|
Hmm, I guess technology marches forward. I'm still nostalgic about using older 'softer' and more abberations lenses on FF so I guess I should just stick with the older Sigma HSM EX.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
I don't know... I've seen plenty of pictures of 80mm/2.8 on MF shot wide open. They have a shallow DOF, which however has sort of a "distinct" sharpness. I like that sort of look, the hard sharpness of the subjects in focus in contrast to the bokeh. But I'm not sure if current cameras can replicate it well enough, despite a sharp lens, given the antialias filter on the sensor. That said, that page only links two test pictures, still remains to be seen how the lens performs practically. For all we know, despite being sharp as hell, the bokeh might look like utter crap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
I might sell this: (The lens on the left) Don't you love how small it is compared to a AF 50/1.4? Its a Minolta MD 50/1.2...BUT...Its been professionally mount converted (not adapted, infinity works of course) to Sony Alpha and chipped so it registers as 50mm for in body IS , works with focus confirm and reports the wide open aperture correctly. It just doesn't support AF (obviously) and doesn't support auto exposure unless shooting wide open as there is no working aperture linkage but you can still shoot at smaller f-stops by using manual exposure or with auto metering and exposure compensation but thats kind of a PIA. So does anyone think theres any market for it given the current A-mount landscape? I built this back in 2008 when there were zero FF A mount cameras except for Minolta film bodies. I've been sitting on it for 6 years now not using it since I switched systems to Nikon. Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Just looked up the Otus. WTF is this supposed to mean? I think it's more of how the focus falls off quickly past the depth of field, so there's more separation between subject and the background.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Can you actually influence that via the optical design?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Can you actually influence that via the optical design? Once you've spent four grand on a 50mm lens you'll swear you can.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Can you actually influence that via the optical design? The Nikon DC lenses do a bunch of witchcraft along these very lines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Can you actually influence that via the optical design? I'm no expert in optical design but I would say yes. Anyway, the Otus 55/1.4 was based off the optical design of the Hasselblad Zeiss 50/4 medium format lens so maybe there's something in that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Petapixel have a review of the Otus up, it DOES look great but 4k for a lens with no AF? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Can you actually influence that via the optical design? I'm fairly certain that the size that an out of focus spot makes on the sensor is entirely determined by the focal length, aperture, and distances involved, so, in my opinion, no it is not possible to influence that via the design. You can, however, mess with the shape of the out of focus spot, and how harsh/smooth the spot's edges are. Particularly smooth bokeh can make it seem like the background is more out of focus than with harsh bokeh. There's a lot of aesthetic trickery that's used in making cameras and lenses to try to get around physical limitations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Petapixel have a review of the Otus up, it DOES look great but 4k for a lens with no AF? The FE 55/1.8 for the A7 is almost as sharp and has AF.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Long shot: I have a Zeiss ZF 50mm f1.4 That I bought from our very own trade thread. Lens in mint and is great for indie video work where a proper cine camera isn't available. My current issue is that I got an EF adapter from Fotodiox after much research and while it mount/unmounts easily enough I'm a little worried about a couple of things. Firstly the infinity hard-stop on the lens seems 'past' infinity, in that I have to focus back a little to achieve infinity, this isn't the case on a Nikon body. Secondly the lens seems a little soft, I'm worried that this might be a dud adapter and I'm wondering if anyone else has had similar issues, hopefully someone has the same set up since ZF 50mms are like baby's first manual focus lens.Quantum of Phallus posted:Petapixel have a review of the Otus up, it DOES look great but 4k for a lens with no AF? XTimmy fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Mar 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Long shot: I have a Zeiss ZF 50mm f1.4 That I bought from our very own trade thread. Lens in mint and is great for indie video work where a proper cine camera isn't available. My current issue is that I got an EF adapter from Fotodiox after much research and while it mount/unmounts easily enough I'm a little worried about a couple of things. Firstly the infinity hard-stop on the lens seems 'past' infinity, in that I have to focus back a little to achieve infinity, this isn't the case on a Nikon body. Secondly the lens seems a little soft, I'm worried that this might be a dud adapter and I'm wondering if anyone else has had similar issues, hopefully someone has the same set up since ZF 50mms are like baby's first manual focus lens. Some lenses focus back past infinity as a compensation for tolerance for the lens expanding in the sun's heat, but it's usually just a bit. Not sure if this is the case for your lens. With regards to the soft part, the 50/1.4 is known to be intentionally somewhat soft wide open, due to the design of the lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:I'm fairly certain that the size that an out of focus spot makes on the sensor is entirely determined by the focal length, aperture, and distances involved, so, in my opinion, no it is not possible to influence that via the design. You can, however, mess with the shape of the out of focus spot, and how harsh/smooth the spot's edges are. Particularly smooth bokeh can make it seem like the background is more out of focus than with harsh bokeh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
