|
SoundMonkey posted:The 18-55 VR is cock solid for reals. Freudian zoom.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
I've been buying m42 lenses, and I noticed they all have metal lens hoods. I've been thinking about replacing the ones canon gives you with metal. I just figured it would be better protection and I could grab some off eBay. Is this a good idea or would it create more wear and tear (most of the L lenses are plastic, so i'm guessing metal on plastic might be harsher than plastic on plastic or something). That said, I have never dropped any of my lenses ever. (Nobody start the UV Filter lens protection arguement, haha.  )
the_lion fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
You don't necessarily want a metal hood that will transmit force onto the delicate internals. It's much better for a $50 hood to break than the AF gearing. Modern lenses aren't built like that any more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
Yah, a plastic hood shattering acts like a pillow for the lens itself. All of the force of the impact goes into throwing the pieces of plastic around. A metal hood might absorb some of the impact by denting, but not nearly as much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:Yah, a plastic hood shattering acts like a pillow for the lens itself. All of the force of the impact goes into throwing the pieces of plastic around. A metal hood might absorb some of the impact by denting, but not nearly as much. A metal hood will do more damage if dropped than a plastic hood. Cars don't come with metal bumpers anymore because it's better to absorb an impact by shattering than to try and live through it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
Makes sense guys, thanks a heap! I forgot to ask my other question so here it is: I've been adapting m42 lenses to my 5Dmk2, just got a 35mm f2.8 Soligor today. Serial 2712754. I uh...Can't seem to get the lens to focus.  I have 2x m42 to EOS fotodiox adapters, one flanged, one normal. They both don't seem to screw all the way on to the adapter ring (see the side on shots in the link below) which I guess is causing the focus problem. I've taken some photos and put them here, i'd really appreciate if anyone could help! http://imgur.com/a/fTZli Edit: figured it out. The mount thread has a kink/ is cross threaded.
the_lion fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
the_lion posted:Makes sense guys, thanks a heap! I forgot to ask my other question so here it is: Also is that the one where you have to screw it in like super loving tight for it to get infinity focus? I swear I heard someone talking about that earlier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
Going to Africa in January and I'm looking to get a telephoto lens for Safari. Need a recommendation before I get analysis paralysis and have to give up photography. I have a 50D, and am looking at either the Tamron AF SP 70-300/4.0-5.6 Di VC USD or the Canon EF 70-200/4.0 L (non-IS). Tamron is cheaper (almost 40%) and the addition of IS seems like it's going to be important given the dusk/dawn nature of wildlife plus no room for a tripod (already bringing too much camera stuff). IS would also seem to make up for the lack of constant 4.0 across the zoom range, apparently gives 3-4 f/stops. Internet seems to love the the 70-200/4.0L, probably for a good reason. Not sure if I really need that level of quality though. Other lens recommendations would also be appreciated (considered the Canon EF 70-300/4.0-5.6 IS USM - which is cheaper again). Thanks in advance for your help, very much appreciated!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
If you can swing it, get a 100-400. You probably aren't going to get a lot of chances to go to Africa and you should try to make sure you've got the reach when you need it. From what I've heard, the parks can be wildly variable. At one they might never get closer than binocular distance, while at others they may practically climb into the truck with you. The 100-400 isn't much more than the 70-200 f/4, gives you double the reach, has IS and if you buy it used and don't need it when you get back you can probably sell it for exactly what you bought it for. In fact, KEH has one in EX condition right now for $1079 which is a little on the low side of the current resell on ebay. If you can put it on a credit card and resell it after you get back it would be like the cheapest rental ever. If its gotta be one of the two you mentioned, it seems like the Tamron is a good bet. 800peepee51doodoo fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Gray Matter posted:Re: D3100 chat I suggest you get a flash gun. It's really indispensable for indoor photography in my opinion. Bounce the flash off the ceiling or a wall. Your kit lens will be fine as long as there is enough light and shooting a wide aperture will cause you to miss focus a lot. I think shooting indoor with a flash at f/5.6 is pretty much the way to go on a crop body. The longer zoom lens won't get used much with a newborn indoors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Atalante01 posted:Going to Africa in January and I'm looking to get a telephoto lens for Safari. Need a recommendation before I get analysis paralysis and have to give up photography. You could always rent a lens, which is what a lot of people do when they go on trips like that. Make sure you rent it a few days before you leave so that you can practice a little with it first, if you do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Atalante01 posted:Not sure if I really need that level of quality though. BUT. You will ALWAYS want the (i.e. "really need") the highest quality lens you can get in every situation. Always. Always. That said, the image-stabilization (whatever they call it) of the Tamron might make it higher "quality" in your shooting situations, or it might not - if you can brace on a solid, non-vibrating object (the window frame of the truck is good, unless the engine is running) you get some of the solidity benefits of a tripod, reducing the importance of image-stabilization. On the other hand, the 70-200L is widely regarded as the best bargain in Canon's current lineup. On the gripping hand, get the 100-400. Seriously - go for it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
