|
Seamonster posted:
Truth. Should be in the thread title imo
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC is actually p good. Also yes get a 40/2.8 if you want a light normal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:24-105 Canon or Sigma. Where you're going (ISO wise) you won't need f/2.8. Unless he wants the dof, which honestly I found to be a big draw moving to FF. What is your lens budget? E: yeah, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC blah blah blah is great. If it is within your budget that is a great option that doesn't need to leave your camera too often unless you need something longer. rio fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
The Canon 40mm/2.8 pancake if you're cheap. The Sigma 35mm/1.4 if you like shallow DOF and/or low light. Speaking of which, I was loosely planning on getting the new Sigma 50mm/1.4, but I put the old one on my camera, and I noticed I actually prefer the 35mm FOV as walk-around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The Canon 40mm/2.8 pancake if you're cheap. The Sigma 35mm/1.4 if you like shallow DOF and/or low light. 35mm is a great walk-around FOV. If I am taking one lens, it's 35mm. If it's two, it's 28mm and 50mm. It's wide enough that you can do landscape or architecture type stuff, or work in spaces where you can't back up, or get perspective distortion up close. But it's not so wide that you get really elongated foregrounds or weird faces or that kind of stuff. If you're willing to give up autofocus and some speed, I'm a big big fan of the Pentax/Takumar 35/3.5. Very sharp right from wide open and they can be had for like <$60. I use mine on everything from film to mirrorless with adapters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The Canon 40mm/2.8 pancake if you're cheap. The Sigma 35mm/1.4 if you like shallow DOF and/or low light. I've never been able to get used to using wider angle lenses. My 16-35 2.8 sits around collecting dust for the most part. I should probably sell it. Definitely going to be picking up that Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART, however. That focal length is a sweet spot for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you're willing to give up autofocus and some speed, I'm a big big fan of the Pentax/Takumar 35/3.5. Very sharp right from wide open and they can be had for like <$60. I use mine on everything from film to mirrorless with adapters. Why give up speed at all? The Rokinon 35mm/1.4 is a great manual focus lens and may not be as cheap as the Takumar but still comes in at a third the cost of the Sigma Art and nearly a quarter of Canon's offering. Oh wait I've got one on sale right here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3619018
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Why give up speed at all? The Rokinon 35mm/1.4 is a great manual focus lens and may not be as cheap as the Takumar but still comes in at a third the cost of the Sigma Art and nearly a quarter of Canon's offering. Oh wait I've got one on sale right here: Great lens. That's not a half bad price either. Normally I do recommend buying either the Pentax or Nikon version though - the Canon version has a manual aperture anyway, so adapting doesn't lose you anything, plus you can throw it on a Pentax ME or a Nikon FM and shoot film. The Canon version gets you literally no advantage over adapting and costs you the option of using those great, cheap cameras. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:I've never been able to get used to using wider angle lenses. My 16-35 2.8 sits around collecting dust for the most part. I should probably sell it. Definitely going to be picking up that Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART, however. That focal length is a sweet spot for me. Same problem here, I barely never use lower than 50mm range except to do the usual wedding shot of the room/large group of people and little stuff like that. I would say that 50mm on a crop and 85mm on a full frame are usually my go to lenses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I guess I'll be going with a 6D. Consider the current, EX level Sigma 50. With all the hype of the new expensive version, there should be some good deals and it is an excellent fit for a 6D. Mine was hit or miss focusing on my 7D, but hits every time at f/1.4 shooting black cats in moonlight on the 6D.* *Slightly exaggerated, but not by much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions; I will have to go through them all on not-my-phone. Since I have a 50 1.8 and 70-200, I was really hoping to get something that will be flexible and comfortable to use (so manual-only is out  ). My budget is "reasonable" if that makes any sense. I don't want to spend a lot on a niche lens, but if it's versatile then I have no problems with spending a bit extra.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:Thanks for the suggestions; I will have to go through them all on not-my-phone. Then getting a 6D and the 24-105L would be a good place to start. Flexible but high quality and still commands an okay price on the resale market. Just buy a good used one and you'll be able to re-sell it for almost the same price in the future. Or buy a kit if that isn't as big a worry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
