|
Oh well if you want to start talking Zeiss glass...
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
Yeah! Lets hear about it, I've spent most of my time on Amazon, as far as learning what's out there and frequently used. If you know of any specialty stuff that's really off the charts, I'm all ears.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Oh well if you want to start talking Zeiss glass... Am I mistaken, or I have read some reviews of Zeiss stuff that says it wasn't quite as sharp as Canon (or Sigma) equivalents? Despite it costing x10.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:yeah, bullshit they do. all there is are the 200-500mm ones. HAH - fuckin amazon "fixing" my search for me and I'm not even noticing. I wonder how many people are getting taken on that little charmer
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
I think that the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art came out like a micron sharper than the Otus in the center on DxO's score but their lens rating system is weird as hell. Most of the reviews I've seen said the Sigma came right up to the Otus but that the Otus was barely sharper in the corners and about the same in the center. So Sigma seems to have made an Otus with AF for about 1/4 of the cost. Its been hilarious watching Canon fanboys gnash their teeth, talk about how Canon designed the 50mm f1.2 to be soft ~*on purpose*~ and latch on to the one review where the guy got bad AF consistency in one specific situation. Re: Tammy 150-600 - I think you have to put in a back order or you're never gone a see one come your way. I think every single one that shops are getting now are already promised to other buyers and never make it to the shelf.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I think that the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art came out like a micron sharper than the Otus in the center on DxO's score but their lens rating system is weird as hell. Most of the reviews I've seen said the Sigma came right up to the Otus but that the Otus was barely sharper in the corners and about the same in the center. So Sigma seems to have made an Otus with AF for about 1/4 of the cost. Its been hilarious watching Canon fanboys gnash their teeth, talk about how Canon designed the 50mm f1.2 to be soft ~*on purpose*~ and latch on to the one review where the guy got bad AF consistency in one specific situation. Because the 50/1.2 is such an accurate focus monster of the industry, right? I don't know why anyone would try to justify it like that anyway - anyone who bought the 1.2 was buying it for the aperture, not for it being some monster of sharpness and AF performance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:I'd ask to see if there were any really out-there lenses that more experienced people knew of and coveted, but I hadn't seen or read about because they were so outside of most people's budgets. Canon EF 50mm f/1.0 Or the Kubrick Barry Lyndon-series lenses 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Canon EF 50mm f/1.0 1200 5.6?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:1200 5.6?   1600mm 5.6
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:1200 5.6? JFC it's an autofocus lens 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:Yeah! Lets hear about it, I've spent most of my time on Amazon, as far as learning what's out there and frequently used. If you know of any specialty stuff that's really off the charts, I'm all ears. Never used either but the TS-E 17mm f/4L and TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II are supposed to be pretty peerless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:
Hot diggity dog!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:JFC it's an autofocus lens Yeah, it's Canon's ultimate dick wagger. They've only made a handful of them, but man that thing must be sweet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:
With the right light, I'm pretty sure I could use that to shoot down a satellite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:That's great, thanks y'all. And I do mean unlimited funds, I'm just turning over some options in my mind and I figured I'd ask to see if there were any really out-there lenses that more experienced people knew of and coveted, but I hadn't seen or read about because they were so outside of most people's budgets. Unlimited funds list: C500 body 14.5-60mm T2.6 30-300mm T2.95-3.7 14mm T3.1 24mm T1.5 35mm T1.5 50mm T1.3 85mm T1.3 135mm T2.2 I'm pretty sure just the primes and body will push you past $50k, the zooms will be like $40k each.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:With the right light, I'm pretty sure I could use that to shoot down a satellite. For $2m I expect this thing to have some serious ~Leica glow~.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
sildargod posted:I played with a Tamron 70-200, a Canon 70-200, and the fixed 200l, and went with the 200l. What a lens it is... Was the Tamron 70-200 the VC one? I bought it and have been using it without issues on my 5D. Of course the autofocus is not anywhere close to what folks have on modern bodies, but I have not felt any lack in accuracy or speed. What were your thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
I've used dozens of lenses and I cannot get enough of the 24mm TS-E L II. It hardly leaves my camera unless im shooting portraits or macro stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
rio posted:Was the Tamron 70-200 the VC one? I bought it and have been using it without issues on my 5D. Of course the autofocus is not anywhere close to what folks have on modern bodies, but I have not felt any lack in accuracy or speed. What were your thoughts? It was indeed, the only that stopped me snapping it up there and then was the extra $600 which I couldn't justify (yet). It seems to be absolutely fantastic, better even than my Tamron 24-70VC which was my go-to lens for everything for a long while. I'm considering sucking it up and getting it at the end of may though. Have you noticed any softness wide open at the long end? Most of the reviews I saw mentioned strong haloing and loss of contrast, but I didn't notice anything in my 10 minutes faffing around at the shop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