It's time for me to buy my first decent tripod. I have a budget of roughly $200-250. Would these be recommended, or can I get better within my budget? http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-496...rds=496RC2+head http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-190...rds=496RC2+head
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Long shot: I have a Zeiss ZF 50mm f1.4 That I bought from our very own trade thread. Lens in mint and is great for indie video work where a proper cine camera isn't available. My current issue is that I got an EF adapter from Fotodiox after much research and while it mount/unmounts easily enough I'm a little worried about a couple of things. Firstly the infinity hard-stop on the lens seems 'past' infinity, in that I have to focus back a little to achieve infinity, this isn't the case on a Nikon body. Secondly the lens seems a little soft, I'm worried that this might be a dud adapter and I'm wondering if anyone else has had similar issues, hopefully someone has the same set up since ZF 50mms are like baby's first manual focus lens. Cheap adapters also generally get machined with a little extra on them. If you can't be bothered to be precise enough to ensure perfect flange distance, you're better off erring on the side of caution so that the lens focuses past infinity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Dr. Lenin posted:It's time for me to buy my first decent tripod. I have a budget of roughly $200-250. Would these be recommended, or can I get better within my budget? They'll both be fine for your needs. I would suggest looking at something with an Arca-Swiss type clamp and not Manfrotto, just for the fact that it offers you much more flexibility in terms of mounting plates. Something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Vanguard-SBH-...llhead+vanguard
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
grack posted:They'll both be fine for your needs. I would suggest looking at something with an Arca-Swiss type clamp and not Manfrotto, just for the fact that it offers you much more flexibility in terms of mounting plates. And once you're onto the arca swiss system you have more options for upgrading, whereas there's often a tendancy to stay manfrotto because 'that's what head I have, and I don't want to buy new plates...' Personally I'd suggest reading Thom Hogan's article on tripods here: http://www.bythom.com/support.htm I found myself repeating the circle of tripod buying he writes about, and this time decided to skip to the end, and ended up with a really high end Markin head on Fisol legs, with no central column or fancy conversion (I have separate arm mounts that I can attach for when I do want to do macro on odd height/position stuff, and not compromise my stability for other stuff).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:And once you're onto the arca swiss system you have more options for upgrading, whereas there's often a tendancy to stay manfrotto because 'that's what head I have, and I don't want to buy new plates...' Seriously just buy an Arca-Swiss setup. I shoot some big heavy stuff so I went with an Arca-Swiss B1 and it's been great. I get L-brackets for my favorite gear and it's super easy to mount and dismount and it's done fine even with heavy slappy poo poo like my Pentax 67. You're gonna pay at least $100 for something worthwhile, probably $150, or for $120 (old version) to $225 you can future-proof and be done with it. If you're not hiking and trying to save every ounce you'll never notice a difference. Particularly a good ballhead. You set up the legs once per shot but you fiddle with the head constantly. You can get away just fine with some sturdy older tripods (Leitz Tiltall, etc) or just something that's heavy as poo poo, the main reason to buy a modern whiz-bang tripod is they don't weigh a half ton. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Mar 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:And once you're onto the arca swiss system you have more options for upgrading, whereas there's often a tendancy to stay manfrotto because 'that's what head I have, and I don't want to buy new plates...' This is pretty true. At least the camera clip I got is compatible with manfrotto and arca swiss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
My ballhead and my gimbal-mount are both Arca-Swiss compatible but each cost about $100 because they're part of the wave of Chinese manufacturers trying to break into global markets. I'm happy with both, and while big-brand-name Arca-Swiss plates (e.g. Really Right Stuff) are very expensive, there are again a number of Chinese companies happily selling good-enough plates for semi-reasonable prices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:My ballhead and my gimbal-mount are both Arca-Swiss compatible but each cost about $100 because they're part of the wave of Chinese manufacturers trying to break into global markets. I'm happy with both, and while big-brand-name Arca-Swiss plates (e.g. Really Right Stuff) are very expensive, there are again a number of Chinese companies happily selling good-enough plates for semi-reasonable prices. Yeah, I buy the £8 plates from china too, cos there's only so many ways they could mess up a piece of steel with 1-2 holes and a pair of grooves
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:So does anyone think theres any market for it given the current A-mount landscape? I built this back in 2008 when there were zero FF A mount cameras except for Minolta film bodies. I've been sitting on it for 6 years now not using it since I switched systems to Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Yeah, I buy the £8 plates from china too, cos there's only so many ways they could mess up a piece of steel with 1-2 holes and a pair of grooves Yeah I just bought a new bottom plate for my 6D for $30. I'm sure it's just fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
