|
terriyaki posted:Thinking about selling my 35L and 85/1.8 and picking up a cheap 50 since I rarely ever use my dSLR nowadays, especially since I got an X100S. Since 2005, I've owned two copies of the EF 50 F/1.4. The first performed well until I sold it except for the time I dropped it. $95 and one focus calibration later, it was good as new. I sold it when I got a 7D and was consolidating lenses. After I jumped to the 5D3 and sold all my crop lenses a year ago, I got another one and it works just fine. I do take the extra step of manually focusing to infinity every time I go to put my camera way as it retracts the extending part of the lens back into the lens barrel. Aside from me being an idiot, the lens has never given me issue. PS - I might be looking for an 85 1.8 soon.  Edit: Prime numba page snype (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Since 2005, I've owned two copies of the EF 50 F/1.4. The first performed well until I sold it except for the time I dropped it. $95 and one focus calibration later, it was good as new. I sold it when I got a 7D and was consolidating lenses. Shameful. Just shameful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
Should I just shell out for the Sigma 50mm Macro? My Canon 50mm macro stopped working and the bill is in the range of $150, however Id rather not spend any more money on that lens as I never liked the build quality to begin with. It seems like the Sigma lens was made prior to their reorganization. Are there any rumors of a coming update? Or maybe another competitor in the 50mm focal range? Autofocus isn't an issue and I am somewhat open to a legacy lens. Any recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Shameful. Just shameful. Though it may decrease your view of me, I will tell the truth. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
Bobx66 posted:Should I just shell out for the Sigma 50mm Macro? My Canon 50mm macro stopped working and the bill is in the range of $150, however Id rather not spend any more money on that lens as I never liked the build quality to begin with. It seems like the Sigma lens was made prior to their reorganization. Are there any rumors of a coming update? Or maybe another competitor in the 50mm focal range? If you don't care about AF the Tamron 90mm macro is really well regarded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:If you don't care about AF the Tamron 90mm macro is really well regarded. I love mine. I've had a few 52Bs and a 52BB and haven't noticed any optical differences. The AF version is also great but ~50-150$ vs ~500. You do need a teleconverter to get to 1:1 on the adaptall versions but the matched one isn't that hard to find and works well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
I already have the Tokina 90mm, autofocus isn't much of a requirement as I have a 40mm for walking around. I am however typically shooting in a tight space and 50mm seems to hit the sweet spot for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Can someone give me some advice on a "things to look for/questions to ask" type checklist for purchasing second hand lenses? In particular, I'm looking at purchasing a second hand Canon 70-200 F4. I'm a bit of a noob and don't have lot of experience in the mechanics/ins and outs of a good lens. For example, this is a listing that peaked my interest http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/essendon/digital-cameras/canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-l-is-usm-lens-and-extras-mint/1024130327
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
xcore posted:Can someone give me some advice on a "things to look for/questions to ask" type checklist for purchasing second hand lenses? Things to look for/try: Front and rear elements free of scratches/chips Look through and see if there is any mold growth inside the lens Does the focus ring (and zoom ring) rotate smoothly? Does it mount correctly and dismount correctly (no play/wiggle) When it's on the camera, will it actually take pictures and not throw up the ERR ## code (contacts dirty/screwed up) I think that's mostly it - as long as it's not too crazy cheap of a deal people usually don't try to pull any shenanigans. He actually covered these things in his listing, so confirm they're true: quote:No marks, scratches or fungus on glass or body. The Zoom and Focus rings are firm and work smoothly
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
Received my 40mm 2.8 yesterday, I see what all the hoopla was about, this is a surprisingly nice lens! Focusing is much better than my 50 1.8, albeit a bit slow going from near to far. Switching to manual focus and using the ring sounds funny, not bad, just funny. I think I will be shooting with this for awhile. I was going to do that with the 50, but the 40 is just so nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Tripod thoughts? Is a Slik 700 for $150 pretty much everything a hobbyist would ever need? It seems like slight overkill but I'd rather get something nice in case I need it later down the road.
