|
Going back a bit to the subject of plastic body vs magnesium, a couple years ago I took a bad fall and slammed my 60D into a concrete sidewalk and the camera was fine, there was more damage to the takumar I had on it than to the body. Magnesium may be more durable but unless you're rock climbing with a full kit or something it shouldn't be something you pick over actual function.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
For taking photos, Magic Lantern is horrible for me simply because of the wake-from-sleep penalty. Having to wait 3-4 seconds from half shutter to auto focus starting was simply too much of a drawback. The graininess and aliasing in dual ISO on top of the post processing requirements also made that too much of a pain. It's great for movies though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Thinking of selling my 550D, 24-105 and 50 1.8 and getting a 6D and a 40 2.8. Good idea or great idea?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
No one can really answer that without knowing your situation or usage. You'll gain image quality while losing some versatility and a lot of money. Obviously it's a step in the right direction if you intend to get more serious about photography, but simply moving up the food chain isn't always the best idea for most users.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Waarg posted:Thinking of selling my 550D, 24-105 and 50 1.8 and getting a 6D and a 40 2.8. Good idea or great idea? Which 24-105? If it's the L glass you should hang on to it. If it's cheap, then yeah, no worries. I'd also hang on to the 50 but that's because it's so cheap it probably won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:How is it on a crop for portraits? Thinking about a Tamron 60 f/2, but since I'm already covered to 50mm, wondering if I'd be best off just paying the extra $100 and getting the 85 1.8. Ended up feeling the 85 was too long for what I need for on a crop, and also wanted the ability to get really close up shots of the kids (and do like to do some casual macro). Instead of the Tamron, liked the idea of having the USM, so went with the Canon 60 2.8. Good call? Pretty surprised running DOF calculations how it compares at 2.8 to my 30 1.4 wide open, initially thought DOF would be much longer just based off the aperture. Can't imagine how thin an 85 at 1.8 is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Ended up feeling the 85 was too long for what I need for on a crop, and also wanted the ability to get really close up shots of the kids (and do like to do some casual macro). Instead of the Tamron, liked the idea of having the USM, so went with the Canon 60 2.8. Good call? Go look up shots with the 85mm f/1.2L. Words can't express how much I love that lens. When I hit focus :P
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:Go look up shots with the 85mm f/1.2L. Words can't express how much I love that lens. When I hit focus :P Lens of the gods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Opinions on the 28mm f/1.8? I've only got the kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8 and I'm looking to add another to the collection. I was trying to decide between the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Canon 30mm f/2 but then I saw good reviews for the 28mm 1.8 and I was wondering if it would be worth the extra $100 or so I'd toss on it instead. Actually, let me just add some more information. I'm mostly interested in urbex photography and studio photography, and trying to build in that direction. Any advice would be well appreciated as I'm still largely a neophyte. Kit Walker fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
If you want wide and fast, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Awesome performing fast zoom. I imagine both wide angle and fast speed would be nice in urbex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Shellman posted:If you want wide and fast, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Awesome performing fast zoom. I imagine both wide angle and fast speed would be nice in urbex. Seems like he probably wants something smaller if looking at primes - that lens is pretty big, although awesome. Kit - I love my 28/1.8, and I've been shooting it as my aps-c normal for ten years. But, it is an old design lens. The AF is fast and accurate, but it's hazy wide open if it's a bright scene, and there's a lot of CA. It works well wide open when it's dark, but it's definitely an old style compromise fast lens. Nowadays you'd be much better off looking at something else - if I was looking for something in that area for urbex I would probably look at the Canon 35/2 IS. The Sigma 35/1.4 is a beauty of a lens, but since your interests seem to be more about still scenes and not motion, I'd go for the IS over the extra stop. You'll be able to handhold it at very low shutter speeds to keep your ISO low which is very helpful for dark scenes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:Opinions on the 28mm f/1.8? I've only got the kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8 and I'm looking to add another to the collection. I was trying to decide between the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Canon 30mm f/2 but then I saw good reviews for the 28mm 1.8 and I was wondering if it would be worth the extra $100 or so I'd toss on it instead. Get one of the t/s lenses. They own so hard 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