I would suggest a monopod in addition to nice glass, you might not always have the luxury of time/space to use a tripod and a monopod will work great to give you more stability than handholding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:I suggest you get a flash gun. It's really indispensable for indoor photography in my opinion. Bounce the flash off the ceiling or a wall. Your kit lens will be fine as long as there is enough light and shooting a wide aperture will cause you to miss focus a lot. I think shooting indoor with a flash at f/5.6 is pretty much the way to go on a crop body. Without off camera flash and a light modifier like a softbox or an umbrella I think he'll be sorely disappointed in the results of a flashgun. Imo he can get it done with nice window light and either a 18-55 vr lens or a 35. The 35 would be preferable but the 18-55 will get it done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Dren posted:Without off camera flash and a light modifier like a softbox or an umbrella I think he'll be sorely disappointed in the results of a flashgun. Imo he can get it done with nice window light and either a 18-55 vr lens or a 35. The 35 would be preferable but the 18-55 will get it done. In objectively wrong news, that's objectively wrong. Even if all you do is ceiling-bounce it'll make your indoor shots a hundred times better and look like you were using ambient light.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Here's a short guide I made a bit ago when some of my friends were getting into photography. Just explains using inexpensive thyristor auto flashes on DSLRs with a dumb quick method if you don't want to think. Feel free to steal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:That said, the image-stabilization (whatever they call it) of the Tamron might make it higher "quality" in your shooting situations, or it might not - if you can brace on a solid, non-vibrating object (the window frame of the truck is good, unless the engine is running) you get some of the solidity benefits of a tripod, reducing the importance of image-stabilization. On the other hand, the 70-200L is widely regarded as the best bargain in Canon's current lineup. From my understanding, there is really never any time you will be allowed out of a vehicle in any of the parks so there will almost always be a window to lean on. Beanbags seem to be popular for safaris. You can pack them empty for the trip and fill with dry rice or something when you go out to the park. ExecuDork posted:On the gripping hand, Heh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
I'm not sure how true or important this is, but my guess is that the 70-200L might deal better with dust than the Tamron?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I'm not sure how true or important this is, but my guess is that the 70-200L might deal better with dust than the Tamron? The 70-200L F4 non-IS is not weather sealed and I'm not exactly sure what the "partial" weather sealing the 50d means.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
I'll go ahead and say it, my 70-200 f4L is a bit too slow for tastes on a 5DII at dusk without basically cranking to max ISO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 21:44
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:In objectively wrong news, that's objectively wrong. Also you can make a foam bounce diffuser hood out of poo poo from Walmart for like two bucks and it will work fantastically.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:In objectively wrong news, that's objectively wrong. But ceiling bounce is such boring light. Yeah it'll look pretty nice but it's even light that wraps and I want directional light for baby pictures. Window light works great  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Atalante01 posted:Going to Africa in January and I'm looking to get a telephoto lens for Safari. Need a recommendation before I get analysis paralysis and have to give up photography. 200mm is far, far too short. 90% of my shots of animals on safari were between 400 and 500mm. You could get away with 300mm and cropping, but as someone else said, it's not something you are going to be doing every summer, so probably get the right tool for the job if you can. A 2x tele on a 70-200 f2.8 would work, but that's expensive as hell. But you end up with a really useful lens. Wouldn't work with an f/4. Sigma and Tamron have 70-200/2.8s out now that seem to get decent reviews, but I've never used one. In the 'poor mans canon 100-400L' category, Sigma make the 50-500 and 150-500. I have the latter, which I took through Africa and it was pretty much ideal for me, but I think the former is rated a little higher. Either way, they are great lenses... that you will never use again. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:Sigma and Tamron have 70-200/2.8s out now that seem to get decent reviews, but I've never used one. I have the Sigma version previous to their current OS version and its awesome. Totally recommended if you don't have the cash for the Canon. I've never used it with TC's though because the Canon vII 1.4 and 2x that I have won't mount to it. I don't know if the vI's or vIII's would work and the Sigma TC's are generally considered to be garbage. Kenko makes decent ones that might mount, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