Wario In Real Life fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Aug 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Wario In Real Life posted:Tripod thoughts? Is a Slik 700 for $150 pretty much everything a hobbyist would ever need? It seems like slight overkill but I'd rather get something nice in case I need it later down the road. If it's just the legs, B&H has them for $100.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
I got lucky. At a pawn shop I found two lenses, 5$ each. And then I dropped one of them. Whoops! Bye bye Kitstar 28-80mm. The survivor lens is a strange animal. Pentax mount. Manual focus 80-200mm lens with some "macro" capability at reproduction ratio of 1:4. The lens has f/4.5 written on the front, but the aperture ring goes all the way to f/2.8. Puzzling. Maybe the lens is actually f/2.8-4.5? To zoom in you grab the focus ring and pull it towards you. The brand is "TOPMAN". Focuses like butter. Yum! What do you guys make of this thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Sounds like a pretty common 80s 80-200. Probably not terrible if you stop it down to f/6 or something. I had a craptastic 70-200 f/4 on my K10D that actually produced not terrible shots. One of the lenses I actually enjoyed shooting with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
I need a good portrait lens for a 5D2. Was thinking the 50 1.4 or possibly the 85 1.2L. Haven't heard much good about the 50 1.2L but I'm not sure if that's just photgraghy sperging or not. I own a 24-105L and 70-200 4L
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:I need a good portrait lens for a 5D2. Was thinking the 50 1.4 or possibly the 85 1.2L. Haven't heard much good about the 50 1.2L but I'm not sure if that's just photgraghy sperging or not. I'd recommend looking at Sigma glass unless you're vying for Canon Pro membership. Provided you get a good copy they're really really good lenses for the price. The 85mm f1.2L is an insane lens but the price tag reflect this and frankly it's overkill for 90% of applications. Sigmas 85mm f1.4 is tack sharp and takes a very nice image for a fraction of the price.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
Wario In Real Life posted:Tripod thoughts? Is a Slik 700 for $150 pretty much everything a hobbyist would ever need? It seems like slight overkill but I'd rather get something nice in case I need it later down the road. THe legs look okay, but definitely skip the version that comes with a head since it looks like a 3 way pan-tilt without a quick release.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
If you end up getting the legs, I've still got a Manfrotto 496RC2 head with quick-release plate sitting in SA-Mart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:I need a good portrait lens for a 5D2. Was thinking the 50 1.4 or possibly the 85 1.2L. Haven't heard much good about the 50 1.2L but I'm not sure if that's just photgraghy sperging or not. Both of the zooms you already own are perfect for portraits at their long ends, unless they're not meeting some other performance requirement for you (max aperture, portability, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:I need a good portrait lens for a 5D2. Was thinking the 50 1.4 or possibly the 85 1.2L. Haven't heard much good about the 50 1.2L but I'm not sure if that's just photgraghy sperging or not. Don't forget about the 85 1.8. Almost as good as the 1.2L, and like 1/5 the price.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Don't forget about the 85 1.8. Almost as good as the 1.2L, and like 1/5 the price. More versatile, really, if not quite as good as a pure portrait lens. Faster AF, lighter, and cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
Cincinnati's Fountain Square has had this Indie music thing going on for a few months now, I went down with my 40mm and had a good time shooting people in the crowd. This is a fun little lens!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
I'm not even sure what to say about this. A lens that has a camera built into it so you can mount it on your smartphone. It's either genius or retarded, I'm not sure which. http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-hot-first-images-of-the-new-dsc-qx10-and-dsc-qx100-lens-cameras/
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Since it's based on the RX100, with the same lens and sensor, it's definitely genius. It'll blow any smartphone's image quality away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:I'm not even sure what to say about this. A lens that has a camera built into it so you can mount it on your smartphone. It's either genius or retarded, I'm not sure which. Honestly? loving genius if the execution is good. It might not take off at $450+ starting for the lower end model, but as an early adopter who loves to be shafted - it caught my interest. I'm thinking google glass (or similar future product) live view through the sensor via wifi. e: I know google glass has a camera built into it - but I'm more concerned about higher quality pictures from this while connected to it. It's definitely a novel idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