The old 35/2 was already overpriced for what it was (it mostly gets used as the Canon version of the Nikon 35/1.8 DX), and the IS edition tacks on another $250 on top of that. For the money you would be better off scraping up another $200 and buying the Sigma 18-35/1.8 or a Sigma 35/1.4. If you want something in the $400 range, get the Sigma 30/1.4. Or if you really can't do that, buy a 40/2.8. They were down to around $125 around Christmas. The lack of a cheap fast normal lens is one of the most glaring holes in the Canon lineup. The 40/2.8 is the closest thing to filling that hole, but it's on the slow side and it's still solidly on the long side of normal (particularly given Canon's smaller-than-APS-C sensor). There's really no good solution that doesn't involve dropping at least $400. There's a reason the thread title is "don't buy a NEX". Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The old 35/2 was already overpriced for what it was (it mostly gets used as the Canon version of the Nikon 35/1.8 DX), and the IS edition tacks on another $250 on top of that. For the money you would be better off scraping up another $200 and buying the Sigma 18-35/1.8 or a Sigma 35/1.4. Or if you really can't do that, buy a 40/2.8. They were down to around $125 around Christmas. It's expensive but it seems that for abandoned buildings the excellent IS makes it the best choice. Just my (lovely) opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:It's expensive but it seems that for abandoned buildings the excellent IS makes it the best choice. Just my (lovely) opinion. It's a nice feature to have in the abstract, but the entire lens is priced at a really awkward combination of features and pricing. It would be a nice feature to have on a lens $200 cheaper, but at $600 you're within spitting distance of pro zooms like the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or the Canon 24-105 IS. The value of IS on fast lenses has been severely eroded by the increases in high-ISO performance anyway, and if you were willing to drag a tripod it's always been nonexistent. Remember that 35mm is a 56mm equivalent on Canon - that's still the long side of normal, and you'll probably get more mileage out of a wide lens than a normal or long-normal lens doing urbex shooting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
I don't mind lugging around a tripod, so IS isn't necessary. Right now budget is my bigger concern (I'd ideally like to pay no more than $400), and I can figure out how to work with whatever I end up getting. I'll have more cash to drop on better lenses in the future, I just want something else for now to start working with other than the 50mm that'll give me the best bang for the buck. Maybe I should just get the Tamaron 17-50? Also, I guess further down the line, I want to do studio photography so I guess versatility would be more important? More like portraiture and fashion/full-body bullshit. A decent starting lens suggestion for that, too, would be appreciated. And I'd love to know how you all got so knowledgeable about this sort of stuff. Any sites I could check out to study it all? Kit Walker fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's a nice feature to have in the abstract, but the entire lens is priced at a really awkward combination of features and pricing. It would be a nice feature to have on a lens $200 cheaper, but at $600 you're within spitting distance of pro zooms like the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or the Canon 24-105 IS. The value of IS on fast lenses has been severely eroded by the increases in high-ISO performance anyway, and if you were willing to drag a tripod it's always been nonexistent. True, but almost all of canons rerelease are absurd in price so it fits into their insane new price structure okay 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:I don't mind lugging around a tripod, so IS isn't necessary. Right now budget is my bigger concern (I'd ideally like to pay no more than $400), and I can figure out how to work with whatever I end up getting. I'll have more cash to drop on better lenses in the future, I just want something else for now to start working with other than the 50mm that'll give me the best bang for the buck. Maybe I should just get the Tamaron 17-50? If you're going to lug around a tripod, the 17-50 would probably be a better choice for you. You'll get a lot more versatility being able to go wider. As far as knowledge , it's mostly just experience for me. I got my first rebel like 20 years ago now in HS so I've had my hands on a ton of canon lenses in that time. It's too bad that time hasn't made me anything more than a hobbyist but you can't buy talent. Edit: and be careful about most online photography sites and their info. They will tell you that perfectly good equipment is 'unusably bad' rather than accept it's limits and work within them. People expect nothing short of perfection sometimes and it's a bit silly IMO timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Yup, I'd go with the Tamron 17-50. The 85/1.8 is really popular for portraiture, but it might be a bit long for a studio. The 50/1.8 isn't classy at all but optically it's good, and it might be easier to work with indoors than an 85mm. I like Photozone for reviews, they're pretty methodical and transparent. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:I don't mind lugging around a tripod, so IS isn't necessary. Right now budget is my bigger concern (I'd ideally like to pay no more than $400), and I can figure out how to work with whatever I end up getting. I'll have more cash to drop on better lenses in the future, I just want something else for now to start working with other than the 50mm that'll give me the best bang for the buck. Maybe I should just get the Tamaron 17-50? The 17-50 is recommended because for the price it's a really flexible lens. Wide enough for a lot of landscape and interior shots but also for great portraits. Constant 2.8 is great and it's hard to beat for the price. The 17-50 is my main lens because of it's versatility but I've also got the nifty fifty and soon to be the sigma 30 1.4 for portraits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The old 35/2 was already overpriced for what it was (it mostly gets used as the Canon version of the Nikon 35/1.8 DX), and the IS edition tacks on another $250 on top of that. For the money you would be better off scraping up another $200 and buying the Sigma 18-35/1.8 or a Sigma 35/1.4. If you want something in the $400 range, get the Sigma 30/1.4. Or if you really can't do that, buy a 40/2.8. They were down to around $125 around Christmas. The IS 35/2 is a loving sharp lens that is awesome for video. I'm sure you can do great with it in other uses as well, but it seems pretty clearly targeted at the video shooter who needs an image stabilized fast prime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
