because they have a deeper charge capacity resulting in more shots per charge, not to mention they are much cheaper. doctor 7 posted:Throw in a couple of these extra power ones into a grip and you can basically shoot until the end of time itself. This is the absolute truth. I shot about a thousand photos at this wedding over the weekend and I probably could have shot 5 if not 10 more (weddings, not photos). Verman fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:Cool. Which ones aren't? I have this for my T2i which is pretty good: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006Y0YZZ6/ref=oh_details_o02_s01_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Don't know if they make similar batteries for full frame etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:So are all off-brand DSLR batteries garbage? I've got 4 generic 7D batteries and they all work perfectly. The only difference I've seen is that they ran flat about twice as quick as 'proper' canon batteries when it was really, really cold (like -30 degrees). In normal winter conditions, they work fine. The two generic x100 batteries I have (different brands) hold about 25-30% of the capacity of a proper fuji one. And seem to be getting worse. Useless. The ebay contax rechargable I bought started smoking, so I ripped it out... at which point, stuff started spewing out of it. So, I guess it's a mixed bag 
BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
If they don't explode, off-brand batteries can be a great deal!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:How would the 85 1.8 perform with a teleconverter on a crop sensor? Thinking down the road I'll want something better than my 55-250 for zoom purposes, but at the same time would like something with faster shutter speeds than something like a Tamron 70-300. Would think the 85 1.8 would make a great lens on it's own, but didn't know if it would not be worth using a teleconverter for the extra reach on a crop body. get the 70-300 it owns hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
The tamrom 70-300 vc was my previous favorite/best deal for the money lens, only to be beat my a recent purchase of an 85 1.8. Both are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
I didn't realize at all that we were talking about the tamron. I'm sure the tamron is fine but the canon has an autofocus that is pretty insanely fast, I use it for birds and it does a good job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I say this all the time, but on FF you're probably not going to want narrower than 24mm. Especially if you plan on visiting any churches, but yeah, Rome and Paris, to me, are the two cities wide angle lenses were invented for. Yeah I think I am just having a bad case of G.A.S. and nothing more. I had my 10-22 on my 50D in Paris almost the entire time so I think I'll just stick with the 24-70 for now. I shoot on the wide end regularly enough as it is but I think it would be fun to get outside of my element and discover some new ways of photographing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
BeanTaco posted:I didn't realize at all that we were talking about the tamron. Of course we're talking about the tamron, it's the best bang for your buck 70-300 out there unless you're buying L glass or something twice as expensive. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
I'm looking at it now and yeah you seem to be right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:I just got some Wasabi ones for my 6D. They seem to work great. I have Wasabi batteries for my 5dmk2 that have lasted a full work day of shooting, a few hundred shots at least. I see no difference between them and the Canon ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
Claw Massage posted:The tamrom 70-300 vc was my previous favorite/best deal for the money lens, only to be beat my a recent purchase of an 85 1.8. Both are awesome. That's what I was thinking, but a lot of stuff I'll be wanting to use it down the road is for sports/action shots, and I'm not sure it would be fast enough. Would the Canon 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) even be fast enough for that? That's kind of why I was thinking maybe a longer prime would be better, but I haven't done much with that to know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
For indoor or night sports, the f/4 will really drive you insane. You'd need the 2.8. Outdoor day sports though, it'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
canon 10-22 looks fun but expensive. Which of the third part lenses around this bracket are good, or is it worth biting the bullet and getting the canon? edit: this is for a 7d btw
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
BeanTaco posted:canon 10-22 looks fun but expensive. The sigma 8-16 or 10-22, Tamron 10-24, and Tokina 11-16 are all options to look at. Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
I had a Tamron 10-24 for a year or so and can confirm that it's awesome. I eventually sold it because I didn't need a super wide lens as much as I thought I would, but all the shots I took with it came out looking cool. Especially shots of the beach. I went to a friend's beach house in Gulf Shores, AL soon after getting it, and it was so awesome. I could go out on their balcony and shoot and get all the way from the street to the water in one shot with that lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
dakana posted:For indoor or night sports, the f/4 will really drive you insane. You'd need the 2.8. Outdoor day sports though, it'll be fine. Would the 5.6 on a variable aperture run into trouble outdoors too, or is it generally within acceptable range? Keeping in mind I really don't want to run my camera over 800 ISO. Be nice to have a fixed f/4, but then again, having good IS for half the price on a Tamron 70-300 is pretty appealing if there's not a huge difference in between the two shooting outside.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Would the 5.6 on a variable aperture run into trouble outdoors too, or is it generally within acceptable range? Keeping in mind I really don't want to run my camera over 800 ISO. Be nice to have a fixed f/4, but then again, having good IS for half the price on a Tamron 70-300 is pretty appealing if there's not a huge difference in between the two shooting outside. IS on the tamron is great, but it won't freeze motion of the subject. If you're shooting motion in sunlight you'll probably be fine, but on cloudy or overcast days you *might* run into issues if you want to be shooting at 1/1000 or faster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:IS on the tamron is great, but it won't freeze motion of the subject. If you're shooting motion in sunlight you'll probably be fine, but on cloudy or overcast days you *might* run into issues if you want to be shooting at 1/1000 or faster. Mentioned the IS more as having the option for it if needed. Still though, the main thing I'd be wanting is to freeze motion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Pulled