|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:Yes, I'm an amateur entomologist and am buying the 65 specifically for stacked macro shots. The 100mm would be more for in situ bug shots, and then portraits, etc. Gotcha. I was reading your post to say you wanted to buy one big ticket item, which you wanted to cover macro + candid + portrait, and you listed the MP-E! If you are talking about two lenses, then the MP-E is best-in-class for field macro. I rented one last month and I'm thinking about buying one shortly. For bench studio stacking you could get similar quality results a lot cheaper using microscope objectives (we've talked about setups in the macro thread, which I know you post in). That's my current setup and it works great, but it's completely not portable, and not as flexible for various magnifications. For a walkaround lens I would just get a Tamron 15-50 f/2.8 as the good, less expensive option. The canon 17-55 is the more expensive, deluxe option. The trade off is always pure technical image quality and max aperture (prime lens) versus flexibility (zoom). If you are only getting one lens then you probably would do best with the zoom.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Should I be concerned about buying a used Canon TS-E 45MM? My concern is over the moving parts and the amount of force required to push them around. Has anyone had any issues? Is this a lens I should be getting new with a warranty?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
I am looking to get a second body to compliment my 5d Mkii, initially I figured a mkiii, but the price is completely unfeasible in South Africa at the moment. Is there any reason I shouldn't consider a second hand 1Ds Mkiii? I'm mostly looking for much improved AF to shoot lowish light derby stuff, while retaining a full frame sensor. I've read reports that the 1ds betters the 5d at low-iso stuff? Is there any truth to that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
I dunno, you tell me
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:I dunno, you tell me Interesting... The 1d makes nicer blacks, but aside from that there is little difference. I guess if a 5d had to fall in my lap for a steal, it's a no-brainer, but otherwise I can't see any reason not to get the 1ds as they tend to appear more often and more in my price range. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
I need some second opinions!  I was just about set on buying a telezoom for my 6D - I've actually ordered the Tamron 150-600 (which was heavily discounted), but they can't give me a delivery time yet. In the mean time, I've been checking the local websites for used camera gear, and found someone selling the 400 f/5.6L for about the same as I'll pay for the 150-600, and I'm going to test that tomorrow. Is the lack of zoom on the 400mm a problem for generic nature photography? My other option is a used 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, for about 50% more, but then I don't get quite the same reach (without buying extenders), but it's about 66% of "new" price for a 1.5 year old used lens (some cosmetic damage). However, this last one I can't try out in person (without travelling a few hours), so I'm wondering "what questions should I ask"? I'd like to get at least a few recent RAWs taken with the lens - or is it best just going and seeing it "live"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
The Tamzooka will make you very happy. Image stabilization becomes an significant feature for anything beyond 300mm and apertures smaller than f/4, IMO. The 400 5.6 is a great lens but no IS means its really starting to show its  . I'm honestly surprised the prices on them haven't fallen to, say, 200mm 2.8 (prime) levels. The 70-200 2.8 II is probably the highest quality zoom lens made by anybody ever and worth every penny but like you said, without extenders, 200mm on a full frame doesn't feel like much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
I like how after Ken Rockwell bought a 1D X (why??), the first shot in his review is a photo of his ugly-rear end kid taken with a nifty fifty. Then he begs for money at the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
dorkanoid posted:I need some second opinions! I'd probably stick with the Tammy because of the longer reach, zoom and IS. The optics by all accounts are great for the price too. The prime would be good if you expect to be at the long end the vast majority of the time anyway, like for birding/wildlife and that's all you plan to use it for. It's really light, too, which helps for hiking and makes it easier to handhold. I wouldn't go with the 70-200L II, at least not for nature/wildlife. It's too short and extenders would degrade your AF performance and IQ to the point that you would have been better off with the Tammy or the 400 prime anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:The Tamzooka will make you very happy. Image stabilization becomes an significant feature for anything beyond 300mm and apertures smaller than f/4, IMO. The 400 5.6 is a great lens but no IS means its really starting to show its 800peepee51doodoo posted:I'd probably stick with the Tammy because of the longer reach, zoom and IS. The optics by all accounts are great for the price too. The prime would be good if you expect to be at the long end the vast majority of the time anyway, like for birding/wildlife and that's all you plan to use it for. It's really light, too, which helps for hiking and makes it easier to handhold. I wouldn't go with the 70-200L II, at least not for nature/wildlife. It's too short and extenders would degrade your AF performance and IQ to the point that you would have been better off with the Tammy or the 400 prime anyway. Yeah, the 70-200 wouldn't be to scratch the long reach itch, more because it was such a good price for it - and I've wanted one for a while. I got to play with a friend's Sigma 150-500 and 70-200L II with 2x extender, and I wasn't really happy with either. Both were quite capable, but just...I don't know...too many "almost right" photos. The Sigma was sharp as hell around 300mm, but dropped off close to 500 (and by all comparisons it seems he has a good lens, not one of the early softer ones); the Tamron is reportedly worse at 600 than the Sigma is at 500, but better at all other lengths. The 70-200 w/extender focussed really slowly, and sometimes couldn't find focus unless I "helped" it; all the images also had slight "auras" around bright edges. The 150-500 (used) would be half the price of the Tamron, but I was kinda set on the Tamron from the start - the 400L I saw randomly stuck in my mind due to seeing this review. I'll still test the 400L tomorrow I think, but I also think I'll just stick with the Tamron (even if it's lacking that red ring).