Has anyone used the 135mm 2.8 soft focus? I didn't know it even existed before today and based on this link, I'm...curious about what it's really good for: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_135mm_f_2_8_with_softfocus
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
The new 35 f/2 IS is a spectacular lens. I got it and I'm selling my 35L.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:Has anyone used the 135mm 2.8 soft focus? I didn't know it even existed before today and based on this link, I'm...curious about what it's really good for: Can't see this being useful for anything in this digital age. I can kinda see its use back in the 90s/early 2000s but no reason to get it anymore unless you really want to get that effect in-camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Not sure if this is the best place for it, so if it isnt please tell me where to go. I have a Canon 550D with the kit 18-55 and 55-250 or whatever it is. I dont really use it because I also have a Tamron 18-270 Di II super zoom lens which I was using for most of my photo taking. I also have a 50 1.8 but thats not what I am here about. My Tamron decided one day that it didnt like focusing properly any more, and ruined a whole bunch of photo outings as a result. I didnt really notice at the time until I checked the LCD and noticed a photo looked a little weird, and then retook it thinking i just didnt focus correctly. I was wrong. I sent the lens for repair under warranty, which took about 6 weeks but came back with a report on what was done and they said all was good. I go out on my next adventure with my trusty all-in-one lens and now it focuses fine but focuses in the wrong spot. Every, single, time. For example, here is two photos I took - one with the Tamron, one with the Canon 18-55. both at 18, F3.5 Both times the Autofocus was indicating it was focusing on 2 points that fall on the lower 'third' line of the frame. (theres two photos in the link) http://imgur.com/a/Moq3v The Canon picture (the first one that appears) you can see is focusing on the correct area. the Tamron (the second picture, or 'the one with the canon lens on the table') has focused on everything at the foreground, despite the AF dots in the VF telling me it was using the two points in the lower third of the frame. Another example from a recent day out (over all a bad photo but displays my problem well) http://imgur.com/D9eNO5e The ground in front of the car is nice and sharp, and the car itself is not. I can even set the AF point manually, and it will still botch the shot. I have no issues with my other lenses. I have Reset all camera settings, and made sure my dioptric setting is set correctly (although its never been a problem so I cant see that being the cause) Any ideas? its still under warranty, should it go back for more repairs? I realise its not a fantastic lens, but I do like the convenience of having something I can stick on the camera and do most shots with, rather than carrying all my gear around all the time (and still missing the shot anyway as I have to change lenses)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:Has anyone used the 135mm 2.8 soft focus? I didn't know it even existed before today and based on this link, I'm...curious about what it's really good for: If you're an old guy who shoots in jpeg and has zero access to any sort of image editing software, then it will probably never leave your camera. At least, that's the case of the one guy around here I know who has one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
jfc, the moment I have a few bucks saved and ready to go, up all the (legit) 5Dm3 deals just seem to dry the hell up. Nothing on KEH, nothing on lensauthority, nothing from the Canon refurb site (of course) and all the ebay sellers are grey market so iffy US warranties 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
bisticles posted:If you're an old guy who shoots in jpeg and has zero access to any sort of image editing software, then it will probably never leave your camera. At least, that's the case of the one guy around here I know who has one. And if you really think you want one, buy a used 135/2 instead since it's almost the same price as one of these now, get a uv filter for it and smear it with vaseline. That way when you get bored of the effect you will still have an obscenely good fast medium telephoto lens, instead of a pretty good slightly slower one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:jfc, the moment I have a few bucks saved and ready to go, up all the (legit) 5Dm3 deals just seem to dry the hell up. Nothing on KEH, nothing on lensauthority, nothing from the Canon refurb site (of course) and all the ebay sellers are grey market so iffy US warranties Subscribe to the canonwatch.com RSS feed and be patient
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:jfc, the moment I have a few bucks saved and ready to go, up all the (legit) 5Dm3 deals just seem to dry the hell up. Nothing on KEH, nothing on lensauthority, nothing from the Canon refurb site (of course) and all the ebay sellers are grey market so iffy US warranties I have a 5d3 I might look to sell. I was going to list it locally for $2500, body only. It's not under warranty anymore, but it doesn't have the light leak issue. Not sure of the actuations off hand, but I could find out later for you if you were interested.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