There's very loose claims about Canon working on new fullframe sensors, that are cheaper due to apparently new manufacturing processes, and apparently are RGB, too. Hopefully this'll be true, especially latter. Ignoring any losses from stacking photon wells, a full RGB sensor should allow for more accurate luminance values and therefore less noise. http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/new-sensor-technology-coming-from-canon-cr1/
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
but noise isnt the problem right now...its dynamic range where canon sensors are lagging behind the worst.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
I'd figure that goes hand in hand. If the SNR is higher, you can amplify the signal more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
I picked up a Canon FD 50mm 1:1.8 at a thrift store for $1. Is it worth tracking down a FD-EF converter to use on a modern dslr or should I not bother?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Thumposaurus posted:I picked up a Canon FD 50mm 1:1.8 at a thrift store for $1. Don't bother. With a glassless adapter you lose infinity focus and with a converter with glass you lose image quality and get a teleconverter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Thumposaurus posted:I picked up a Canon FD 50mm 1:1.8 at a thrift store for $1. Canon FD stuff is cheap at this point because no one wants it. Adapting it to EF mount doesn't work (for the above reasons), so the only people who want it are people who shoot FD mount on film and people who adapt it to mirrorless. It's a fine lens, but nothing special. There's tons of them out there because they were the standard "kit" lens at the time. If you want to shoot a 50mm go buy a EF 50/1.8 for like $100
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
I have a EF 50/1.8 that I got last year at a different thrift store already, just this one was $1 so couldn't really pass it up. Guess I'll just put it up on a shelf for now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
My friend bought an FD adapter for a few lenses he bought second-hand, I shot some stuff on a 5D with them and absolutely hated it. Highlights were totally blown out in studio and outdoors, there was flare all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
I did some shooting on the weekend, and I was using my 18-55 Canon kit lens for a bit cause the only other lens I have is 50mm. I was shooting at 400 ISO, and I find the shot looks grainy when I'm zoomed in to 100%. I guess it's cause it's just the cheapo kit lens, does that sound about right? Would upgrading to a better lens make for better performance at that ISO?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I did some shooting on the weekend, and I was using my 18-55 Canon kit lens for a bit cause the only other lens I have is 50mm. Nope, lenses generally don't introduce grain unless they're... filled with grain. Could you post a crop of the image at 100% Maybe we can help you with what you're seeing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I did some shooting on the weekend, and I was using my 18-55 Canon kit lens for a bit cause the only other lens I have is 50mm. Most images look grainy when at 100% honestly.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
70-200 f/2.8 IS, the original version not the mk 2, on sale at my local camera shop used for around $1500. Looks in good shape, they are holding it for me til tomorrow evening. Is there a reason I should pass on this?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
My 6D and 24-70 II showed up! And naturally the first thing I do is photograph the cat ><
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Drewski posted:My 6D and 24-70 II showed up! And naturally the first thing I do is photograph the cat ><
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
WRONG http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3201527
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Well to be fair it's an insane time at work. I took Monday off to go to San Diego so I'll actually do real things with my new camera. Also I've found an abandoned dairy farm nearby that was used as a rehabilitation facility for psychiatric patients committed to the state of California. So hopefully there is some cool stuff coming!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Drewski posted:Well to be fair it's an insane time at work. I took Monday off to go to San Diego so I'll actually do real things with my new camera. Also I've found an abandoned dairy farm nearby that was used as a rehabilitation facility for psychiatric patients committed to the state of California. So hopefully there is some cool stuff coming!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
No I was not committed to the state of California.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Scary Dairy huh. Been years since I was out there. I find it hilarious that a dairy farm for mental patients was called Scary Dairy. It just seems so murderous.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Shellman posted:70-200 f/2.8 IS, the original version not the mk 2, on sale at my local camera shop used for around $1500. Looks in good shape, they are holding it for me til tomorrow evening. Is there a reason I should pass on this? If I recall correctly, the mk2 was on sale last December for $1800 new from reputable sellers. Personally, if it was my money, I'd get the mk2 > tamron vc > mk1.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
MkII refurb is ~$1700.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:54
|
|