I'm guessing a zoom lens that covers something like 20-70 and has a big aperture would be way out of my budget? The f/4 is kind of turning me off a little bit. But I see a bunch for 700 used, which seems like a decent price.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I'm guessing a zoom lens that covers something like 20-70 and has a big aperture would be way out of my budget? Tamron 24-70/2.8. You can find them for about $1000.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
I thought... oh, but that was the 28-75. Hmm, reading the review at photozone, it seems the barrel distortion is quite heavy, but I'm guessing I'm not going to really be able to get away with that without getting a prime lens. Or spending a LOT more money. Would this be correct?Seamonster posted:24-105 Canon or Sigma. Where you're going (ISO wise) you won't need f/2.8. Sorry, can you (or someone) explain what you mean by this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
He means that your ISO on your camera is good enough to not really need/require a 2.8 constant aperture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Also the 24-105 has hilarious barrel distortion at the wide end
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:35mm is a great walk-around FOV. If I am taking one lens, it's 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Barrel distortion is one of those things that might be completely irrelevant depending on what you're trying to photograph, and can often be corrected in post anyway.Mathturbator posted:Word. I have almost all Canon L-lenses below 400mm, and the 10-year old 35L is the one that is on my camera 90% of the time. 90% of the time I only have 2 lenses in my camera bag: the 135/2 and the 35/1.4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I thought... oh, but that was the 28-75. Hmm, reading the review at photozone, it seems the barrel distortion is quite heavy, but I'm guessing I'm not going to really be able to get away with that without getting a prime lens. Or spending a LOT more money. Would this be correct? Pretty much, yeah. Since I got the lens in mid February, I have spent a lot of time with it since it and the Tamron 70-200 VC etc etc are the only two EF lenses I chose to buy when going to FF. The distortion is noticeable but easily corrected. I love the lens; haven't regretted that purchase one bit (and there isn't really any other 24-70 stabilized 2.8 to choose from).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I thought... oh, but that was the 28-75. Hmm, reading the review at photozone, it seems the barrel distortion is quite heavy, but I'm guessing I'm not going to really be able to get away with that without getting a prime lens. Or spending a LOT more money. Would this be correct? Yeah, you're probably going to need to go to primes to get away from distortion. It's not a big deal all the time - even if you have distortion, you often won't notice it if you avoid placing straight lines in places where they are the most warped. There are automatic profiles in Lightroom to correct for distortion nowadays. Having a lot of distortion isn't a problem if it's simple distortion like barrel or pincushion - in fact, some companies just accept it as a given and build automatic correction right into the camera's RAW->JPG converter (which is worse than keeping the RAW and letting a real CPU work at it, as always). And nowadays software can even take fisheye images and "correct" them all the way into a rectilinear mapping as if they were taken with a non-fisheye superwide. There's always some cost to resolution to do major corrections like that but it will be very minor just for correcting a little barrel/pincushion distortion. What is problematic is "complex distortion" like moustache distortion, where there's a complex pattern that makes correction more difficult than warping the image back into shape according to a few points. And my armchair-quarterback opinion here is that modern lenses tend to have somewhat less distortion, but it does tend to be more complex because of things like aspheric elements and more complex group interaction inside zooms. It's just anecdote but I used to see predictable "some barrel distortion at the wide end, some pincushion at the long end", nowadays I seem to see more "modest degree of moustache distortion" and that's what my thoughts jump to as a cause. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I'm guessing a zoom lens that covers something like 20-70 and has a big aperture would be way out of my budget? As mentioned, one stop is probably not make-or-break given how high you can turn up the ISO on modern bodies (particularly FF) and still get good results. The difference between 3200 and 6400 on a 6D is nothing. The IS will also help compensate somewhat - as long as your subjects are not moving. So it helps for low-light landscapes or whatever, but for sports or action-stopping you need aperture, not IS. Also if you bring a tripod you solve a bunch of these problems at a single blow, it's probably the cheapest thing that will improve your photos if you don't mind the weight. If you want a fast-aperture name-brand zoom don't forget about the earlier L-series variants of the 24-70. Canon is big into incremental updates, they come out with a new one like every 5 years. The 28-70 f/2.8L is the model before the 24-70 mark 1 and is basically as good, you just lose 4mm off the wide end. Those go for around $700 used. Or there's the 28-80 f/2.8-4L (not to be confused with the