|
As a Fuji 18-55 owner, I couldn't bear throwing mine off a bridge. I will admit the 35 1.4 is much more awesome, though.
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
I shoot my 50 90% of the time and I still think kit lenses are loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:I have the feeling to use all primes. I rather like the simplicity. Someone tell me I am stupid. I'm looking to get a 34 1.4 and 85 1.8 to go with my 50 1.4. I'd take those 3 lenses when I wanted to travel light. If I needed something more versatile, then I add the 17-40 and 70-200.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
If you want to travel light why carry the 1.4's?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If you want to travel light why carry the 1.4's? Primes weight < zooms weight
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Primes weight < zooms weight
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Can't use the 30 since I recently went with FF, looking at the 35 1.4 for a down the road purchase.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Can't use the 30 since I recently went with FF, looking at the 35 1.4 for a down the road purchase. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1220042 Wario In Real Life fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
ante posted:Thanks, dudes. A lens like that is better suited to something like a GH2/GH3 in crop mode, or the Blackmagic Pocket Camera. Or, you know, a 2/3" ENG camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
Wario In Real Life posted:The new 30 1.4 ART is technically pseudo-FF. Is it the same buttery goodness as the 35 1.4 DG? I am all for spending less and getting more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
The optical performance is on par of the old 30mm, IIRC. Only the corners are a little better. The 35mm should still be sharper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 14:17
|
|
|
Zooms are the new primes Seriously, high end zooms are just sharp as primes now a days (unless you're a basement dwelling pixel peeper). I shot with nothing but a 50 1.8 for 2 years so I'm over primes. Then again I still want to get a good 30 for times when I want to limit myself and/or carry no more gear than the camera and a lens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Zooms are the new primes Yeah but the problem (for me) is spending the money on high end zooms. That and I want to do the footwork and frame the shot, take more time, think about it, etc. All these are positives to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Zooms are the new primes
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Zooms are the new primes High end zooms are also out of people's price ranges. Yeah, you could spend $1000 on a 24-70, or you could get yourself any 3 of a Samyang 14mm, a Pentax 35/2.4, a 50/1.4, or a Tamron 90/2.8 macro for around the same price. Or I loving love the Sigma 30/2.8 and 19/2.8, if they're produced for your system. The cheap zooms people tend to have access to are usually fairly trashy. Apart from covering the wide end most kit zooms don't really do much compared to the glass that's floating around real cheap. Woohoo, f/5.6 at 50mm and it's still not sharp even then? 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
For walkaround use, mid-range zooms are fine as long as you don't need/expect sharp corners wide open. Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 and 28-75mm f/2.8 are good enough for most people in most situations. For me, primes have turned into low-light lenses, rather than what I must use for acceptable results.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't really like operating with my 2.8 zooms wide open, but they're dreamy with enough light at f4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:This whole argument makes no sense. Sure the new zooms are great, but they're 2 pounds and 2 grand a piece. On the other hand, you can loving zoom, and if you want that you deal with the drawbacks. One isn't superior to the other. My only point is that now a days I feel like my zoom is a prime, at least quality wise. I'm not arguing that people should avoid primes, but rather stating that I prefer not to use them anymore (for the most part.) I'm pretty happy with being able to carry 3 lenses to do just about everything I need. The only reason I'd want to use primes now a days is for super shallow DoF or creative limitations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Or it's dark as poo poo in this church and here comes the bride, ffffuck 1/15 shutter speeeeeeeeed
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Miko posted:Or it's dark as poo poo in this church and here comes the bride, ffffuck 1/15 shutter speeeeeeeeed "We're having a nighttime candlelight-only lite wedding."
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:"We're having a nighttime candlelight-only lite wedding." Barry Lyndon theme wedding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Miko posted:Or it's dark as poo poo in this church and here comes the bride, ffffuck 1/15 shutter speeeeeeeeed My first wedding. Catholic church pre-ceremony, I practiced on a few people walking down the aisle to get my setting dialed in. It was dim but doable since flashes were not allowed and I was pushing my iso to balance something usable with fast enough shutter to not be shaky, fast enough aperture to bring in light but small enough to get a decent amount of things in focus. A few shots later, I had the result I wanted. Bride and groom appear ... and they shut the lights off. The only artificial light was coming from the altar and it was completely different color than what was previously available. I must have had the biggest WTF look on my face and probably said something out loud along the lines of Gob from arrested development "COME ON ...." I ended up quickly just setting auto iso, and shutter priority to 1/60th to be safe. Grainy photos became black and white and that was about the only way I could salvage what I shot. They were satisfied especially since it was one of those "sure I'll shoot your wedding for $400" ordeals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
Miko posted:Or it's dark as poo poo in this church and here comes the bride, ffffuck 1/15 shutter speeeeeeeeed I wouldn't even say that's a big deal if you have a camera that has good ISO performance. Hell, I know concert photographers that use zooms now a days. Besides, focus at 1.4 in low light at a dynamic event like a wedding is kinda hard to nail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