The Canon 200-400 f4 is where it's at. Sell a kidney. I've yet to make it to Africa, but I gather "What's the best focal length for a safari?" is a bit of a misleading question because it assumes there is an archetypal safari. Depending on where you are going there is quite a variation in the interplay between size of animal and distance to subject. Not to mention the whole issue of personal preference between tight portraits or wider animals-in-landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Thanks for all the input, very much appreciated. RE: Renting, unfortunately is not really an option. We're backpacking for ~6 months or so and are not returning home. So there is also a bit of a compromise going on between size/weight and performance as I'm going to have to carry it around the entire trip, whether I'm using it or not. This makes the idea of a lens as big as the 100-400, 70-200 2.8 or bigma a bit daunting, in addition to being prohibitively expensive. It's definitely a compromise - I'm just trying to make the best compromise. Given the comments on lens length, I'm currently leaning towards the Tamron. 800peepee51doodoo posted:From my understanding, there is really never any time you will be allowed out of a vehicle in any of the parks so there will almost always be a window to lean on. Beanbags seem to be popular for safaris. You can pack them empty for the trip and fill with dry rice or something when you go out to the park. That's a good idea, thanks for the tip.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Don't rent a lens. Buy used, insure it for the duration of your travel, and then sell it when you get back. I have never bought a new Canon lens, and I have never sold a used lens for less than I paid for it. In fact, by and large I've made at least a few hundred bucks over the past couple years via lens arbitrage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:200mm is far, far too short. Clearly all safaris are alike. Here's a picture my mom took in Kenya last week with her cell phone: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Clearly all safaris are alike. Here's a picture my mom took in Kenya last week with her cell phone: Yes, safaris can be different. But there is not really that much between game drives. Sometimes animals come close to investigate. Scary close. But most of the time, they don't. They hang out where they are, and if they can, the guides will get you closer, especially if you are on the savannah. In the scrub? A lot of the time they can't, so you sit there and watch. So you could totally make do with a short lens, but you will end up missing a whole bunch of shots/animals. Whether you care or not depends on whether you mainly want to see animals or take photos. I guess a better way I could have put it is to take the longest lens you can comfortably carry and afford. You won't regret having more length to play with (that's what she said). If I was backpacking, though, gently caress that noise. I'd grab one of those Canon 70-300/55-250 dealies and be happy with my spine continuing to function. (Or you could just go all Nick Brandt and shoot wild animals from fifteen feet with a p67. Which doubles as self defence. ) BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Nov 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:In the 'poor mans canon 100-400L' category, Sigma make the 50-500 and 150-500. I have the latter, which I took through Africa and it was pretty much ideal for me, but I think the former is rated a little higher. Either way, they are great lenses... that you will never use again. The Bigmas consistently get rated as "pretty decent", I can't think of any bad reviews of either off the top of my head. And you'll use it again (many times) if you decide you *like* bird/wildlife photography. Atalante01 posted:We're backpacking for ~6 months or so Get the Tamron if you think you'll not be doing anything like that (I mean shooting outdoors at uncooperative animals) anytime soon; you can sell it and move on with your life when you eventually get home. Get the Canon 70-200/4L if you are willing to fall down that particular L-shaped rabbit hole, spending all your money a year from now on other L-glass. I don't shoot Canon, but my understanding is once you taste L, you want more. Does anybody have just one L-lens for more than a few months? BrosephofArimathea posted:(Or you could just go all Nick Brandt and shoot wild animals from fifteen feet with a p67. Which doubles as self defence. )
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Dren posted:But ceiling bounce is such boring light. Yeah it'll look pretty nice but it's even light that wraps and I want directional light for baby pictures. Window light works great We're talking about a guy's first DSLR, to shoot his new baby. He's 100% not going to have time to experiment with learning the subtleties of lighting with a newborn baby in the house. Ceiling bounce (plus maybe a sto-fen diffuser for $10) is foolproof. It won't look as good as a studio setup, but it's within easy (easy!) reach of anyone with a DSLR who has a flash. You basically can't gently caress it up. And it still gets you results that look better than what is possible with a P&S. You aren't wrong that it could look way better, but there is so much bang for the buck in that first flash. If the trade off is flash versus a 55-200, or a 30 1.4, I'd pick the flash for a new photographer shooting a baby indoors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Also is that the one where you have to screw it in like super loving tight for it to get infinity focus? I swear I heard someone talking about that earlier. Interesting. I did a dorkroom search for "soligor" but couldn't find it. Oh well. I was wrong, no crossthreading. The gap was caused by him using a slip on rear cover, not a screw one. I actually took it to two different camera stores. The first guy was unclear but the second guy said "this is not a standard m42 mount. The thread is thinner than your adapter ring or other lenses." I asked if I needed a new adapter and he said "Just send it back in my opinion." I just wanted a sweet m42 35mm lens. Oh well, back to ebay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Is it t-mount maybe? Can you get a picture of the lens and the mount?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Is it t-mount maybe? Can you get a picture of the lens and the mount? Seller just replied, it's a T-Mount. Would have been helpful if this was in his selling description! Bought an adapter, thanks a heap!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
the_lion posted:Seller just replied, it's a T-Mount. Would have been helpful if this was in his selling description! It's a good adapter to have, a lot of old semi-terrible lenses are T-mount (and a lot of comedy 500/8 mirror lenses).
