|
Combat Pretzel posted:Noktor's apparently working on a lens for the EF mount. They're the folks that have 35mm and 50mm manual focus lenses at f0.95 for various mounts, including Sony's FE-mount. To be fair any lens designed in the past decade is "exotic" for ef mount
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
For something else, Canon 70-200mm/2.8 L I IS or non-IS, I suppose those work better than either Sigma or Tamron equivalents? I've been doing some sports photography and used my 105mm, and while it worked fine, I was either standing in the bushes or too far away more often than I'd like. Corner performance of the Sigma was atrocious according to DPreview, and the Tamron didn't seem that good, either. So I'm considering an L-lens. It's just the first version is pretty cheap, even new.
Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 22:12 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
I was nearly set on the 50mm 1.8, what would be the better pick? That, or the 40mm pancake refurb? I've currently got the 18-55mm stm kit and the 55-250mm stm for my SL1. I feel like the 40mm would be a better focal length for more situations walking around, along with the compact size, but the 50mm being faster is really appealing.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Do you or will you ever have an STM capable body? And do you shoot documentary style video on an SLR? I say get the 40mm now, then the 50mm if you feel you need it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Any reason (other than convenience of size/weight) to grab the pancake if you've already got the Sigma 30/1.4 ART? I'd imagine the Sigma would be a superior lens in every way (except for being like 3x more unwieldily) but I always hear people praising the pancake so I dunno.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
sirbeefalot posted:I was nearly set on the 50mm 1.8, what would be the better pick? That, or the 40mm pancake refurb? I've currently got the 18-55mm stm kit and the 55-250mm stm for my SL1. I feel like the 40mm would be a better focal length for more situations walking around, along with the compact size, but the 50mm being faster is really appealing. If you get the pancake you can roll with the tiniest SLR with the tiniest EF lens, which would be amusing. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
sirbeefalot posted:I was nearly set on the 50mm 1.8, what would be the better pick? That, or the 40mm pancake refurb? The 50 is obviously faster but that's about where the advantages stop. The 40 is much better rendering colours (I've taken the exact same shot with both lenses and the 50 looks VERY washed out). The build quality of the 40 (metal mount, good focus ring) is also vastly superior to the 50 (which is plastic all over and feels cheap as hell)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
The 40mm is sharper wide open than the 50 stopped down to the same 2.8.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
The 40mm works out to be about $28 more than the 50 new on Amazon (factoring shipping and tax), but it sounds like its worth it. Sold.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Well I think I'll grab it as I missed the 96 dollar deal on amazon a while back. Edit: Maybe not just yet... Shipping and tax pops it up to 133 USD. I'll wait.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:The 50 is obviously faster but that's about where the advantages stop. The 40 is much better rendering colours (I've taken the exact same shot with both lenses and the 50 looks VERY washed out). The build quality of the 40 (metal mount, good focus ring) is also vastly superior to the 50 (which is plastic all over and feels cheap as hell) Interesting... I use the 50 a lot for portraits and stuff, if the 40 will give me better colours I'll jump on it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Interesting... I use the 50 a lot for portraits and stuff, if the 40 will give me better colours I'll jump on it. It might be that bit wide for portrait, particularly close up stuff. Could lead to unflattering results, but I've never tried it for that to be honest.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:It might be that bit wide for portrait, particularly close up stuff. Could lead to unflattering results, but I've never tried it for that to be honest. Yeah I wouldn't use it for close up stuff, it would be for the times when I can't quite get far enough away with my 50mm. It's happened a fair amount where I wish my 50 would give me more space to shoot with. Does anyone have any experience with Magic Lantern? http://www.magiclantern.fm/
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Magic Lantern is essential if you're shooting video.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
On a 5D3, Magic Lantern allows you to shoot raw, full frame 1080p video, making that camera quite unique in that there aren't full frame raw video cameras anywhere. IMO it's not worth the workflow headaches (the limited DR of the sensor limits what you can do in post).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Could someone explain to me, I'm looking at a new body and the 7D looks like the go.. I've got a 450D I've shot with for years and hauled all over the world and I love it like a son. The 7D isn't full frame though, right? It's got a smaller sensor? While the 6D is full frame? Do I really care about this.. as the 7D seems to be so awesome? What would be your recommendation for someone looking to take the next step with photography, who loves shooting and will haul my DSLR to all sorts of awesome and unlikely places? I shoot usually landscapes and 'things' like buildings and structures.. generally someone that travels the world and skis, mountain bikes, scuba dives.. you get the idea.. I don't own cats 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
