|
Maybe getting rebodied for their "art" line? I wouldn't be surprised at all if the 50mm 1.4 is next up for this treatment. The CEO of Sigma has said himself that its his favorite lens.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
Hope it'll get better optics, too, then. The 35mm is loving brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Is there a new 50mm/1.4 coming from Sigma? It's currently not listed at all on their site, and I heard something about a revision, but without decent source. Isn't it supposed to be receiving an 'A' designation and dock connector?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Anyone have experience with the Sigma 50-500mm or 150-500mm? How do they compare with the Canon 100-400mm?Combat Pretzel posted:Hope it'll get better optics, too, then. The 35mm is loving brilliant. I think someone in this thread claimed that the optics will be the same. Ended up returning my 35mm altogether due to the autofocus system squeaking and clicking. Going to wait a bit to order another, maybe until a new 50mm is announced just in case. Instrumedley fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jun 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Instrumedley posted:Anyone have experience with the Sigma 50-500mm or 150-500mm? How do they compare with the Canon 100-400mm? Take a look at the 120-300 f/2.8 from Sigma. The version before it got the dock support and a Sport designation is hardware identical, great reviews on sharpness and AF speed/accuracy. Apparently takes the Sigma TCs extremely well, so you could put a 2x on it and have a 240-600 f/5.6 or a 168-420 f/4. Not too expensive for that generation, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
What's the general consensus on KEH ratings? I'm looking at aa lens with EX+ (" Glass very clean."), and I've heard from a friend that they typically underrate their gear conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
Helicity posted:What's the general consensus on KEH ratings? I'm looking at aa lens with EX+ (" Glass very clean."), and I've heard from a friend that they typically underrate their gear conditions. If keh lists a lens as EX+ it's probably going to be impossible for you to tell that it's ever been used. Even their BGN stuff is normally in very good condition. With older stuff you might still have some brassing or whatnot, but the glass will be pristine if it's EX or EX+.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Instrumedley posted:Anyone have experience with the Sigma 50-500mm or 150-500mm? How do they compare with the Canon 100-400mm? I did, and my source is the Australian supplier for Sigma. No idea how reliable that is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
About third party 70-200mm/2.8, how hampering is the blurry corner performance of both the Tamron and (even more on) the Sigma in practical non-peeping use? --edit: Missing letter. As in pixel peeping. vvv 
Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:About third party 70-200mm/2.8, how hampering is the blurry corner performance of both the Tamron and (even more on) the Sigma in practical non-peeing use? Sorry, I only use them for peeing purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
I have a broken Nikon 80-200 push pull that works great as a piss jug. Too bad keh got rid of their as is section.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:About third party 70-200mm/2.8, how hampering is the blurry corner performance of both the Tamron and (even more on) the Sigma in practical non-peeping use?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Instrumedley posted:Anyone have experience with the Sigma 50-500mm or 150-500mm? How do they compare with the Canon 100-400mm? I've got the 150-500mm, which I quite like for shooting football. I don't have a comparison to any of the Canon lenses as a yardstick, but you can see some of the output here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/efcso1/sets/72157632262758337/ (pardon my very average photographic abilities)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend basic filters just for protections sake (don't really need ND etc)? I don't really like using hoods much and I'm getting a new 24-70mm 2.8 and I'd like something there just in case
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
Bang3r posted:Can anyone recommend basic filters just for protections sake (don't really need ND etc)? I don't really like using hoods much and I'm getting a new 24-70mm 2.8 and I'd like something there just in case Just get a UV filter it will make your pictures awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
I never got the whole "UV filter for protection" thing. Why drop $2000 on a lens only to immediately degrade the image quality with a piece of poo poo filter? That's like buying a Ferrari and immediately putting a hood mask on it. Edit: I had to out of curiosity. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 08:54
|
|
Cutie Pie Swag~
|
Cute as heck posted:I never got the whole "UV filter for protection" thing. Why drop $2000 on a lens only to immediately degrade the image quality with a piece of poo poo filter? That's like buying a Ferrari and immediately putting a hood mask on it. Except a hood mask doesn't actually change the performance of the car at all, just prevents rock chips (or in the case of my Miata hide the lovely bumper I haven't found time to fix yet). Unless you own one of the few lenses that require a filter to be weather sealed an UV filter does absolutely nothing but degrade your image quality. Bang3r posted:I don't really like using hoods much. . .  Oh, never mind. I see you don't actually care about image quality, go ahead and put whatever lovely filters you want on there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