bobfather posted:I have a 5d3 I might look to sell. I was going to list it locally for $2500, body only. I am interested so hit me with a PM. Yes I want to know shutter actuations. Also where "local" is, because shipping.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
I have the 135mm f2.8 soft focus. I bought it back when no one cared about it, so for me it was a cheap, compact telephoto. The soft focus feature actually takes some practice to use effectively. It's a fine balance between too much and too little. Aperture has a big impact on the effect. The larger the aperture you use, the stronger the effect is, so you have to be careful you don't end up with a blurred-out mess, especially at wide open aperture (I find the f/4 to f/5.6 neighbourhood is usually okay). When you do get it right, it's a beautiful thing where the subject has an air of velvety softness and the background just melts away, yet you still retain detail in the subject. It's the kind of thing where yes, you could probably use Photoshop to replicate it, but why not just do it right out of the camera and save yourself some work if that's the look you're going for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Any ideas? its still under warranty, should it go back for more repairs? There isn't much you can do with it on your end if its front focusing, at least not with that body. Even if you had a camera with micro focus adjust, that's pretty far out and probably wouldn't help. You might try the lens on another body and see if its doing the same thing, but I imagine the lens will have to go back and get recalibrated. You might need to send the body with it so they can calibrate it to your camera. Contact them and see what they say and see if you can get a rush on it since it just got work done and its not right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:And if you really think you want one, buy a used 135/2 instead since it's almost the same price as one of these now, get a uv filter for it and smear it with Vaseline. That way when you get bored of the effect you will still have an obscenely good fast medium telephoto lens, instead of a pretty good slightly slower one. Oh I had no intention of buying it, it just came up on Ebay when I was searching for 7D bodies and I didn't really get what the point of it was. I'd never seen any other lenses with a 'soft focus' mode and didn't really understand what purpose it served.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
If it's anything like the Nikon 135/2 DC, it's a superior portrait lens that let's you control how smooth the bokeh is. The one disadvantage is that things look weird if they're out of focus in the foreground. But otherwise it really loving owns and you can just set the defocus to neutral and it works like a regular 135 lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
1st AD posted:If it's anything like the Nikon 135/2 DC, it's a superior portrait lens that let's you control how smooth the bokeh is. It's not like the DC - it just softens the actual focal plane like a soft focus filter, rather than affecting the OOF areas. It adds hazy spherical aberration look to the in focus areas - kind of like the old primes wide open (50/1.4, 28/1.8 etc) timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:There isn't much you can do with it on your end if its front focusing, at least not with that body. Even if you had a camera with micro focus adjust, that's pretty far out and probably wouldn't help. You might try the lens on another body and see if its doing the same thing, but I imagine the lens will have to go back and get recalibrated. You might need to send the body with it so they can calibrate it to your camera. Contact them and see what they say and see if you can get a rush on it since it just got work done and its not right. This was all solid advice, and they are concerned by the fact that its so far out also. I sent them (better) test photos and yeah, within a 1 metre shot at 18 F/3.5, its focusing a good 30cm in front of the point I aimed at. The centre AF point is definitely better, but I wouldnt call it 'good' as they did. So now I am sending my Lens and body to get calibrated. Hopefully that doesnt bork the body working with my nifty fifty or future lenses. its strange, because it was definitely not an issue when I bought it, and was taking pictures on par with the kit lens. Anyway, thank you for the help
Laserface fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Is this a good deal? I'm thinking it might be a solid use of my tax return. http://morgantown.craigslist.org/pho/4373137147.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:Is this a good deal? I'm thinking it might be a solid use of my tax return. I think so. I loved my T4i when I first started out. - The kit lens (18-55mm IS II) is solid, though I don't know what Automatic-Self Adjusting means. - That 75-300mm isn't the best, but it's good to learn with. A good upgrade for that range would be the 70-300mm USM. - That flash retails for quite a bit as well, so that's a great get. I'd perhaps add a 50mm 1.8 into that mix of lenses for portraits and call it good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Laserface posted:This was all solid advice, and they are concerned by the fact that its so far out also. I sent them (better) test photos and yeah, within a 1 metre shot at 18 F/3.5, its focusing a good 30cm in front of the point I aimed at. They shouldn't be doing anything to the body itself, just that they will calibrate the lens to work on that particular body is all. Edit: If we were talking about sending to Canon that might be the case (where they would adjust the body) , but not Sigma or Tokina
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 14:18
|
|