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
As someone with a newborn son the most important thing I've had so far is my flash for ceiling bounce and fill light so I don't have to rely on natural light. Your time with a baby is SUPER LIMITED and babies can and will become completely intolerant to being moved around very quickly. Our son was especially difficult early on to photograph as he did not like being naked at any point in his first few months, had gastro issues preventing him from being comfortable on his stomach, was feeding every hour or so and generally wouldn't sleep without being wrapped up. Shoot early, shoot often and don't take off the diaper until you're absolutely ready for those baby butt shots unless you'd like everything to be soaked in piss. If you can afford it, get a professional to do those first newborn shots because their experience is worth every drat penny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
ahmeni posted:Shoot early, shoot often and don't take off the diaper until you're absolutely ready for those baby butt shots unless you'd like everything to be soaked in piss. If you can afford it, get a professional to do those first newborn shots because their experience is worth every drat penny. You're bolding something that is a very arguable opinion on the subforum that's the antithesis of "get a professional to do those shots". I screwed up a lot of my newborn shots, but I have some that are good, and all of them are better than what my parents have of me. Isn't that what photography is all about - learning and getting better?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Nope, he's right. Just pay for a baby photographer and get the nice shots finished and out of the way. Then enjoy taking pictures of your kid without your wife giving you that look of "why do you spend thousands on this hobby when you can't even take Anne Geddes style pictures of our children! "
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
I agree with Mightaswell. Get a pro to do some really nice shots then enjoy taking some stuff on your own. There was a baby photographer working the hospital where my baby was born. She came in, introduced herself and took a security photo for the hospital, then asked if it would be ok to come back in 30 min and take some shots no charge. Then they put them up on their site and you can buy them like disney photopass. She had props, a white noise machine, knew a bunch of poses, did a great job and I bought some. I took a lot of shots I liked in the hospital but I didn't have props or the experience needed to quickly go through a bunch of poses. The pro offered something that I couldn't do and wouldn't have wanted to do (bring props to the hospital? no thanks). I can't even recommend taking studio shots of your kid yourself once you're home unless you really like doing so (also it is a great excuse to buy more lighting modifiers). You'll be kind of tired, you'll want to relax and enjoy your kid during down time, and it's a good deal of work to set up, prep the kid, and post the shots at the level of quality a pro would provide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
I haven't had a lot of experience with modern camera gear and I'm looking to completely revamp what I have. At the moment I have a lovely point and shoot, and an old Nikon FE2 film SLR that my dad bought when they first came out, and that I spent a lot of money trying to service and get up and running again. Sadly, I have a lot of problems with this not just on the film element of it. The electronics are dead, so I can only shoot on manual and when I barely know what I'm doing, it's too risky especially since I have to wait until I develop the film. It's also got no weather sealing at all, so last time I went up to Queensland during the wet season it got condensation and stuff all up inside the body even though I had it packed away for a lot of the time. I've probably spent as much as a mid-range DSLR camera body trying to get this thing serviced over and over again so it's not worth it to try again for my purposes. The lens it currently has is an old Nikon Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4 (non-AF). So now I'm looking to catch up to modern times and get a better set up. If I'm not mistaken, a bigger sensor generally results in better picture quality? So I was basically thinking of going with a mid-range DSLR body only, and then buying a (or some) decent lenses. I don't really think I want to spend the money to get a kit lens attached when I could put that money towards something better. My budget is maybe AUD$1500-2000 max at the moment (but I am fully prepared to expand my set up later). I am planning to do mostly landscape photography because I hike/backpack a lot, so in that regard I suppose weight is also a bit of an issue but I'm not too concerned about it unless a particular camera/lens set up weighs a ludicrous amount. With the whole weight thing I thought about getting a mirrorless compact but some of the differences to DSLRs listed in the micro 4/3 thread turned me off to them, like maybe having to get new lenses and the fact that when I am hiking I wouldn't really be able to guarantee not getting poo poo all over the sensor. So in addition to not having ludicrous weight, weather resistance would also be a huge plus for me. Anyway could I please get some advice on what sort of things to get? Of my budget, I didn't really want to spend more than $1000 on the body, so I was thinking of getting a Nikon D7000 body (which I can probably get in Australia for about AUD$850 right now from cursory Googling). I'm not really sure what lens to get for landscape stuff so some suggestions on that would be great as well. For the lens, is there a reasonable price/quality ratio lens that is a must-have for landscape? I'm going trekking in Nepal soon, so I don't want to take more than one or two lenses with me if possible (preferably just one, really). Thanks very much in advance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 21:04
|
|