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:I like how after Ken Rockwell bought a 1D X (why??), the first shot in his review is a photo of his ugly-rear end kid taken with a nifty fifty. Then he begs for money at the bottom. I want to print off this post and frame it. It'd cost less and get more of a reaction from me than anything he has poo poo. Fake edit: phone autocorrected shot to poo poo and I thought it was fitting to leave.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Shellman posted:I want to print off this post and frame it. It'd cost less and get more of a reaction from me than anything he has poo poo. He needs a 1dX because he's a pro and it makes the buttonz easier - you plebes can take just as good pictures with a broken 10D and a 28-70 kit lens from a rebel g, it just won't be as convenient to get to the buttonz. Make sure you shoot in JPG/S because those extra megapixels are just wasting valuable CF space
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
I've seen Rockwell hate before and yeah, the begging plus his loving ugly rear end pictures are pretty annoying. Is he "right" in his assessments, though? Particularly about lenses?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:I've seen Rockwell hate before and yeah, the begging plus his loving ugly rear end pictures are pretty annoying. Is he "right" in his assessments, though? Particularly about lenses? Grain of salt - IMO, his overall theme of "stop whining about your equipment and shooting test charts and go take some pictures" is worthwhile because a lot of people get caught up in gear chasing and technical perfection, but he ruins that message by being an arrogant dick about it, contradicting himself constantly, and posting reviews for products that don't even exist yet just to get more clicks. Edit: Lens reviews, there is much better. He tends to A) chicken little everything third party and how it will make your camera explode and B) not be realistic about the capabilities of lower end equipement, due to the aforementioned theme of equipment lust hatred. Instead of saying "hey, this isn't super sharp wide open, but you can take really nice pictures with it", he says things like "ITS SHARP ENOUGH IF YOUR PICTURES SUCK IT'S YOUR FAULT" timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
So, I've got a 60D and I would like to upgrade my general 'tourist' lens. Currently I'm using the 28-105 3.5/4.5 USM. I'm not happy with the results and I want to get something for no more than £450 - £500. I'm happy to go pre-owned and was looking at the 24-105 f4L IS which I understand is the standard kit lens on the full frames. I would also be happy to go with whatever is good from Sigma and Tamron, especially if they do something a bit quicker than f4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
The Sigma 28-75 f2.8 is really good value, mine is nice and sharp. Get it new or somewhere with a warranty though (KEH) because the first copy I got was soft in one corner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Thanks for the help the other week. I went with the 70D and I think I made the right choice. The guy at the shop was trying to sell me some type of 'special' SD card for the camera. Is that like 'special' HDMI cords or do I need some UHS superspeed card?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Shux posted:Thanks for the help the other week. I went with the 70D and I think I made the right choice. My buffer clears faster with the sandisk extreme plus, than it does with the extreme (60MB/s write vs 30) - Digic 5+ cameras can't write fast enough to take advantage of the 90/s write extreme pro's, so the plus is as good as you're gonna get. If you're not particularly concerned about how fast it can dump buffer, then you don't need anything special - anything higher than class 6 (I think it's 6) can do 1080P video recording.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Shux posted:Thanks for the help the other week. I went with the 70D and I think I made the right choice. Typically the faster the better especially if you plan on shooting with burst mode a lot or shoot video. I believe the 70D will take advantage of UHS SD cards, but you can probably get the SD card somewhere cheaper online.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Ok great thanks. Will check out some of the options.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
I use these: http://www.amazon.com/Sony32GB-UHS-1-Memory-SF32UX-TQN/dp/B00C9V5GHU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1402029657&sr=8-2 which are probably overkill but they're still relatively cheap and you basically never have to worry about them. A couple should last you a while, depending on how much shooting you do at a time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Dalax posted:So, I've got a 60D and I would like to upgrade my general 'tourist' lens. Currently I'm using the 28-105 3.5/4.5 USM. As a 60D owner who used that 28-105 on both my old 350D and my 60D, I know how you feel. It works, but it's just....missing something, you know? I haven't played with the 24-105 myself but it's on my radar for the future. As well, give a look to the Tamron 17-50 2.8, which is amazing on crop bodies. Should be in your price range new or used too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Dalax posted:So, I've got a 60D and I would like to upgrade my general 'tourist' lens. Currently I'm using the 28-105 3.5/4.5 USM. 28 or 24 isn't wide at all on crop bodies and I think that's more important than having more reach on the long end (at least for a good general purpose lens). On the long end, you can zoom in by walking closer to your subject. On the wide end, you can backup and get more things in your frame, but you can't get the wide angle look with out the right lens. 17mm is pretty wide on a crop and will give you a lot more creative capabilities. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is an excellent walk around/ general purpose lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
dorkanoid posted:Yeah, the 70-200 wouldn't be to scratch the long reach itch, more because it was such a good price for it - and I've wanted one for a while. I tested the 400L, and it's VERY sharp, and focuses fast and well. I'll try to get to test the Tamzooka before my order processes fully (they've already taken my money  ), but won't be able to try it outside, on my camera, so, yeah.So yeah, I bought the 400L, picking it up on Tuesday 
dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Mest0r posted:Typically the faster the better especially if you plan on shooting with burst mode a lot or shoot video. I believe the 70D will take advantage of UHS SD cards, but you can probably get the SD card somewhere cheaper online. The 70D caps out with a 95 mb/s, anything faster is overkill. I use the Sandisk 95mb/s cards only because they were tested with the 70d to confirm you get the maximum amount of shots before buffering. Those Sonys could be ok though and they're cheaper. I will say, DO NOT use Promaster SD cards they sell in retail stores. Even with their 100 mb/s card I wasn't getting as many shots before buffering as the Sandisk. Here is a spreadsheet of someone's tests with different memory cards on the 70d: http://digital.photorecommendations.com/recs/2013/08/canon-70d-vs-d7100-buffer-speedwrite-speed-with-common-sd-cards/ The test is a timed test though and not shots before buffering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
For a while my 5d3 couldn't focus with the shutter button because of stupid custom function. Anyways after fixing that and being in Europe I'm back in the game of taking photos. Being thrown in a new photo environment rocks, it makes sight seeing photos fresh again. The 24 70 is nice, but I now I want a tilt shift if I take pictures of buildings and interior architecture all the time. So for tourists, which tilt shift should I go for? Still, bumping iso 16000 without much of a hiccup is freaking awesome. Now I want a radio trigger flash in my carry on bag all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
caberham posted:For a while my 5d3 couldn't focus with the shutter button because of stupid custom function. If that stupid custom function was to enable back button focus you may want to try to get used to it. Many people feel that's a better way to operate a camera. Setting the focus is a separate operation conceptually from setting exposure and triggering the shutter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
There are many people who also feel it's unnatural and the benefit of having it isn't really worth it. It's all user preference. I tried it for a good couple of months and hated it all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
dorkanoid posted:So yeah, I bought the 400L, picking it up on Tuesday Cool, its a really great lens. CarrotFlowers posted:There are many people who also feel it's unnatural and the benefit of having it isn't really worth it. It's all user preference. I tried it for a good couple of months and hated it all the time. This doesn't even make sense to me. When I first set my camera to back button focus, it was like an epiphany.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
I love back button focus- the only slightly annoying thing is if I've been reviewing a photo, and then go to take another picture, the back button will cause the lcd to show more photos rather than leaving review mode and going back to picky takey mode. I have to remember to half-press the shutter button before I try to focus. (on a 60D)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:This doesn't even make sense to me. When I first set my camera to back button focus, it was like an epiphany. Well I guess there's all kind of different people in this world. I'm not a big fan of back button either. I guess I just like how it's all part of the same motion when taking a picture, while back button is two different operations which isn't as efficient in my mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Well I guess there's all kind of different people in this world. I'm not a big fan of back button either. I guess I just like how it's all part of the same motion when taking a picture, while back button is two different operations which isn't as efficient in my mind. I like it for servo, but not one-shot. So the AF-ON button is the best, because I don't have to switch the CF on and off for the * button
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:There are many people who also feel it's unnatural and the benefit of having it isn't really worth it. It's all user preference. I tried it for a good couple of months and hated it all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:If that stupid custom function was to enable back button focus you may want to try to get used to it. Many people feel that's a better way to operate a camera. Setting the focus is a separate operation conceptually from setting exposure and triggering the shutter. One of the great tips I picked up from this thread, really like it in some situations. Also great to keep people from messing with your gear when you aren't around  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Guys, guys... can't we all slap on some manual focus lenses and get along?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Zeiss  It wasn't even back button focus. Apparently half pressing the shutter does nothing at all and I had to press af on every single time. Someone teach me back button focus please. I'm a moron
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
caberham posted:Zeiss Unless I'm mistaken, having to hit AF-On to autofocus is what back button focusing actually refers to, rather than some "Go Back" button being remapped to autofocus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
theloafingone posted:Unless I'm mistaken, having to hit AF-On to autofocus is what back button focusing actually refers to, rather than some "Go Back" button being remapped to autofocus. Yep - and on cameras without an AF-ON button, it's moving it from shutter to AE LOCK (*)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
theloafingone posted:Unless I'm mistaken, having to hit AF-On to autofocus is what back button focusing actually refers to, rather than some "Go Back" button being remapped to autofocus. Sounds like the functions were maybe set so that AF-On started metering too. IIRC you can disable the shutter button from doing anything but firing the shutter. I really dig how my 1DII is set up: AF-On focuses the selected point (usually center), AF-Lock focuses all 41 points. I wish my 1DIV could do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You are wrong, hope this helps. If shutter triggered focus is wrong, then I don't want to be right. I find I don't really benefit from back button focus, and it feels totally unnatural to me, so why change? I like the way I do it now and I'm not changing for anyone! You don't know me! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:51
|
|