I currently use a blackrapid strap with my 5d3, but I read somewhere that using it with a heavier lens could lead to weight limit issues. I'm specifically looking at the 70-200 2.8 IS II for an upcoming event and would like some input on alternative straps. Weight should be approximately 950g camera + 1490g lens (+ 310g grip maybe) = ~2750g
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
theloafingone posted:I currently use a blackrapid strap with my 5d3, but I read somewhere that using it with a heavier lens could lead to weight limit issues. I carry around a 100-400 on my 70D on a blackrapid classic and it's not an issue. 5d3 is a heavier body for sure, but the lenses are not that different weightwise - as long as you're clipping it onto the lens tripod ring and not the body, I don't see why it should be a huge problem?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
I used a blackrapid strap with my gripped D800 and a Nikon 70-200 2.8 quite frequently without any ill effects. Are you worried it's going to break or something? The had some issues early on, but that was more the design of the swivel being fundamentally flawed and coming unscrewed rather than breakage, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
There's a video of someone hanging off one somewhere. You really don't need to worry about it breaking. For experience, I've owned mine for 4 years now. The heaviest thing I've put on it (for comedy) was a 600 f/4 on a full frame body. It hurt, but the strap was fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Back when I used a DSLR, I carried a gripped 40D and an 80-200 f/2.8 with no problems. I used a piece of paracord to tie the Blackrapid buckle to the strap fastening point on the battery grip.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
I have a BR knockoff strap and I hang a 300 2.8 + 2x TC + 1DIV + flash off of it no worries
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. Was about to get the Vanguard that grack recommended (http://www.amazon.com/Vanguard-SBH-...llhead+vanguard) as being compatible with the Arca-Swiss system, but I can't find anything on the page that says it actually is. Can anyone confirm it or point me to one that is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Dr. Lenin posted:Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. Was about to get the Vanguard that grack recommended (http://www.amazon.com/Vanguard-SBH-...llhead+vanguard) as being compatible with the Arca-Swiss system, but I can't find anything on the page that says it actually is. Can anyone confirm it or point me to one that is? That is not arca swiss compatible, Vanguard's ABH line are the ones that come with arca swiss clamps. http://www.amazon.com/Vanguard-ABH-...ds=vanguard+ABH
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
So, I'm going to be going out to Burning Man this year and I'd like to take my 60D and lenses. What would be the best way to protect all of this gear from ever-present playa dust that seems to find its way into everything? The only glass I have with weather-sealing is my 70-200mm f/4 L and even then, I'm not convinced that it'll be 100% protected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
It might be overkill but consider getting one of those underwater cases, the dust will potentially destroy your camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
Playa dust is p notorious for destroying every loving thing. Take a P&S in a dive case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:It might be overkill but consider getting one of those underwater cases, the dust will potentially destroy your camera. This is solid advice. There are non-hard underwater cases which are relatively affordable: http://www.amazon.com/Waterproof-Un...erwater+housing That being said, I'm sot sure I'd actually put that under water. Ever. Change lenses and stuff indoors and you should be fine. Edit: Looking at it, it looks like the front is also some sort of plastic. It doesn't matter terribly when the optics are air, plastic, water, but when its air, plastic, air, it'll warp your image pretty bad. I'd personally cut a hole for a UV filter or something. I know UV filters aren't good, but they are definitely better than that. rcman50166 fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:This is solid advice. There are non-hard underwater cases which are relatively affordable: I have one of the DICAPAC (who the heck came up with that name) housings for my SLR, and a smaller one for my M. They both do a great job of being waterproof - the sealing method is basically the same as canoe/kayak gear bags (giant ziplock, rolling multiple times then velcro shut the roll) which I've been using for years and have never failed to keep my clothes and sleeping bag dry on trips.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Playa dust is p notorious for destroying every loving thing. Take a P&S in a dive case. Seriously don't gently caress with dust in the desert. Moab (which isn't nearly as bad as being out on the playa for days on end) destroyed my S90 completely and just two hikes left grit in the focus ring of my 40mm and back wheel of my 40D, even though I was being careful. If I was you I'd make sure I had insurance, dust-tight storage, and keep the 70-200 on there with a UV filter as much as possible. A ruggedized P&S might be a good investment for a walkaround. Or rent weathersealed gear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:I carry around a 100-400 on my 70D on a blackrapid classic and it's not an issue. 5d3 is a heavier body for sure, but the lenses are not that different weightwise - as long as you're clipping it onto the lens tripod ring and not the body, I don't see why it should be a huge problem? powderific posted:I used a blackrapid strap with my gripped D800 and a Nikon 70-200 2.8 quite frequently without any ill effects. Are you worried it's going to break or something? The had some issues early on, but that was more the design of the swivel being fundamentally flawed and coming unscrewed rather than breakage, IIRC. Thanks to everyone else who commented. I really like their straps and it's good to know that they hold up under weight!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Just hook your strap the the lens if it's heavier than the body and you'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 17:08
|
|