What's your budget? If you want to get serious then it would make sense to make the jump to FF, but it can be kind of a daunting task buying all new glass to go with it. If you're on a budget or strictly see yourself as a hobbyist then go with a 70D/7D. If you've got the cash and see photography as a serious interest then it would make sense to go with a 6D or one of the 5Ds.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
All new glass? The lenses for the FF bodies have a different mount than the others, really? The budget depends on if I get to use my existing lenses for my 450D, if I have to buy all new lenses that makes things very expensive! I could drop a couple of grand on my upgrade, though.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
For your purposes a 6D would be better, but you have to look at your budget and your existing lenses as said above. The 6D has full frame goodness - better images. Weakest auto focus. The 7D has the buffer and auto focus advantage. The 70D has a video advantage. Auto focus almost as good as 7D.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
But FF means different lenses? That's definitely a thing? I can't use my lenses from my 450D with a 6D?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:But FF means different lenses? That's definitely a thing?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
Excellent, thanks for the info and I'll check my lenses and keep this in mind. edit: \/\/ 
Tony Montana fucked around with this message at 15:56 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Could someone explain to me, I'm looking at a new body and the 7D looks like the go.. I've got a 450D I've shot with for years and hauled all over the world and I love it like a son. If you really want to take the next step you should probably spend some time understanding technique and what goes into making a photograph so that you can really understand if having a FF camera will benefit you before throwing down several thousand dollars because something looks cool. And then get a go pro because that sounds way more what you're looking for, Mr. Doesn't Own a Cat.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Could someone explain to me, I'm looking at a new body and the 7D looks like the go.. I've got a 450D I've shot with for years and hauled all over the world and I love it like a son. Can you explain what about the 450D you feel is holding you back? Frame rate? Size/clarity of viewfinder. High ISO shooting in dark environments. Size of body/ergonomics. Widest focal length not "wide enough" Autofocus tracking of moving subjects. Shooting video?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
The AF seems a little 'off' sometimes, but I'm also thinking that's my well used primary lens rather than the body. I really could do with a wider main lens that I asked about a while ago.. otherwise I'm really pretty happy with it. The preview window is pretty low res, something will look ok when you check it on the camera and later on a monitor you'll notice it's slightly out of focus or something else isn't right. I don't care about video because I have dedicated cameras for that including a GoPro. Frame rate doesn't bother me as I don't really shoot sports or moving stuff so much that I'm rapid-firing away.. I more haul it to places to then shoot. That said I like shooting bikes but I get better results timing a single frame than just holding it down.  That's horribly compressed by imgur and scaled down.. but the original looks amazing and I'm very happy with it. That's a long exposure on an Alpine night in Italy.. I think with a better lens it would look better again. Is there no real advantage in the res I'm capturing or quality of the sensor or anything like that going to a 70D or 7D over the 450D? I was just under the impression I'm shooting with a pretty entry-level body and the bits in it aren't all that great.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Resolution only really helps if you're making really big prints or cropping heavily. A newer body will will have less noise at higher iso's and better AF though.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:The AF seems a little 'off' sometimes, but I'm also thinking that's my well used primary lens rather than the body. I really could do with a wider main lens that I asked about a while ago.. otherwise I'm really pretty happy with it. The preview window is pretty low res, something will look ok when you check it on the camera and later on a monitor you'll notice it's slightly out of focus or something else isn't right. With any semi-current body you'll see: More resolution Have better low light performance with more viable high ISO levels (1250-1600 or higher) Higher res LCD screen viewable from more angles in bright sun. LCD screen on the 70D, 60D, Rebel T3i, 4i, 5i flips out and rotates for shooting very high/low angles/weird angles. Faster auto focus speed and accuracy. You mention taking long exposures, some motor bike action with single frames, and checking focus/image quality in the LCD. When you say "a better lens", are you referring to the quality of the glass (less flare, more/better color) or having a more wide open aperture to blur the background/work in lower light? Can you list what lenses you have? mrlego fucked around with this message at 16:59 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
