|
I'm heading up to Canada for a week, and I'm hoping to take a few panoramas of the area and time lapses of the night sky since being in the middle of nowhere always makes that look great. I've got a 18-75 (I think, whatever Canon shipped with the t3i) and a 50 prime, what lenses would you guys recommend for the above activities to either rent for the week or buy?
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:I'm heading up to Canada for a week, and I'm hoping to take a few panoramas of the area and time lapses of the night sky since being in the middle of nowhere always makes that look great. Wider is better, IMO. If you can rent something in the 6-14mm range that would help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Or you could keep speed boosting all the way down to crop sensor and get another stop/stop and a half on top of that. Pretty soon you'd be getting down into the f/1.0 range where the only alternatives are somewhat expensive, gimmicky crap from shady CCTV companies that doesn't even perform wide open, or insanely expensive, gimmicky crap from the likes of Leica. Speed booster for the Pentax Q!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Hahaha, lets stick some 8x10 lenses on the Q. Seriously though, practicality aside, I'd use a MF > FF adapter just for the fun of it. I think that a lot of people, myself included, don't always want some practical reason to use these lenses. We just want images that look different. A camera that feels different. And yeah, I'd be more into 6x7 than 645. Actually, dumb question. Does 6x6 have a bigger image circle than 645? I want to say yes and 6x6 lenses might be better suited to boosting given the bigger image circle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Hahaha, lets stick some 8x10 lenses on the Q. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/101471-REG/Arca_Swiss_200004_8x10_Reducing_Board.html + http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/995354-REG/fotodiox_4x5_nk_p_pro_nikon_f_large.html + http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=995022&is=REG&Q=&A=details 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Seriously though, practicality aside, I'd use a MF > FF adapter just for the fun of it. I think that a lot of people, myself included, don't always want some practical reason to use these lenses. We just want images that look different. A camera that feels different. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Yep, I'm currently waiting for an adapter so I can stick my huge, heavy MF glass onto my 50D. Should be fun. An MF->APS-C speed booster that gained two stops would be awesome, Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180/f1.4? I have a Mamiya 645 to EOS adapter. I also have a Pentacon 6 to Mamiya 645 adapter. This setup lets me use both Pentacon 6 and Mamiya 645 lenses on my Canon DSLRs. I also have an EOS to E-mount adapter, so I can also use Pentacon 6 lenses on my NEX 5N. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
HPL posted:I have a Mamiya 645 to EOS adapter. I also have a Pentacon 6 to Mamiya 645 adapter. This setup lets me use both Pentacon 6 and Mamiya 645 lenses on my Canon DSLRs. I also have an EOS to E-mount adapter, so I can also use Pentacon 6 lenses on my NEX 5N. Big rear end lenses on little rear end bodies woooo   
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Actually, dumb question. Does 6x6 have a bigger image circle than 645? I want to say yes and 6x6 lenses might be better suited to boosting given the bigger image circle. Yes. Essentially the coverage required for a format can be calculated by finding the distance from the center to the corner of the frame, or the hypotenuse of a triangle with half the dimensions of the frame. Because 6x4.5 is narrower, one of the dimensions is shorter. Excuse my mspaint, here's a diagram.  red: 6x4.5 frame blue: 6x6 frame orange: 6x4.5 coverage triangle green: 6x6 coverage triangle So 6x4.5 requires a coverage radius of 3.75cm (or a diameter of 7.5cm), and 6x6 requires a coverage radius of 4.24cm (or a diameter of 8.5cm). Compressing a 6x6 image runs into the same problem as the real 6x6 format - if you use a rectangular sensor (as most full-frame/crop sensors are) you crop back down to a frame size of roughly 6x4.5. The 6x6 lens would probably still have better image quality, because you're shooting the center "sweet spot" of the lens to a limited extent, instead of shooting the lens to the very edge. But you'll still either crop off the corners of the 6x6 frame or have unsharp/black areas in the corner where you're exceeding the usable or illuminated coverage of the lens. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
^^^ Tanks ^^^ I would think that interchangeable 6x6 lenses should be more ubiquitous than 6x7 right? Any foray into MF > FF speed boosting would probably target 6x6 first for this reason. So... 6x6 = 42.4mm radius 135 = 21.6mm radius Thats pretty much a 2x crop factor with a speed booster so 2 stops? A standard 80/2.8 6x6 lens would become a 40/1.4. A 100/2 would become a 50/1. I mean, I'd buy that to gently caress around with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