that's why you rock the 5d3 -- for that sweet, sweet autofocus. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Haha. My friends asked me to be there videographer as a present (I worked the full day, I've done 15+ hours of post and still not even close to done, doing that again). I've told them they'll probably get it in a few months but right now I'm working full time away from home until late Sept). We were inside a hall for the reception. I had one camera set on a tripod and another in my hand. I arrived early to get things set up. I matched the ISO, f stops, white balance and speeds (shooting video so no RAW second chances). As soon as the event started they turned off all the indoor lighting. I distinctly remember saying "God drat it." On the plus side someone asked my fiancée to be the videographer for their wedding and she told them no for me without even asking me. She noticed I was sweating spinal fluid the whole time. Never doing that again without a second shooter. Never. Also I'm glad I'm not the only one who goes "wow that's some terrible lighting... looks like we're going B&W in post!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Just buy a Sigma 18-35/1.8 and all of your problems are solved/dreams come true
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
I have a question about all this backfocus stuff and adjustments and what not. When the camera asks the lens to focus, is that just a regulation loop where it makes the lens focus back and forth until everything is sharp? Or does the camera actually know what the focus distance is (say 3 meters) and then tells the lens "kindly focus at 3 meters" and then the lens might be a bit off and it focuses at 2.9 meters instead?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
bolind posted:I have a question about all this backfocus stuff and adjustments and what not. The back and forth thing is how contrast detect on most p&s cameras/phones work
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
At my buddy's wedding in DC we took the metro from the church to the reception and the photog came along with us. The ambient lighting in the underground DC metro stops is mostly greenish fluorescents, the light inside the trains is incandescent, and the photog was shooting with an ungelled flash -- a hellish mix of light. During a bit of downtime on the train ride I asked him if he ever gels his flash and he was like "Oh, these are all going to be B&W". So B&W in challenging lighting conditions is a legit move, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Just looking for a bag, a simple bag, in which I can stick a tripod, a light stand, and an umbrella or two. Bought something that seemed reasonable on Amazon, the zipper broke within two weeks. Any suggestions on something a bit more resistant to fall-apart?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Just looking for a bag, a simple bag, in which I can stick a tripod, a light stand, and an umbrella or two. Bought something that seemed reasonable on Amazon, the zipper broke within two weeks. Any suggestions on something a bit more resistant to fall-apart? I have this one http://www.amazon.com/VidPro-Carryi...rds=tripod+bag, I only use it for protecting my tripod from the other stuff in my trunk though so no idea how resiliant it is to actually being carried around. If you don't mind spending the money Domke makes tripod bags and all of their stuff is nice. http://www.amazon.com/Domke-709-432D-F-432-32-Inch-Tripod/dp/B00126FVIC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1375411133&sr=8-2&keywords=domke+tripod+bag
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:I have this one http://www.amazon.com/VidPro-Carryi...rds=tripod+bag, I only use it for protecting my tripod from the other stuff in my trunk though so no idea how resiliant it is to actually being carried around. If you don't mind spending the money Domke makes tripod bags and all of their stuff is nice. http://www.amazon.com/Domke-709-432D-F-432-32-Inch-Tripod/dp/B00126FVIC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1375411133&sr=8-2&keywords=domke+tripod+bag Okay, the VidPro's the one with the zipper that fell right off so I guess I need to go higher than the $15 range to get some durability. I'll take a look at the Domke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Okay, the VidPro's the one with the zipper that fell right off so I guess I need to go higher than the $15 range to get some durability. I'll take a look at the Domke. Yup, the zipper is made of a super-soft cardboard-like material that bands and breaks the minute it encounters any sort of force. Pick out something more rugged.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
The two things I feel no photography should go cheap on are tripods and bags. Tripods because anything under $100 will break in a year or so with moderate use and a bag because it is the only thing protecting your stuff from the pavement below. Not specifically helpful, but I learned this the hard/expensive way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Okay, the VidPro's the one with the zipper that fell right off so I guess I need to go higher than the $15 range to get some durability. I'll take a look at the Domke. Well, I guess it's a good thing I never actually zip mine up then. rcman50166 posted:The two things I feel no photography should go cheap on are tripods and bags. Tripods because anything under $100 will break in a year or so with moderate use and a bag because it is the only thing protecting your stuff from the pavement below. Not specifically helpful, but I learned this the hard/expensive way. Some inexpensive stuff is fine. My daily carry bag for small formats is a $20 Lowepro messenger and it's great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Some inexpensive stuff is fine. My daily carry bag for small formats is a $20 Lowepro messenger and it's great. The $30 cheapie Canon bag I got has been fine too.. I've taken it up mountains, walked through rain storms, and dumped it to the pavement it out the back of my car because someone (not me I'll never admit to it) left the tailgate open and drove off. Camera and lenses have survived it all. Only reason I could see spending more for something different is because the bag isn't super comfortable to wear on long hikes.. it pulls away from the back too much because the camera sits on the top and it makes a lot of back strain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Some inexpensive stuff is fine. My daily carry bag for small formats is a $20 Lowepro messenger and it's great. Lowepro is typically generous with its padding, even on economic models.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 11:58
|
|
|
The few lowepro bags I've seen look straight out of the 80's in a bad way, but they're competent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 12:41
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The few lowepro bags I've seen look straight out of the 80's in a bad way, but they're competent. That's what I like about them.. They look cheap. You can blend in everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
Yeah mine is a small gray messenger with minimal padding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 16:15
|
|