|
gvibes posted:Thanks, I just printed out some random test pattern I found online, and it looks like my lens is broke. Dammit.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
gvibes posted:Minor update: KEH is replacing it under warranty. Thanks KEH. That's awesome  KEH is good people
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Speaking of Sigma, does anyone have any idea why they make DSLR bodies? They're super pathetic and lovely and no one buys them, not even after they slashed $5000 off the original $7000(!!!) price. I'm pretty sure Samsung sells better. Did the CEO lose a bet or something? Or is it that they came up with Foveon and just had to do something with it, even if that something discredits the technology completely? Its the weirdest goddamn thing. The whole SA Mount idea isn't bad, because if they ever manage to nail a good DSLR (even a non-Fovenon one with a sensor from Sony) suddenly they have a very good and complete system. Supposedly they're planning on making a MFT camera with a Fovenon sensor, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
IanTheM posted:The whole SA Mount idea isn't bad, because if they ever manage to nail a good DSLR (even a non-Fovenon one with a sensor from Sony) suddenly they have a very good and complete system. Supposedly they're planning on making a MFT camera with a Fovenon sensor, though. Oh god if they did that though. They'd probably make serious bank. Is there a lens range they don't have covered?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Oh god if they did that though. They'd probably make serious bank. Is there a lens range they don't have covered? They're seriously behind on the CPU side of development, so they might be working on that for a while, but they might be putting something together. Isn't the main problem they have right now that the Fov sensor dumps out so much data that they can't get it to write quickly at all? The DP Merril cameras are similarly slow at writing, they need to make a deal with intel or someone to take care of it for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
I was considering jumping ship from Canon to Sony but the main problem is the new full frame Sonys don't have poo poo for lenses. If Sigma made a nice camera like Sony, I'd totally be on board.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Sigma 35 comes in A mount, as well as decades of Minolta glass.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Sigma 35 comes in A mount, as well as decades of Minolta glass. The new mirorless A7/A7r is now an "e mount" which needs an adaptor for A mount lenses. I could live with the A mount lenses but I'm not getting a new camera to have to use an adaptor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Oh sorry I thought you were talking about an a99. Yeah E mount is a loving desert right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
That makes me wonder if Sig/Tamron will ever start making mirrorless compatible lenses. I doubt they can modify their current lineup due to register distances but mirrorless is going to get bigger and there has got to be a spot in the market between "complete trash" and "Zeiss".
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Sigma makes a lot of them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Yeah, and they're quite good for the money too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:That makes me wonder if Sig/Tamron will ever start making mirrorless compatible lenses. I doubt they can modify their current lineup due to register distances but mirrorless is going to get bigger and there has got to be a spot in the market between "complete trash" and "Zeiss". Sigma said they won't do Fuji because there's not enough market penetration, but I think its really because Fuji already has kick rear end 1st party lenses 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Yeah Fuji's lunch is harder to eat because they're already doing a great job with the first party lenses, plus the pie is smaller.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Sigma makes a lot of them? Well poo poo I'm an idiot I guess they do
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Lensrentals.com review of the new Tammy 150-600mm VC, comparing it to the Canon 100-400 IS and the Sig 50-500 OS. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout quote:My summary would be that the selection between a Tamron 150-600, Canon 100-400 IS, and Sigma 50-500 OS should be made on criteria other than MTF 50. There are some minor differences in resolution, but nothing that makes one clearly better than another. Price, weight, autofocus accuracy, effectiveness of vibration control, and a number of other factors (did I mention price?) are more important considerations when choosing among these lenses. Equal to Canon's 100-400, probably the most popular super-tele they make, is not bad at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Lensrentals.com review of the new Tammy 150-600mm VC, comparing it to the Canon 100-400 IS and the Sig 50-500 OS.  That's fantastic. Might have to pick one up for myself
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Ulysses S. Grant posted:
What you save in lens cost you'll make up on 95mm filters  Edit: I guess you save yourself a 1.4x tc though! timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