As a guy who traveled a bunch with first an XSi then later a 5D2, one thing to consider is that the 5D/6D/7D/70D bodies are all significantly bigger than the rebel series. It makes a difference if you're pulling your camera out of your backpack dozens of times per day. Otherwise, I am very happy I went with a full frame camera as an upgrade to my XSi. I found the image quality to be light years ahead of the XSi with respect to cropping ability, low light performance, and increased ability to control depth of field. I'd personally recommend a 6D for you if size and budget aren't major issues.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
I think he should get a cat.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:I think he should get a cat. Full Frame Cat or Cropped?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
spog posted:Full Frame Cat or Cropped? Well I mean crop cats get better reach and he did mention wanting to shoot long distance catscapes.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
I have a full frame dlsr and I want to pick up a somewhat affordable wide angle lens for it, what lens should I get? I've been looking at the 17-40mm f4, would I be better off getting a prime? I might be able to get my hands on a second hand 24mm TS lens for a very reasonable price and landscape photography is something I'd like to try more of.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
I bought the 40mm lens that's on sale, it's a nifty little guy. Only thing is that I feel like I have to turn it a LOT to get it locked in place compared to my 50mm. Is it because the 40 is metal whereas my kit & my 50 are plastic?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I bought the 40mm lens that's on sale, it's a nifty little guy. Only thing is that I feel like I have to turn it a LOT to get it locked in place compared to my 50mm. The rotation to lock the lens on the lens mount? Its the same rotational distance for all the lenses I have. I do notice the 40mm takes more effort to turn than any of my lenses, even L lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
mrlego posted:The rotation to lock the lens on the lens mount? Its the same rotational distance for all the lenses I have. I do notice the 40mm takes more effort to turn than any of my lenses, even L lenses. Yeah, the mount on mine is a little tight too. It goes onto my ef-m/ef adapter tighter than to my 70D. Metal just seems to be a little thick is all so it takes more effort.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Just got the Tamron 70-300 VC in, that thing is ridiculous. Haven't tried it out much to get a bead on image quality (quick looks make me think at 300 and wide open it's still pretty good), but handholding on a crop at 300mm at 1/25 is absurd (480mm equivalent). Amazing these things sell for sub 300 used. Makes me wish my 17-50 had the same autofocus though, that's pretty nice as well.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Fedora Brandisher posted:I have a full frame dlsr and I want to pick up a somewhat affordable wide angle lens for it, what lens should I get? I've been looking at the 17-40mm f4, would I be better off getting a prime? I might be able to get my hands on a second hand 24mm TS lens for a very reasonable price and landscape photography is something I'd like to try more of. I'm shopping for a wide angle as well, and I've more or less decided that the 17-40 is my choice. The 24 TS has an outstanding reputation though.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:I'm shopping for a wide angle as well, and I've more or less decided that the 17-40 is my choice. The 24 TS has an outstanding reputation though.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:The AF seems a little 'off' sometimes, but I'm also thinking that's my well used primary lens rather than the body. I really could do with a wider main lens that I asked about a while ago.. otherwise I'm really pretty happy with it. The preview window is pretty low res, something will look ok when you check it on the camera and later on a monitor you'll notice it's slightly out of focus or something else isn't right. The 450D and others in the 000D series will all suffer in terms of AF. Put simply, the entry-level bodies just don't have great AF when compared with the 60D/70D level or the highest tier, the 7D/6D/5DII and III. It was one of the things I noticed the most when I went from a 350D to a 60D. LCDs have improved a lot since the 450D, too, but they're still an imprecise tool. But that will definitely be improved by any newer higher-level model, too. Same with framerate -- even if you're not using it to get professional sports shots, it's still helpful to have a better burst, and anything from a 70D to a 6D will feel like a machine gun compared with the older one you have now. What lenses do you have and use a lot? It definitely sounds like you're getting tired of the limitations of the 450D, so improving that is important, but lenses are always a great way to improve things as well. Think about what type of shots you want, what type of pictures you like to take now, what those angles are, and maybe look at a better, faster (wider aperture!) lens to take those types of pictures. If you like landscapes and just need a general lens, a 60D, 70D or 7D with the Tamron 17-50 would be a great step up if all you have is a kit lens.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Hi all I've recently ordered the 6d with the 24-105L lens. I plan on walking around with it attached to my rapid strap, do you think the lens is too big and obtrusive for use in museums? I'm debating whether or not to go for the 50mm 1.8. I guess my second question would be how does the 24-105L at 50mm at f4 compares to canons 50mm 1.8 in terms of sharpness and general iq? I feel comfortable shooting at f4 considering the iso capabilities is very strong up to 10000.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:18
|
|