|
Paul MaudDib posted:It does look a lot like Minolta MD/MC. Maybe it's a Contax/Yashica mount? Yeah, the tabs seem to line up with my Minolta MD adapter...they are just slightly the wrong size and shape. This is the adapter that I got, maybe the adapter is just screwy? It has a ton of good reviews though.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
I vote Never mind that is OM (Olympus) mount. You can tell by the on-lens stop down button on near the back of the lens barrel. Mightaswell fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
MC in that case means multi-coated. No idea on the mount though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
polyfractal posted:Can anyone tell me what mount this is? Looks like FD (obviously late era bayonet, rather than the early breach mount) to me, but I'm probably wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Startyde posted:MC in that case means multi-coated. No idea on the mount though. Argh, I'm retarded. So I'm looking around and it does sorta look like a C/Y mount, but I'm missing a little flange bit on the inside, and I think the tabs are in the slightly wrong location (e.g. like this version):   Could it be a Pentax K/M mount? The little switch on the side is definitely the diaphragm actuator:  SybilVimes posted:Looks like FD (obviously late era bayonet, rather than the early breach mount) to me, but I'm probably wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
polyfractal posted:Argh, I'm retarded. Might want to compare it to OM mount like dudebuddy mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Thanks guys, it's definitely an OM mount! Thanks for the post SoundMonkey...i overlooked Dudebuddy's edit. Tracked down the maker by the serial number (Kiron) and found several similar mounts on the same lens. All OM are identical, right? So I can just get any OM adapter and be fine?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
polyfractal posted:Thanks guys, it's definitely an OM mount! Thanks for the post SoundMonkey...i overlooked Dudebuddy's edit. Tracked down the maker by the serial number (Kiron) and found several similar mounts on the same lens. yup, OM is OM.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:yup, OM is OM. Sup, Dudebuddy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Nm, Guybro
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Nevermind didn't see the new page.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Buddy of mine lost is kit lens and is looking for a replacement with a bit more reach. He was looking at the 75- 200~300 range but I feel he will be disappointed with these. What would you guys suggest for something that covers the wide-normal-kind of a reach zone? Maximum he has to spend is $300 .. can it be done? Canon mount (T2i), used/refurb doesn't bother him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Buddy of mine lost is kit lens and is looking for a replacement with a bit more reach. He was looking at the 75- 200~300 range but I feel he will be disappointed with these. What would you guys suggest for something that covers the wide-normal-kind of a reach zone? Maximum he has to spend is $300 .. can it be done? Tamron 17-50 f2.8 We should really put that back in the thread title.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Tamron 17-50 f2.8 I'm a fan of that lens, but he wants more reach. I've suggested it a few times in the past but he is looking for a bit more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Buddy of mine lost is kit lens and is looking for a replacement with a bit more reach. He was looking at the 75- 200~300 range but I feel he will be disappointed with these. What would you guys suggest for something that covers the wide-normal-kind of a reach zone? Maximum he has to spend is $300 .. can it be done? What buddyguy said up there ^^. Also, I'm contemplating selling my Tamron 17-50. Edit: the 18-135 STM isn't the worst loving thing in the world. It will take photos just fine if that's what he wants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
I have to stick with my kit lens for awhile (bought a t4i refurb). I had to sell my 6D to pay for a roof awhile back. Yes, it is a huge drop in camera, but it is camera vs no camera. Why must you tempt me with a 17-50
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Canon made a 28-105 3.5-4.5 that isn't bad. Also a 28-135 IS 3.5-5.6 that is pretty good but slower. Both are in your budget but you lose some at the wide end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
I would definitely recommend the 18-135 at that price range if your friend is looking for a kit lens with more reach because that's exactly what it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Thanks for the recommendations everyone, I think he has two decent lenses to choose from now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
What he really wants is a Tamron 70-300 VC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:What he really wants is a Tamron 70-300 VC. This is the right answer because this lens is the bees knees
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