non-L f3.5-5.6 versions) - this is the original "24-70" type introduced at the start of the EOS line. It uses the older style of ring USM motor, so it can't do full-time manual focus. The 28-80 has a variable aperture, and you may have trouble getting such an old lens serviced if it develops issues, but it's slightly longer (and better at the long end), and it's an L-series fast zoom for $450. L-series lenses have always been great optically, and you may be willing to take risks with cheaper gear that help you get shots. Whatever you do, seriously consider buying used. If you aren't getting ripped off, and especially if you aren't buying the latest model (eg 24-70 Mark II) then good used glass really tends to hold value well. I've never bought new and I really don't think I've ever sold a lens at more than a 10% loss. In comparison bodies (in particular) depreciate like crazy. Four years and my 40D lost half its value, even buying used at a good deal. If you need a particular lens for a trip, sometimes it can be cheaper to buy used and sell later than to rent it for a few weeks. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:As mentioned, one stop is probably not make-or-break given how high you can turn up the ISO on modern bodies (particularly FF) and still get good results. The difference between 3200 and 6400 on a 6D is nothing. The IS will also help compensate somewhat - as long as your subjects are not moving. So it helps for low-light landscapes or whatever, but for sports or action-stopping you need aperture, not IS. Also if you bring a tripod you solve a bunch of these problems at a single blow, it's probably the cheapest thing that will improve your photos if you don't mind the weight. Maybe I'm alone, but my first thought when considering a 2.8 vs 4.0 aperture lens is the depth of field difference as well as the 2.8 likely being sharper at f4 than the f4 is wide open. I know that's not always the case, some lenses are sharp as hell wide open, but generally speaking you want to stop down a peg or two to increase sharpness, especially in the corners. As you and others point out, with ISO performance being what it is today, it's not really something I think about when deciding between a 2.8 and 4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:Maybe I'm alone, but my first thought when considering a 2.8 vs 4.0 aperture lens is the depth of field difference as well as the 2.8 likely being sharper at f4 than the f4 is wide open. I know that's not always the case, some lenses are sharp as hell wide open, but generally speaking you want to stop down a peg or two to increase sharpness, especially in the corners. As you and others point out, with ISO performance being what it is today, it's not really something I think about when deciding between a 2.8 and 4. I generally think all of the 24-whatever L-series lenses are pretty decent even wide open. Here's Photozone's tests on the 24-70 at f/4 and the 24-105 wide open: At 24mm: 24-70: 3240 / 2512 24-105: 3216 / 2363 At 40mm: 24-70: 3326 / 2776 24-105: 3079 / 2494 At 70mm: 24-70: 3001 / 2566 24-105: 3363 / 2022 At 105mm: 24-105: 3112 / 2515 So at the wide end it's pretty much equal, the 24-70 is a touch sharper in the corners. The 24-105 performs a little worse in the midrange, the 24-70 is a little sharper overall at 40mm (but both are pretty sharp, 3000/2500 is great). At 70mm, the corners are quite a bit softer, but the center is a fair amount sharper than the 24-70. If you put it all the way to its long end it's equal-to-better than the 24-70 was at 70mm. Overall I think they're reasonably equal at f/4 except the 24-105 does a faceplant in corner sharpness at 70mm. They noted some alignment problems in the 24-105, which could be affecting that. He noted that it took him 4 tries to get a good ("good, not 'great'") sample of the 24-70, so it's not a unique problem. That also may be affecting the results a little, to be honest - taking the best of 4 lenses is cherrypicking your results a bit. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
You guys are awesome. If buying a lens weren't such an expensive/long-term prospect, I wouldn't feel nearly so picky.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
So I was thinking of buying myself a new DSLR but just waiting to get the right deal. I came across a 7D body for $879. Should I bite the bullet? http://www.42photo.com/pd-productid-48095-k-canon_eos_7d_180_megapixel_digital_camera_body.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Shnikes posted:So I was thinking of buying myself a new DSLR but just waiting to get the right deal. I came across a 7D body for $879. Should I bite the bullet? http://www.42photo.com/pd-productid-48095-k-canon_eos_7d_180_megapixel_digital_camera_body.htm If that's the camera you want at a price you'll pay, sure. Kind of a difficult question to answer any differently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:If that's the camera you want at a price you'll pay, sure. Kind of a difficult question to answer any differently. I'm looking to spend around $600-700 for a body but it seems like such a good deal it is probably worth it for the extra cash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Shnikes posted:I'm looking to spend around $600-700 for a body but it seems like such a good deal it is probably worth it for the extra cash. I'd get the 70d from amazon for 1099, I think it's worth saving up for. Pros over 7d: Better ISO performance Touch screen (it's not a gimmick, it's fantastically implemented) Articulating screen Pretty much feels like a 5d mark iii (awesome) Awesome video focusing voodoo Cons vs 7d: 1 frame per second less on burst Uses SD and not CF (debatable / personal pref) 98% viewfinder vs 100% on 7d They're both great crop bodies, so I guess weigh those differences to see if it's worth the extra scratch. You could also save the cash on the 7d and get some glass. Options options. Edit: realized I skipped your question entirely. Yes that is a good deal for the 7d. Keh has a used EX one for like 850 mclifford82 fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