My friend advised me he used to get just basic Glass filters but I haven't been able to find any
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
Bang3r posted:My friend advised me he used to get just basic Glass filters but I haven't been able to find any Here, this is $5. http://www.ebay.com/itm/82mm-UV-Ult...=item2a1e09dfbd
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
Bang3r posted:Can anyone recommend basic filters just for protections sake (don't really need ND etc)? I don't really like using hoods much and I'm getting a new 24-70mm 2.8 and I'd like something there just in case What kind of damage do you think a filter is going to protect you from? edit: to expand, UV or basic glass protective filters have their place. On Canon L glass, they serve as a gasket to complete the weather sealing. They also seal off the front element so you have a simple flat surface you can (gently, and with a clean microfiber cloth or Lenspen) clean off, rather than the actual element and all of the ridges around it. That's all good, but now you've also added another layer of glass in front of your lens. A flat piece of glass which is now susceptible to picking up flares from any light source coming from your sides. The only physical thing that a UV filter will protect your lens from is flying things, so if you're shooting motorsports, high-seas fishing, outdoor obstacle courses, pie eating contests... yeah, by all means throw a UV filter on there, but in all of those situations, a lens hood is going to shield your lens more often than the glass filter will help you out PLUS it has the added bonus of serving as a matte box, so you'll get better contrasts, colors and less flares. If you're going to use a filter, though, go with a Hoya HMC UV Digital or a B+W Clear UV Haze. I'm sure there are other good ones, but these get recommended fairly often, and I haven't noticed any image degradation from using them. an AOL chatroom fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 11:45
|
|
|
See what happens when we take "no uv filters" out of the thread title?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 12:33
|
|
|
dakana posted:See what happens when we take "no uv filters" out of the thread title? Hail satan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 12:34
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Hail satan. Hail satan. The only time I throw a UV filter on my camera is if I'm worried that it might get caught in a hail storm. Are you worried about getting caught in hailstorms?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Hail satan. Hail satan. Seriously don't put a UV filter on your lens unless you have a really compelling reason to do so and trust me, you don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
I heard UV filters are still useful on film, C/D?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
I don't own a UV filter. I like to live dangerously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
I need a camera and lens to take pictures of dead fish for work. The setup is going to be camera mounted 40-50cm above the fish looking straight down. The fish are 5-15cm long and I need to get the whole thing in shot. Ideally the camera will have some degree of weather sealing because I'll be taking it out onto the middle of lochs in Scotland for long periods and it's probably going to rain a lot. I was thinking maybe a 50D with the 50/2.5 macro because I already have a 50D of my own and know it can deal with a bit of water, but I've no idea if the 50/2.5 is any good or if I'm missing another obvious option. On the other hand it'd be nice to use something a bit less bulky, is there a weatherproof 4/3 or similar that anyone could recommend? Budget ~£1000.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
I wish I had asked about UV filters on here back when I was getting into photography so I'd have known not to waste money on them and have them gently caress up my pictures. I even bought nice ones. At least they make decent coasters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I need a camera and lens to take pictures of dead fish for work. The setup is going to be camera mounted 40-50cm above the fish looking straight down. The fish are 5-15cm long and I need to get the whole thing in shot. Ideally the camera will have some degree of weather sealing because I'll be taking it out onto the middle of lochs in Scotland for long periods and it's probably going to rain a lot. An OM-D with the 12-50 kit lens would fit your needs pretty well. Weathersealed, so no worry about splashing, opens up to 12mm so you can get nice long fish in frame, can do ok macro in a pinch, and the whole kit fits in your budget. It's not the sharpest lens, but it's flexible as hell and the weathersealing is very effective. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Olympus-OM-D-Thirds-Interchangeable-Camera/dp/B0073A1DWE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372195313&sr=8-1&keywords=om-d 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