From the Sony Alpha Rumors site, apparently you can now rent the f/0.7 Kubrick lens and a camera to put it on   http://www.kubrickcollection.com/camera-package.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:I'm not even sure what to say about this. A lens that has a camera built into it so you can mount it on your smartphone. It's either genius or retarded, I'm not sure which. So I don't follow photography equipment for a bit and now this thing exists? And if that's too lame, you can also rent Kubrick's 0.7 lens? And then there's this,  a f1.8 18-35 lens  Yeah... so that's awesome, but I need something with a bit more range and less money for my 550D. Is the Tamron 17-50 still the lens to get, or was it made embarrassing as well by something that I missed? And is it just me, or did they become more expensive recently? Because unless I go for the Japanese import, they're as expensive in the US, if not more so, than they are here, which is again a thing I didn't think was possible.1
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
The Tamron non-VC is still the best value right now. Unless the 18-35 drops in price dramatically, I don't see that changing any time soon. Eventually something will push it out of that spot, but it'll be fine at its price point. Miko fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
The focusing motor is slow and noisy, but it's decently sharp for a cheap zoom. Sigma's version is more money (looks like just under $600) but I hear its on par with the $1000 Canon 17-55. As for me, I kinda wanna dump my Tamron and replace it with the 18-35 1.8. I have 0 budget for lenses right now so I got some time to think about it. Edit: Hot drat, the Sigma is on sale for $430 http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3564989 Go buy that. Haggins fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
That's the old 2.8. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Haggins posted:The focusing motor is slow and noisy, but it's decently sharp for a cheap zoom. Sigma's version is more money (looks like just under $600) but I hear its on par with the $1000 Canon 17-55. I have been going back and forth, the price difference is holding me back from purchasing the Sigma lens. Why are you thinking of replacing your Tamron lens with the Sigma 18-35/1.8 lens?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
1 and a third stops? If the performance wide open is decent or comparable with the Tamron, it would be crazy. Sigma, you are crazy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
erephus posted:I have been going back and forth, the price difference is holding me back from purchasing the Sigma lens. The big thing is the 1.8 for shallower dof, which would give me greater creative control over my images. Secondly, DXOMark says it's actually sharper than a Canon 24-70 is II. Once you start using L glass (or what ever is the top glass for your system) you start to really notice where the Tamron lacks. Saying it's better than L glass is very impressive. Since I've been using a 70-200 2.8 is II, I really dislike using my Tamron mostly because it doesn't give me the same vibrant colors and contrast as the 70-200 (not to mention the crappy AF). The Tamron is still great for the price, it just doesn't compare to really good glass. Also, I really do love Sigma's glass. I have a 8-16 which is an excellent, well made lens. Its very solid and doesnt feel cheap in the slightest. Not to mention it's fun as hell to shoot with. I owned two pieces of Sigma glass (a 150 macro I sold awhile ago) and never had any issues with quality. The only drawback is that I'd have a gap between 35-70. That's pretty big, but I think I could live with it until I could afford a 24-70.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Miko posted:1 and a third stops? If the performance wide open is decent or comparable with the Tamron, it would be crazy. The performance wide open is insanely good. There is no need to stop down this lens unless you are desperate for a tiny bit more sharpness in the corners when shooting towards the long end of the zoom. Disclaimer: I don't even own a camera, nevermind this lens. I just like lens review websites.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
I just bought a Fuji X-E1 and I noticed it's taking a long time to write to storage, is my SD card just lovely? I don't remember reading about any issues with write times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 13:56
|
|
|
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/35mm-f14-dg-hsm-a-refurbished The new Sigma 35 1.4 on refurb is on sale - $679 for Canon, Nikon, Sony. The price has been showing up buggy for some people, try a different browser if it's not working for you. note: poo poo warranty but it's a prime lens, so I figure if it works and is good from day 1, I don't expect much trouble.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:I just bought a Fuji X-E1 and I noticed it's taking a long time to write to storage, is my SD card just lovely? I don't remember reading about any issues with write times. X-pro-1 and xe-1 have a slower 1st gen processor that really benefit from fast write speeds. I noticed a huge difference between a 32gb class 6 and a 90mb/s 8gb. Smaller capacity cards will be marginally faster as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:I just bought a Fuji X-E1 and I noticed it's taking a long time to write to storage, is my SD card just lovely? I don't remember reading about any issues with write times. Listen to Helicity and you can also try formatting the card in-camera. The X's are sensitive to this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Yeah, a faster card did the trick. Love the camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Does anyone have any recommendations for rental houses in D.C.? I'm interested in switching to the Fuji X-system this fall, and would really like to spend a few days with them before making the jump. Gear related, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 13:20
|
|