There is also: 7d's bigger buffer (25 raw and 130 jpg vs 16 raw and 65 jpg) 7d's build quality 70d's wifi 70d's continuous af during video 70d's higher res screen (1,040,000 dots vs 920,000)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
I totally spaced the 70d's wifi. You listed the 7d's build quality; is it better than the 70d's? I'd have assumed they'd be the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
7d is basically as good as it comes. It's "you can kill a man with it and your camera will still work" kinds of durable. 70d is plastic over metal, 7d is full magnesium Not that it matters That much unless you're a working photographer, since even the most plastic of dslrs are still pretty durable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
The buffer listed for that 70D is wrong. I have well over 100 Jpeg shots continuous. I think I actually reached 130-ish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
Shnikes posted:So I was thinking of buying myself a new DSLR but just waiting to get the right deal. I came across a 7D body for $879. Should I bite the bullet? http://www.42photo.com/pd-productid-48095-k-canon_eos_7d_180_megapixel_digital_camera_body.htm The reason it's so cheap is because that's a site that will try and upsell you poo poo after the order. http://www.yelp.com/biz/42nd-street-photo-new-york-4 gently caress places like that, don't give them money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Yeah, when I was looking for an x100 I ordered from them and got a phone call later in the day. They tried to convince me that I needed extras that I already had like sd cards and basically would not sell me the camera unless I did, and got very upset that I seemed to know exactly what I needed and wanted. Tried the "I'll go ask the manager - ok I have a special deal just for you" bullshit. Cancelled the order and the guy was a huge dick about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:I'd get the 70d from amazon for 1099, I think it's worth saving up for. Pros over 7d: This is actually much better info. I decided to not go for it for now and probably save up a bit more. Mr. Despair posted:The reason it's so cheap is because that's a site that will try and upsell you poo poo after the order. I probably should have done some additional research first. I just find that people give a lot of good info in this thread. Thanks for the info I appreciate it. I decided to not buy it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Add this to your RSS reader, this is where I find all my Canon deals from: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News-RSS.aspx Got a 100mm 2.8L Macro new for lower than refurb cost from an eBay link they posted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
I'm looking at getting my Dad a new Canon for his birthday. He currently has a 40D ( I think) He has had it for a while and I think it's getting a bit past it's time. He travels a lot, Africa/South America/Europe and the Camera gets a good amount of usage. So I was looking to upgrade the 40D to something nicer. Usage is pretty general; Travel, wildlife, environment, weddings etc. Maybe some sport stuff but not a huge part of what he is interested in. The guy at the local store is talking me into the EOS 70D with 18-135STM kit. Is this is pretty good upgrade from the 40D? He has a few lenses available at home and big ones he takes to Africa. He doesn't seem to have a middle ground one which is what I'm hoping the 18-135 will be? I know pretty much nothing about Camera gear so any advice would be great. **Edit - Also if anyone has a recommendation on a good Camera bag for it and all the stuff that goes with it would be great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
Shux posted:I'm looking at getting my Dad a new Canon for his birthday. He currently has a 40D ( I think) He has had it for a while and I think it's getting a bit past it's time. He travels a lot, Africa/South America/Europe and the Camera gets a good amount of usage. So I was looking to upgrade the 40D to something nicer. If he has his own lenses already don't waste money on a super zoom. They're generally slow, and bad at everything. A 24-70/2.8 would be an actual mid range lens that'd be worth it, though expensive obviously. 70D is a decent camera, good for everything if he wants to stay on an APS-C sensor, for the price.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
The 18-135 actually isn't that bad of a lens for landscapes or outdoor travel shots. Just beware that it's too short for wildlife and too slow for weddings. If your dad already has lenses that he likes, I'd just buy the camera body only.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 14:31
|
|