^ Just about to recommend that. It's pretty much the only weather sealed body I can think of for a non DSLR. Is using a circular polarizer on a 15mm (used on a 1.5x APS-C sensor) not going to work out well? If I shoot something besides plain blue skies would the dark patches even be noticeable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Helicity posted:^ Just about to recommend that. It's pretty much the only weather sealed body I can think of for a non DSLR. http://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/polarizing-filter-wideangle-lens has some example shots of wide angle lenses, whether or not that effect will be an issue is up to preference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:http://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/polarizing-filter-wideangle-lens has some example shots of wide angle lenses, whether or not that effect will be an issue is up to preference. Thanks, I already struggle with shadow detail and my source of light is rarely at 90deg, so I'll probably skip the polarizer for the 15mm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:An OM-D with the 12-50 kit lens would fit your needs pretty well. Weathersealed, so no worry about splashing, opens up to 12mm so you can get nice long fish in frame, can do ok macro in a pinch, and the whole kit fits in your budget. It's not the sharpest lens, but it's flexible as hell and the weathersealing is very effective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I need a camera and lens to take pictures of dead fish for work. The setup is going to be camera mounted 40-50cm above the fish looking straight down. The fish are 5-15cm long and I need to get the whole thing in shot. Ideally the camera will have some degree of weather sealing because I'll be taking it out onto the middle of lochs in Scotland for long periods and it's probably going to rain a lot. I know I probably sound like a Pentax fanboy, but their weathersealing is excellent. They've been using it as the main selling feature of the K-30, which, due to the recent release of its sucessor the K-50, is available new for prices well under your budget. There aren't any weathersealed prime lenses I can find wider than 50mm, but the kit zoom for the K-30 is the weathersealed 17-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and it's cheap and quite good as long as you're not in need of wide apertures. To avoid bulk you could really cut down on size & weight and get a waterproof P&S - my GF has one of Sony's more recent offerings and while it looks rather toy-like the image quality is very impressive. Helicity posted:Is using a circular polarizer on a 15mm (used on a 1.5x APS-C sensor) not going to work out well? If I shoot something besides plain blue skies would the dark patches even be noticeable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I know I probably sound like a Pentax fanboy, but their weathersealing is excellent. They've been using it as the main selling feature of the K-30, which, due to the recent release of its sucessor the K-50, is available new for prices well under your budget. There aren't any weathersealed prime lenses I can find wider than 50mm, but the kit zoom for the K-30 is the weathersealed 17-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and it's cheap and quite good as long as you're not in need of wide apertures. ExecuDork posted:To avoid bulk you could really cut down on size & weight and get a waterproof P&S - my GF has one of Sony's more recent offerings and while it looks rather toy-like the image quality is very impressive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Cool, I'll be stopping down anyway to get a decent DoF so shouldn't be a problem. I'll give Pentax a look too, thanks. Pentax makes a waterproof remote, actually! http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/688838-REG/Pentax_39892_Waterproof_Infrared_Remote_Control.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
Yup, wireless (infrared) capability built in to all Pentax bodies since about 2007, and there is a waterproof remote available - no need to compromise weathersealing. Also self-timer, 2 and 12 seconds (there might be a firmware update that is more flexible) and built-in intervalometer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:I heard UV filters are still useful on film, C/D? From my experience the image does not improve any with an UV filter on. It might have been that older emulsions (like way back 70ies 80ies) might have been more susceptible to UV wavelengths, but with current films I don't see any detrimental effects - at all. That said the old UV filters still stuck on these old cameras are somehow even worse than the current iterations and flare like bastards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
I dunno if this fits here but, I need a new computer. This one has a litany of issues in addition to not handling D800e files in LR and PS and resizing them to 60"x60" at 300dpi in Perfect Resize too well. This is all about CPU power and disk access speed right? I also need a new monitor, as my 7 year old Cinema Display is starting to get dark streaks. So: Can I buy a badass Dell or Toshiba monitor and then build a computer that just has crazy CPU power and call it good? And not spend a ton on a GPU or 64 GB of RAM or anything? I thought about just buying a new iMac but the price premium isn't worth it and I can get bigger, more accurate monitors for cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:I dunno if this fits here but, Get a fast CPU, enough ram (I use 8 gigs, 16 would be better, but you don't need more than that), and an SSD. The SSD is probably going to be the most noticeable change you can make though, even if you get a small one to work on and then move the files onto a normal hard drive for long time storage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 04:19
|
|