I've got a few cheap thrift shops in my town and I swung by and picked up a lens for £8, I'm assuming it's shockingly bad, but I was just wondering if anyone has some opinions on it? It seems to be one of these, a Sirius f2.8 28mm Macro. It's actually the first non-kit lens I've bought for my 550d/T2i, so I'm excited to use it when my adapter arrives, even if it is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
I'm very new to photography and I'm looking to buy a camera (compact system preferably) with a budget of around 600 dollars. My knowledge solely comes from a manual photography class I took in the spring. I currently have a Nikon FM2 and I want to get a digital camera with manual focus options. I like to take landscapes and macro shots. I'm not worried about speed because I don't really take action shots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
Surprise T Rex posted:I've got a few cheap thrift shops in my town and I swung by and picked up a lens for £8, I'm assuming it's shockingly bad, but I was just wondering if anyone has some opinions on it? It seems to be one of these, a Sirius f2.8 28mm Macro. It's actually the first non-kit lens I've bought for my 550d/T2i, so I'm excited to use it when my adapter arrives, even if it is garbage. It's not going to be Zeiss, but it may be better than the price tag would lead you to believe. It's a lot easier to make a prime sharper than a zoom, and by the 90s (I'm guessing) consumer primes were a commodity item. It's probably made by Cosina or Tokina or someone like that, and then rebadged with the "Sirius" brand. Bear in mind there's no image stabilization, but you will have a wider aperture than your kit lens will allow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Any thoughts on the new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC? I'm debating between that or the Sigma 70-200 OS. A third option is to get the Tamron 70-300 VC and use the 700 bucks in savings to buy a wide angle lens sometime in the future. Those extra stops would be great for indoor shooting like concerts and whatnot. I know it's a huge spread in price and I'm kind of tempted to go cheap as I'm by no means a pro. I'd just hate to feel limited in capabilities of the lens in low light/ fast action photography.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Surprise T Rex posted:I've got a few cheap thrift shops in my town and I swung by and picked up a lens for £8, I'm assuming it's shockingly bad, but I was just wondering if anyone has some opinions on it? It seems to be one of these, a Sirius f2.8 28mm Macro. It's actually the first non-kit lens I've bought for my 550d/T2i, so I'm excited to use it when my adapter arrives, even if it is garbage. HappyCrab posted:I'm very new to photography and I'm looking to buy a camera (compact system preferably) with a budget of around 600 dollars. My knowledge solely comes from a manual photography class I took in the spring. oxsnard posted:Any thoughts on the new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC? I'm debating between that or the Sigma 70-200 OS. A third option is to get the Tamron 70-300 VC and use the 700 bucks in savings to buy a wide angle lens sometime in the future. Those extra stops would be great for indoor shooting like concerts and whatnot. Personally, I'd spend the money on one of those f/2.8 - either the Tamron or the Sigma. In Pentax mount, the Tamron is supposed to be slower-focusing but a bit more reliable in terms of copy variation - you might get a really nice Sigma, or you might get a made-on-Friday-afternoon one. According to the review on Pentaxforums. Exception for Canon-shooters: 70-200 f/4L, widely considered to be the gateway drug to other L-grade lenses, thus ruining your finances for decades!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:In Pentax mount, the Tamron is supposed to be slower-focusing but a bit more reliable in terms of copy variation - you might get a really nice Sigma, or you might get a made-on-Friday-afternoon one. I had to send a K-mount Tamron 70-200 2.8 back and get another one because the first one had focus problems. The nice thing about the Tamron, for Pentax anyway, is that you're not paying for the stabilization when you don't need it. It's in the K-Mount Sigma lens. ZippySLC fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Nov 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Like Paul MaudDib said, it's going to be better than its price suggests. Everybody and their dog made a 28/2.8 back in the day (along with a 50/1.7 and a 70-210/4), in every possible mount. I really like my 28/2.8 on my APS-C, it's approximately a wide-normal (around 40mm) equivalent field of view and f/2.8 is plenty fast enough for like 95% of my shooting. The new tamron supposedly has better AF than the last model thanks to the addition of the USM, right? I became hooked on these types of lenses after borrowing a Nikon 70-200 VR1 and using it on my D7000. I tried the older tamron 70-200 (now priced at $750ish) a few months ago and found that it had to really hunt for focus in non-ideal light.