the trigger on a 40mm 2.8 through eBay a few days ago, and holy poo poo was I impressed. I can see why everyone says that everyone else needs one. Seriously tack sharp, a far cry from the kit lens that I was using. One thing that is hard to get used to, however, is the STM. Even though the auto focus is fast and accurate for the most part, the AF Points on my T1i are mainly useless save for the center point. That means that I rely on the manual focus for the most part while shooting still life. The manual focus is pretty annoying on this lens. There is a small lag between the turning of the ring and the actual movement of the focus. I could get used to it, but it being a smaller focal length with a wider depth of field makes it hard to actually see if the subject is in focus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Boneitis posted:Pulled the trigger on a 40mm 2.8 through eBay a few days ago, and holy poo poo was I impressed. I can see why everyone says that everyone else needs one. Seriously tack sharp, a far cry from the kit lens that I was using. One thing that is hard to get used to, however, is the STM. Even though the auto focus is fast and accurate for the most part, the AF Points on my T1i are mainly useless save for the center point. That means that I rely on the manual focus for the most part while shooting still life. The manual focus is pretty annoying on this lens. There is a small lag between the turning of the ring and the actual movement of the focus. I could get used to it, but it being a smaller focal length with a wider depth of field makes it hard to actually see if the subject is in focus. How does the STM lens differ in use from regular AF USM? I haven't used one, so I was limited by what I could find for the OP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Its focus by wire. The focus ring isn't mechanically coupled to the elements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
BeanTaco posted:canon 10-22 looks fun but expensive. I've been thinking about selling my Tamron 10-24mm (because I need the cash--not because I don't love it). If you're interested, let me know and maybe we can work something out. I'll probably post photos of it tonight (with my username and all that). No box, but it has both caps and original printed documentation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Boneitis posted:Pulled the trigger on a 40mm 2.8 through eBay a few days ago, and holy poo poo was I impressed. I can see why everyone says that everyone else needs one. Seriously tack sharp, a far cry from the kit lens that I was using. One thing that is hard to get used to, however, is the STM. Even though the auto focus is fast and accurate for the most part, the AF Points on my T1i are mainly useless save for the center point. That means that I rely on the manual focus for the most part while shooting still life. The manual focus is pretty annoying on this lens. There is a small lag between the turning of the ring and the actual movement of the focus. I could get used to it, but it being a smaller focal length with a wider depth of field makes it hard to actually see if the subject is in focus. The T1i allows back-button focus, right? It makes focus/recompose pretty easy while you stick with the center point- that's what I do on my 60D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:The T1i allows back-button focus, right? Yep! All the options are described in the appendices in the manual.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Yep! Back button focus changed my life. I feel like I had so many fewer wasted shots at my most recent wedding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Yeah, I read about that somewhere but I haven't actually ever tried it. I think that I saw it on Stumble Upon, but never thought twice about it. The guy said that it changed his life, so I'll have to try it
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
UGAmazing posted:I've been thinking about selling my Tamron 10-24mm (because I need the cash--not because I don't love it). If you're interested, let me know and maybe we can work something out. I'll probably post photos of it tonight (with my username and all that). No box, but it has both caps and original printed documentation. Seeing as I live in New Zealand, that is probably going to be more effort than it's worth. Thanks for the offer though!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Would the 5.6 on a variable aperture run into trouble outdoors too, or is it generally within acceptable range? Keeping in mind I really don't want to run my camera over 800 ISO. Be nice to have a fixed f/4, but then again, having good IS for half the price on a Tamron 70-300 is pretty appealing if there's not a huge difference in between the two shooting outside. I looked back at my Lightroom catalog's aperture, ISO, and shutter speed statistics from a summer of little league baseball shooting -- about 20,000 photos all said and done. In sunlight you'll probably be fine with 5.6, but if it's overcast, you'll most likely be at or above ISO800 to freeze sports action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Help me rebuild my setup. So I have the dubious pleasure of trying to replace all my gear. Last night SOmeone broke into my car, grabbed my camera bag, and left with it. I had a gripped 60D, tamron 28-75, tamron 70-200 vc (just bought the drat thing), a 50 1.8,and a yongnuo flash, all in a Crumpler 6 million dollar home. It looks like I will get around 1750 from my insurance. Any advice on how I should go to build up either something similar, or a different way to go? I had thought about maybe moving to a 6D and just a 50 1.8, or backing up a generation and getting a refurb T2/3i and a quality mid range zoom, I also see used 7D's for under 1k on KEH. as far as input from me, I used the 28-75 most often of all 3 lenses (the 70-200 was an updgrade to replace another lens, use specifically to photograph roller derby). e; I could probably add about 250 to it [ts]xenophobe fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jun 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Brought back the faulty 50mm for a new one, and a working version is a lot better. I can see this working well in lower light.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
"[ts posted:xenophobe" post="416511859"] Well, if you feel the need to get another 60D: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3125105&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=149#post416138901
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
As much use as I get out of my 17-40L, about the only thing I ever shoot with it is landscapes and cityscapes, where it would be very advantageous to have some sort of control over perspective. I'd like to thank/blame this thread for fueling my thoughts of selling the 17-40 to fund a tilt-shift lens of some sort. Anybody been able to get their hands on the Samyang 24mm?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 02:26
|
|