I'm less sure of this, but I would think the proper metric there would be image area. In other words, imagine we have a 35mm image with P photons distributed over the negative. If you take the same number of photons and distribute them over a larger negative 4x the area, there are P/4 photons per image area, or the image is 2 stops darker. Similarly, going the other way, if you take the large image with a photon density of P, and compress it down to the 35mm image, there will be 4*P photons per image area, or the image will be 2 stops brighter. 6x7 is nice because the image area is just about 4 times as big as a 35mm negative. Stealing  's numbers, 6x7 is 3850mm^2, full frame is 864mm^2, so 6x7 is roughly 4.45x the image area. In comparison 6x4.5 is 2282.5mm, or roughly 2.64x the image area. This is where my math starts to fail me, I think you would take log2 of the multiplier. This would mean that 6x7 is log2(4.45)=2.15, or roughly two-and-a-bit stops of brightness gain (which fits the above theory). And 6x4.5 would be log2(2.64)=1.4 stops of gain. This ignores, of course, any loss due to the telecompressor's optics. Note that "6x4.5" and "6x7" are misleading, those dimensions are nominal only. Most cameras shoot an image roughly 55mm tall and dock a couple millimeters off the width too. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Here's what I was thinking: Assuming that 6x6 lenses are radially uniform, you're not going to be capturing any bad parts of the image circle. Sure they're parts you'd never see on 6x6 film or through the GG matting but its still within the valid circle. Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
HPL posted:I have a Mamiya 645 to EOS adapter. I also have a Pentacon 6 to Mamiya 645 adapter. This setup lets me use both Pentacon 6 and Mamiya 645 lenses on my Canon DSLRs. I also have an EOS to E-mount adapter, so I can also use Pentacon 6 lenses on my NEX 5N. I have the Pentacon 6 tilt/shift EOS adapter - much cheaper to get into than Canon's offerings and the huge image circle is plenty for a lot of lens movement. The only unfortunate part about it, is that it doesnt let you change the movements from perpendicular to parellel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
e: Actually I see what you're saying and I think that would work Shaocaholica
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
HPL posted:The Mamiya 80mm f/1.9 is like the only lens even worth trying this for. I think the Zeiss 80/2 (645) and the Hassy 110/2 (66) would like a word with you. Except both cost about as much as an 85L.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Also most digital sensors have some sort of limitation due to the micro lenses that maxes you out at about f0.9 or so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:I think the Zeiss 80/2 (645) and the Hassy 110/2 (66) would like a word with you. There's an 80/2 for the Rollei 6008 too, which is 6x6.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
I have a 6006 and 6003. I really should sell the 6006. Also, this is mad baller: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:e: Actually I see what you're saying and I think that would work Shaocaholica If you look at the diagram, I'm not sure if 6x7 would really get you much more over a 6x6.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Go take a look at Chris Perez' resolution tests, medium format cameras produce as much absolute (not relative) resolution on film as 35mm cameras. Something like a Mamiya 7 will deliver just as much resolution as your Coastal Optics or Leica or whatever you kids are raving about these days. There's no guarantees of course - medium format lenses are just as variable in design and construction as 35mm lenses and there is some garbage out there (Moskva folders and folders in general). Just a couple of things, RE: folders. The guy basically tested some of the crappiest folders out there, and surprise, surprise the results are crap! I have a couple of folders and I can vouch for anything Zeiss; the Super Ikonta Series especially, with their Tessar lenses. They are all quite credible performers and if properly CLA'd perform similar to TLRs of similar vintage and lens make. That said, I had some others such as Olympus Six and some Russian ones and -- yes, the quality in those goes from pretty bad to hilariously bad. Recently, I picked up an excellent condition Mamiya Six (not 6) Automat and was blown away by the quality. Compared to TLRs like the Ricohflex or Minolta Autocord it stands on its own, which is, considering the difference in size, weight and age - quite remarkable. Maybe a bit more flare prone, if anything. I guess part of it is due to it's unit-focusing nature and the very rigid construction of both film path and front standard. Shaocaholica posted:If you look at the diagram, I'm not sure if 6x7 would really get you much more over a 6x6. Well for one you could get the quite fantastic Pentax 67 105mm/2.4. It's not the fastest MF lens, but compared to the lenses listed above it costs about an order of magnitude less. Also it's still, especially for MF, quite drat fast. Furthermore, if you ever bought a Pentax 67 you too; could enjoy that coveted sub f/1.0 (35mm equivalent) look. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Not specifically camera gear, but any recommendations on a screen calibrator? I need to stop trying to do my best eyeing out calibration and would like to buy one but there are a lot of options.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
There's a lot of info in this thread, I think it's from people that sell calibration stuff but good info nonetheless: http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11436
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
powderific posted:There's a lot of info in this thread, I think it's from people that sell calibration stuff but good info nonetheless: http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11436 This is a 6 year old post and recommending a $500 calibrator for everybody is insane. rio, just get a Colormunki Display.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