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Any thoughts on the new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC? I'm debating between that or the Sigma 70-200 OS. A third option is to get the Tamron 70-300 VC and use the 700 bucks in savings to buy a wide angle lens sometime in the future. Those extra stops would be great for indoor shooting like concerts and whatnot. I've got the Canon mount Sigma 70-200 f2.8 version just previous to the current OS version. I like it a lot. I've had no problems with AF accuracy and, although it's nowhere near as fast as my 300 2.8, its pretty snappy. Image quality and sharpness are fantastic. Can't speak for the Tamron but they have some really highly regarded lenses for third party. TDP did an in-depth review on it here and seemed to like it. One thing I would recommend is to make sure that whichever you get, you get from a place with a good and easy return policy. There seems to be a lot of complaints that Sigma and Tamron lenses will ship with severe AF misalignments. I've never had a problem but its a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
I have a sigma 70-200/2.8 (the version before OS) and the AF is perfectly fine, but the sharpness is kinda meh, especially on a 36MP sensor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 12:50
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Anyone here have a Cokin filter set? Specifically graduated ND filters? I can see myself using them a lot for landscaping, but I'm not sure how practical they are. Anyone have experience with them? Comments, regrets? Just in case anyone can still answer this question, but I'm going to go a little broader. What brand filters are good? I want to get an ND set as well as a polarizer filter. I can probably go a couple hundred on 3-4 filters. Cokin appears to be a very good brand to aim for and their mounting system is pretty cool/efficient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Just in case anyone can still answer this question, but I'm going to go a little broader. What brand filters are good? I want to get an ND set as well as a polarizer filter. I can probably go a couple hundred on 3-4 filters. Cokin appears to be a very good brand to aim for and their mounting system is pretty cool/efficient. If you want to deal with handling gels then Cokin is a good way to cover a lot of different filter sizes. They're also nice for things like graduated ND filters, because you can physically slide the gel in the mount to place the grad line properly. You can also just get the biggest filter size you will need (probably 67 or 77mm) and then buy step up rings to mate smaller sizes to it. For example you could buy a 77mm filter and then a 67mm->77mm step up ring and a 58->77mm step up ring. For polarizers the go-to recommendation is Marumi Super DHG CPL. They match or outperform the high-end brand-name filters like Heliopan and B+W at a fraction of the price. The non-Super DHG are only single coated (I think?), and perform a little worse, but still much better than the cheap crap that's otherwise in its price range.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You can also just get the biggest filter size you will need (probably 67 or 77mm) and then buy step up rings to mate smaller sizes to it. For example you could buy a 77mm filter and then a 67mm->77mm step up ring and a 58->77mm step up ring.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
 I'm so jealous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Well just to make sure I'm looking at the right sizes here, I've currently got the 24-70 f/2.8L I and the 70-200 f/2.8L USM. They are both 77mm. I could go with the "P" series or the Z-Pro. They have 82mm and 100mm limits respectively. X-Pro is probably overkill at 130mm. Common sense tells me to go with the Z-Pro but my wallet says to go with the "P" series. I can't really find a lens that I might want/ever afford over 82mm. Looking at the lenses that I would want in the far future shows everything to be 77mm. This includes the 16-35 and 100-400 rcman50166 fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Nov 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Polarize all the cats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Well just to make sure I'm looking at the right sizes here, I've currently got the 24-70 f/2.8L I and the 70-200 f/2.8L USM. They are both 77mm. I could go with the "P" series or the Z-Pro. They have 82mm and 100mm limits respectively. X-Pro is probably overkill at 130mm. Common sense tells me to go with the Z-Pro but my wallet says to go with the "P" series. I can't really find a lens that I might want/ever afford over 82mm. IIRC the P series will vignette on a 16-35mm, assuming you're on full-frame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 11:16
|
|
|
Broke my own rule and bought a new Sigma 30 1.4. I hope it's good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Why can't I find a lens shaped travel mug that actually lets you drink with the lid on like a normal travel mug should? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Broke my own rule and bought a new Sigma 30 1.4. I hope it's good. Mine only took one exchange with KEH to get a copy that focuses properly on my D90 but it pretty much stays permanently attached so I count it as a win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 03:46
|
|