My first DSLR buying question time! First off, I live in NZ, so prices are terrible short of parallel importing, and I'd rather have the warranty over the (usually) small saving if I bought from overseas. I'm looking at the EOS 70D, and there's three options: no kit lens, the 18-55, or the 18-135. The body alone + the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would set me back $2054, $407 more than buying the 18-55 kit lens for $1647. Or I could go for the 18-135 kit for $1949. OR! I could go to my local shop which has higher prices, but could get a 18-135, 320EX flash, spare battery, and a (no doubt high quality) bag for $2099 (so basically $150 extra for a extra battery, bag, and flash). Usually I'd just go for the body and tamron, but I've read that the kit lens for the 70D are good quality as far as kit lens go, especially the 18-135. It'd be nice to support my local store too, but I have no idea how good/useful that extra stuff would be. I'll be getting the canon EF50 f/1.8 II as well, regardless of what I choose, since it's only $185. So help me goons. Is the tamron that much better than the kit lens? Is the local store package deal any good?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
megalodong posted:My first DSLR buying question time! Yes. No. The tamron could last the life of the hobby, the limits of the kit lens will drive you to upgrade eventually. The package deal is a very mediocre flash, and a bag you can't pick to fit your own needs. Unless they happen to hit you just right, packages like that are not worth the money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Yes. No. However, assuming that he's after a 70D partly because of the new video AF features , getting one of the STM kit lenses would be the smart move. Third party lenses have been quirky with the dual pixel (the firmware fails them back to contrast detect), and USM lenses are audible on the video track and don't rack focus as smoothly. Most Canon USM lenses work and track focus very well, but they tend to zip to focus more, and don't roll into focus the way the STM motors do. So, it depends on what you want to do here - if you're interested in the video AF features, I would highly recommend one of the STM kit lenses. Which one is up to you - you could just grab the 18-55 and then get something faster in a prime, or if you want to go for the longer reach, the 18-135. Regarding the flash, the 320 is kindof meh. It's only slightly more powerful than the 270, but its like twice as big. If you want a little flash, the 270 is a much better choice. The video light on it is only a single LED, and not that useful - you can spend very little money for much brighter LED panels that stick in your hotshoe if you want an on camera video light. timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Lensrentals.com review of the new Tammy 150-600mm VC, comparing it to the Canon 100-400 IS and the Sig 50-500 OS. This is great news. Color me sold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Hi folks, I got my first DSLR back in late 2008: an entry-level Canon EOS 1000D (Rebel XS) to wean me onto half-decent photography. I really enjoy it, but I'm still very much a learner and so I've found it hard to justify further investment since then. I'm always pretty skint but I've decided recently that I now simply have to get some extra lenses to supplement the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the thing. Obviously, I find it pretty limiting, particularly since I mostly enjoy long-distance landscape stuff. I'm therefore looking to buy my first prime lens and a telephoto lens of around the 50-200mm range. As I say, I'm always skint, so I'm looking to buy used at around £200 all-in for both lenses and as such, I'm considering the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II for the prime, plus the Tamron AF 55-200mm f/4-5.6 Di II LD Macro or the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS for the telephoto option. I realise this is small-fry for you guys, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on the above or alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
55-250 IS is decent and can be found for ~$150 usually 50mm 1.8 II is a no brainer and you should have bought one years ago. Alternatively, you could go with a 40mm 2.8 slightly more money, slightly less suited for low light, but generally a more modern lens (sharper?). Also you could go down the rabbit hole of adapting vintage glass to your camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Zellaby posted:Hi folks, If you're trying to do this on the cheap, why spend money for a fast 50mm prime when you have a kit lens that covers 50mm? If you're doing landscape work you shouldn't need a fast lens unless you're going for really shallow depth of field or shooting at night (which you can do with a slower lens + tripod + longer exposure.) Don't cheap out on the telephoto by making yourself pay for a prime that you may not necessarily need right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:If you're trying to do this on the cheap, why spend money for a fast 50mm prime when you have a kit lens that covers 50mm? If you're doing landscape work you shouldn't need a fast lens unless you're going for really shallow depth of field or shooting at night (which you can do with a slower lens + tripod + longer exposure.) Is there a clear third-party winner in tele like the Tamron is for 17-50? Canon looks like its progression is the 55-250 for $100, the 70-300 for $300, then L glass.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Aren't there like 5 canon 70-300 models, and they're all crap except for one of them? I liked my 55-250 quite a bit, but it's crop only. Full frame the budget king is the new(ish) tamron 70-300 VC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Aren't there like 5 canon 70-300 models, and they're all crap except for one of them? I liked my 55-250 quite a bit, but it's crop only. Full frame the budget king is the new(ish) tamron 70-300 VC. Yeah, I'm just talking about what I think is the good one. There are a couple of older ones you can grab for $50 on keh that don't sound like worth the trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Is there a clear third-party winner in tele like the Tamron is for 17-50? Canon looks like its progression is the 55-250 for $100, the 70-300 for $300, then L glass. Used for 300? The 70-300 is 500-600$ new, and 400-450 white box. The 75-300's are cheaper, but those are kindof turds. Edit: And then there's the DO one, which is 1100$ and not nearly as good as the 500$ one, which is some weird Canon marketing experiment that they persist in, to see if anybody is willing to pay twice as much to have a smaller underperforming telezoom. timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Used for 300? The 70-300 is 500-600$ new, and 400-450 white box. The 75-300's are cheaper, but those are kindof turds. Yeah, the 70-300/4-5.6 USM IS is on the Canon site $650, but looks to average $250-350 on eBay, $325 on keh. Either way, out of range of my walking around money right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Is there a clear third-party winner in tele like the Tamron is for 17-50? Canon looks like its progression is the 55-250 for $100, the 70-300 for $300, then L glass. The clear third party winner is actually the Tamron 70-300 VC http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300...amron+70-300+vc If you're patient you can probably get it new with a good 100+ dollar rebate, if you buy used you can find it for under 300. It'll be a pretty drat big step up above anything below it in price, and you aren't going to compete with it until you get to the higher end canon's like the $600 linked already. It's probably going to be harder to find used too since well, people don't get rid of them that often. e. You're probably better off saving up for an extra month or two to get the tamron at the least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
To continue the Tamron 150-600 chat, mammoth review here: http://dustinabbott.net/2014/01/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-review/ He rather likes it. Only demerit I'm seeing is that it starts to lose sharpness as you approach 600mm but I'm pretty sure that's just part of the territory with a lens like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
xzzy posted:To continue the Tamron 150-600 chat, mammoth review here: The lower IQ in that range is likely on par with or better than the 100-400 + a 1.4x TC anyway. The only things that will stop me from switching out my 100-400 are the not insignificant weight increase, and buying a new gigantic set of filters. An extra pound doesn't seem like much, but it wears on you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
I liked his line about the weight.. "if you are accustomed to using a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, I doubt that you will notice the extra weight very much." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I liked his line about the weight.. "if you are accustomed to using a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, I doubt that you will notice the extra weight very much." To each his own there I guess. 1 lb isn't a lot extra hanging from a strap, but it's a big difference held out in front of your face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
I'm set on getting a point and shoot and I'm probably going to go with the Canon G1X. It's been awhile since I've bought SD cards and I'm not sure what I should get. Should I get this Sandisk Ultra or something faster? I have a USB3 card reader if that matters, though I'm not some photo journalist that needs to shave off 5 seconds on the upload time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I'm set on getting a point and shoot and I'm probably going to go with the Canon G1X. It's been awhile since I've bought SD cards and I'm not sure what I should get. I think the Digic 5 cameras are topped out with the 45MB/s cards (Sandisk Extreme) as far as write speed goes. I know that my EOS M (Also Digic 5) doesn't clear buffer any faster between those and the Extreme Plus 80MB/S ones I use for my 70D (Digic 5+)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:If you're trying to do this on the cheap, why spend money for a fast 50mm prime when you have a kit lens that covers 50mm? Basically, the other thing I get frustrated with at the moment is being unable to take indoor general snaps without a flash. Am I right in thinking that the prime I'm looking at should assist with this? Mr. Despair posted:The clear third party winner is actually the Tamron 70-300 VC http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300...amron+70-300+vc This would leave me without a lens covering 55-70mm. Is that a big deal at all? And thanks for the help, folks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Zellaby posted:Basically, the other thing I get frustrated with at the moment is being unable to take indoor general snaps without a flash. Am I right in thinking that the prime I'm looking at should assist with this? If you walk forward or backwards literally like 6-10 inches it will cover that 15mm. Don't get caught up in the trap of trying to make sure you cover EVERY MM POSSIBLE. Edit: The prime would give you better lowlight no flash capability, but it's nice to learn to take flash photos that look good also. They don't have to look crappy
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Zellaby posted:Basically, the other thing I get frustrated with at the moment is being unable to take indoor general snaps without a flash. Am I right in thinking that the prime I'm looking at should assist with this? Yes, it will, but consider that on a crop format sensor, 50 mm is rather long, and indoors areas tend to be more cramped than ourdoors. A longer lens means you have to be further away to get the same subject coverage. It'd be fine for portrait-ish things, but bigger scenes can be tricky, e.g. the family in the couch or so. You'd probably be happier with a wider lens, Sigma has a 30mm f/1.4 at a reasonable price but probably outside your current budget if you also want a longer zoom. I still don't think Canon has anything really equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 21:51
|
|