rio posted:Not specifically camera gear, but any recommendations on a screen calibrator? I need to stop trying to do my best eyeing out calibration and would like to buy one but there are a lot of options. Pick an X-Rite product, any X-Rite product. Can't go wrong with the ColorMunki Display.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Excellent; will do. Very curious to see the difference since my monitor was supposedly calibrated at the factory or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:This is a 6 year old post and recommending a $500 calibrator for everybody is insane. The thing they're recommending is the same sensor as the Colormunki Display with more robust software so I don't think it's that out of date? I mostly like it for the info it gives on the different color meter technologies. It does seem like the Colomunki Display makes the most sense for basic use. They probably have the Display3 Pro as the "best for everyone" recommendation because it's the cheapest thing that is both good and works with 3rd party software.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
I have a Nikon D90 and a Tamron 17-50 that I've been using for the last ~5 years. I only drag my camera out every few months but when I do the glacial pace of the Tamron's focus motor loving kills me. I miss so many shots because the damned lens just won't focus and I'm ready to pull the trigger and get a new lens. I've got a couple of primes (20mm and 35mm, iirc) but I like the zoom as a walkaround lens so would be keen to get a similar length zoom rather than another prime. So what is a comparable lens to the Tamron 17-50 in terms of functionality but hopefully faster and less prone to freezing up at the exact moment I want to take a damned photo? I don't mind spending a bit of money to get something good quality but my budget probably tops out around AUD1000.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
cyberia posted:I have a Nikon D90 and a Tamron 17-50 that I've been using for the last ~5 years. I only drag my camera out every few months but when I do the glacial pace of the Tamron's focus motor loving kills me. I miss so many shots because the damned lens just won't focus and I'm ready to pull the trigger and get a new lens. I've got a couple of primes (20mm and 35mm, iirc) but I like the zoom as a walkaround lens so would be keen to get a similar length zoom rather than another prime. Another thing to do is try to use back-button (AF-ON) focusing in AF-C, with shutter-priority (instead of focus priority like in AF-S) release (so it'll just go when you press the release).
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:I'm heading up to Canada for a week, and I'm hoping to take a few panoramas of the area and time lapses of the night sky since being in the middle of nowhere always makes that look great. Where in Canada? cyberia posted:So what is a comparable lens to the Tamron 17-50 in terms of functionality but hopefully faster and less prone to freezing up at the exact moment I want to take a damned photo? I don't mind spending a bit of money to get something good quality but my budget probably tops out around AUD1000. Is there a Nikon constant-aperture equivalent? If there is, it's probably faster focusing, too. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Mar 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
cyberia posted:So what is a comparable lens to the Tamron 17-50 in terms of functionality but hopefully faster and less prone to freezing up at the exact moment I want to take a damned photo? I don't mind spending a bit of money to get something good quality but my budget probably tops out around AUD1000. Probably not exactly "comparable" to the Tamron but Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Fast in terms of aperture and in focus. Assuming you don't need the longer reach (I use a 40mm pancake and a 50mm prime at the longer end anyway) it's a drat good lens, and in your budget (I think. $800 or so USD.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Where in Canada? Middle of nowhere in Ontario, fishing trip.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Shellman posted:Probably not exactly "comparable" to the Tamron but Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Fast in terms of aperture and in focus. Assuming you don't need the longer reach (I use a 40mm pancake and a 50mm prime at the longer end anyway) it's a drat good lens, and in your budget (I think. $800 or so USD.) More like best zoom lens you can buy for a crop body by a wide margin, you mean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
I currently shoot a Fuji X100 (which I love because I don't have to make decisions about equipment anymore), but I'll be embarking on a 8 month backpacking trip around South America in about a month. A big part of the trip is a project we're being funded to work on. Said project involves quite a bit of media creation; things like mini-documentaries (3 - 5 minute videos where we interview people, capture the feel of the place or cause we're working on, etc), stills for long-form journalism pieces, and an overall documentary that covers the entire trip. Stills are still very important to me personally, but video is obviously pretty important here as well so I'm trying to find a great all-in-one DSLR for both. This has lead me to an incredibly hard decision which I think is between slightly breaking the budget for a Mark III (though with good glass this might not be possible at all honestly), or what seems like the more logical/affordable option and going with a GH3 since it is so solid on the video front (not to mention how much lighter it is, the video auto-focus which the Mark III doesn't have, and generally being quite the workhorse). The only thing that worries me is the quality of the stills on the GH3, especially when we'll be spending a lot of time in Patagonia (a photographers paradise). I'm worried I'm going to spend the entire time thinking "oh my god I wish I had a Mark III right now". If you were going on a trip like this, with those requirements, what would you do? Also curious which lenses you'd go with considering both stills and video are important, but I likely don't have room for 2 in my bag (3 max if absolutely necessary, but in the past I've generally only ever used 2 lenses in my collections... one ultra wide and one great portrait lens). With whichever option I go, I'm completely starting over on glass / accessories (I got rid of all my previous Canon stuff after buying the Fuji). Also I don't mind buying used, and I'll most definitely have GoPro along as well. Graphics fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Mar 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:More like best zoom lens you can buy for a crop body by a wide margin, you mean. Other than the hefty size/weight and the somewhat limited focal range you really can't go wrong with it, can you? I mean it's tested better optically than canon's 2.8 L zooms and it's cheaper than a 17-40 f/4L. Oh, and it's sexy as hell. Tall, dark, and handsome. And he's an *~ArTiSt~*  
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:More like best zoom lens you can buy for a crop body by a wide margin, you mean. I think I sing its praises on here as much as you talk about ME Supers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Overture posted:If you were going on a trip like this, with those requirements, what would you do? Also curious which lenses you'd go with considering both stills and video are important, but I likely don't have room for 2 in my bag (3 max if absolutely necessary, but in the past I've generally only ever used 2 lenses in my collections... one ultra wide and one great portrait lens). Keep in mind that M4/3 lenses are small enough that you could realistically bring twice as many in the same amount of room. Autofocus with video should be an "emergency use only" kind of thing so I wouldn't really count that in the GH3's favor. I shot a video project this summer with a GH3, D800, and XF300, so I sortof had a pair of similar cameras at my disposal (no where near as picturesque as Patagonia though, and I had a dedicated photographer along.) For the GH3 I had the 12-35mm 2.8 and rented the 45-100mm 2.8, and on the D800 I had an assortment of primes and the 24-120mm 4.0, which stayed on the camera pretty much any time it wasn't dark enough to push me to a prime. Generally, the GH3 was really nice to use. Having an articulating screen and viewfinder were both incredibly helpful, as was the weight. I wound up selling it because it was too much work color grading to match the D800/XF300 on multi camera interviews, and I did prefer the D800's image overall. The weight alone is a pretty good reason to pick the smaller camera if you're backpacking. On the stills, I found the GH3 to be much better than I expected. Good enough that I'd be comfortable bringing it as a primary camera. I'd want the two lenses mentioned previously plus a couple primes. If I went with the MkII I'd probably go for the 24-105 f4 IS. Back when I had a MkII it was my favorite lens for video. As a bonus, it's a very reliable, sturdy lens compared to some of the other constant aperture zooms. I'd want a couple fast primes too but the MkIII's low light ability might make that less of a necessity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Another thing to do is try to use back-button (AF-ON) focusing in AF-C, with shutter-priority (instead of focus priority like in AF-S) release (so it'll just go when you press the release). I'll give this a try, cheers. Shellman posted:Probably not exactly "comparable" to the Tamron but Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Fast in terms of aperture and in focus. Assuming you don't need the longer reach (I use a 40mm pancake and a 50mm prime at the longer end anyway) it's a drat good lens, and in your budget (I think. $800 or so USD.) And, if necessary, I'll hunt down some Sigma lenses to try out. It's about time I fleshed out my lens collection a bit anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
powderific posted:Keep in mind that M4/3 lenses are small enough that you could realistically bring twice as many in the same amount of room. Great point, and good advice all around. I think that may be the tipping point for going M4/3 and the GH3 as having lots of great glass options generally outweighs wanting to maximize body performance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Thanks to the GH4 coming out I'm betting you'll be able to find some decent deals as well. I'm seeing a few for $700-$800.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
Finally got my Tamron 17-50 in the mail. Immediate thoughts: -god drat you guys weren't joking about the AF being loud as hell  -Despite this it seems to have pretty fast focus acquisition and doesn't hunt very much when it gets there, even in dim conditions -The Hood was a plus, I didn't know it came with one. -I like that it actually has focus distance markings rather than just expecting you to guess like some of the other (admittedly low-end) lenses I've owned. -The focus and zoom rings are both pretty smooth, the zoom has some resistance to it but nothing so bad as to cause trouble. Focus ring is wide enough to be easily operated, unlike the dime rims on most low-end zooms. Overall I'm liking what I'm seeing so far, I can't wait to go shooting in the wild. One thing unrelated to the lens itself was the packaging - I ordered it through Digitalrev because they had one of the cheaper prices I could find, thing is that it was shipped in a soft bag, wrapped up like a mummy in bubble wrap, but the lens itself was noticeably bouncing around inside its box. so far I haven't noticed anything wrong with it so I'm not immediately worried, but I don't know if that was a DRev thing or a Tamron thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 23:47
|
|
