|
grack posted:The cost and complexity of manufacturing glass elements increases exponentially with size. Oh yeah, that makes sense, but doesn't a big zoom lens have more glass elements (and moving parts!) inside it? (I am completely willing to accept that I have no idea the relative complexities between a prime and a zoom and don't really have any idea what I'm talking about)
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
Kenshin posted:Oh yeah, that makes sense, but doesn't a big zoom lens have more glass elements (and moving parts!) inside it? (I am completely willing to accept that I have no idea the relative complexities between a prime and a zoom and don't really have any idea what I'm talking about) You're partially right, and it's the reason why pro grade long zooms like a 70-200mm f2.8 are so expensive. However the elements in a 300mm f2.8 are much, much larger and the cost of manufacturing the larger elements overshadows the higher number of smaller elements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Why are telephoto primes so much more expensive than telephoto zooms? It seems like less moving parts would make it less expensive or difficult to manufacture, but there must be something I'm missing here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
You could build your own cheap, slow, highly aberrated telephoto prime with a couple of stock spherical lenses, a toilet paper tube, and a hot glue gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:You could build your own cheap, slow, highly aberrated telephoto prime with a couple of stock spherical lenses, a toilet paper tube, and a hot glue gun. Or a paper towel tube, some foil, and a pin. I saw a thing once about a dude who managed to find two slightly different sized paper towel tubes and made a (push/pull) zoom pinhole lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Back in the day the third-party (fourth-party, fifth-party; the 80s were full of shady companies slapping brand names on random objects emerging from obscure factories) lens makers made a ton of 400mm primes. I have one in Minolta MC mount for my X-700 that says "Bushnell" on it and has a maximum aperture of f/6.3. In choose-your-obsolete-manual-focus-mount similar lenses sell for around $100-$200 (plus shipping charges that will make you hate courier companies). My lens is pretty crappy - it's got the reach, but flares like hell, is crazy fuzzy from "wide"-open to about f/11, and has weird dark shady areas on the lens (presumably it's dirty, probably in some internal, hard-to-reach places). But it's still good fun and occassionally I get lucky with it. (yes, that's a reference to its phallic nature. People *will* make disparaging comments about your genitals if you walk around with a 400mm prime). Cheap, brand-of-the-week supertelephoto primes and zooms are still out there. Google "Phoenix Supertelephoto" for one prominent example. Your choices are basically 1) Old MF supertele primes from the 80's, in various 80's SLR mounts; 2) Current el-cheapo supertele primes, typically 400mm-500mm and f/8 (or worse); 3) Current el-cheapo supertele zooms, like the Phoenix. Note the charming habit of sellers to include a crappy 2X teleconverter (and often some useless accessories like a poo poo tripod that can't even hold the weight of the big stupid lens, and a blower/brush to put scratches and crud on your sensor). The 2X TC means that 650-1300mm lens is marketable as a 1300-2600mm lens! WOW! So much bigger than that junk you saw that professional carrying in that National Geographic documentary! Never mind the f/16 FIXED aperture that becomes f/32... For a bit more budget - say, the $800-$1200 range you might find a great deal on an older and possibly banged-up 300/2.8 or 400/4 depending on mount, brand, and model upgrades; Sigma seems to re-design their 70-200/2.8 every few years, I don't know if they've done anything similar with their 400mm-500mm-600mm primes but if somebody is on an upgrade path they might be willing to unload one for not too much money. Maybe. Or there are legacy pro-grade long primes, like the SMC-A-300/4 in Pentax K, that seem to go for about $500. I don't know why nobody seems to be making good (as opposed to "excellent") long primes these days, in new glass there seems to be only the two extremes of the market, cheap junk and top-end pro gear. Presumably the various camera companies figured that anybody serious about birds/wildife/stalking will eventually spring for the $5000+ pro gear and it's not worth the effort to build them a staircase of long lenses as an upgrade path. That, and the wide perception among photo newbies that zoom > prime, always. EDIT, because I'd rather type here than be productive: At the very long end there's not much to compare, but it seems like zooms are more expensive than primes at similar focal lengths. In Pentax (because I'm most familiar with them) there's the new HD-560mm/5.6 that seems to sell for about $7000. For the same money (and a lot of patience lurking on eBay and other places) you can get the no-longer-in-production FA* 250-600mm/5.6, a constant aperture zoom that lacks some of the features of the new lens (current-generation multicoating, weathersealing, ultrasonic-motor-driven AF, a few ergonomic considerations) and is only available used; when I compare two objects and one is new and the other is second-hand, I mentally add 50-100% to the second-hand item's price to estimate it as new - under that consideration, the used, 20-year-old zoom is a more expensive item than the new prime, reflecting increased complexity of design and construction. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
You can always play with the reflex telephoto primes. They're all fixed aperture, and usually only middle to bad quality, but they're cheap enough if you want to play with 500mm or so. Sony even makes an official one that can autofocus if you have an Alpha camera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:For most people, myself included, a macro lens with a longer working distance is prefered - if you don't have to get so close you don't spook the itty-bitty critters as much. But in this case, a wide-angle macro with a shorter working distance is what you want. Something like a 28mm macro will also be a relatively small and light lens, at least compared to something big and heavy in the 100mm neighbourhood. Something like this, only useder and cheaper?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Something like this, only useder and cheaper? The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the magnifying filter set - pick up a set in the filter diameter of your kit zoom lens and go hog wild! Seriously, you can generally get a +1/+2/+4 set for like $30.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:(aside: don't you love it when companies from metric-using countries try to squeeze into feet and pounds?) Yeah, I love trying to decipher these new concepts like focal lengths and aperture sizes by reading their units through a funhouse mirror. Real approachable. I like your $30 option better because it's $30  . If ever I make the move from curious hobbyist to "guy who actually knows how to take a good photo" then I can justify shoveling entire paycheques into the gear pit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
In the cheap-super-tele debate, note that the Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 (push/pull zoom, autofocus, reasonable build quality) is pretty respectable up to 400mm if you stop down even a tiny bit, and you can get them for $200-250 (or at least that's what I paid for mine).flakeloaf posted:Something like this, only useder and cheaper? If you're dead-set on a dedicated macro lens, the Nikon 40mm f/2.8 DX is cheaper than this and has a very, very low working distance (at 1:1 at least). Oddly, I haven't found this to be an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:In the cheap-super-tele debate, note that the Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 (push/pull zoom, autofocus, reasonable build quality) is pretty respectable up to 400mm if you stop down even a tiny bit, and you can get them for $200-250 (or at least that's what I paid for mine). Also, macro photography is fun. It's just fun, always. Everybody should have at least one macro lens to play with on days when you feel like getting up close and personal with anything, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
I used to have a Tamron 200-400mm. Not the greatest lens, but great for the money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:I have a stupid newbie question: Canon 400mm f/5.6 is $1,339 Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is $1,699 Both have been around for a long time so all R&D costs are long gone and both are of a similar quality. The zoom does have IS while the prime doesn't which will account for some of the difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Others have answered, but here's an example: Yeah, I guess it's a bit easier on the Canon side of the equation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
grack posted:You're partially right, and it's the reason why pro grade long zooms like a 70-200mm f2.8 are so expensive. And a stop or two makes a lens a hell of a lot bigger. I own a Nikkor 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom; it takes 62mm filters. It's about the same length and much smaller in diameter than the 70-200mm f/2.8 I had at the newspaper (77mm filter). The 300mm f/2.8 prime is approximately the size and shape (and, after you've humped it around all day, seems like the weight) of a small artillery piece, and has a drawer behind the aperture ring for filters, because the front element is too damned big to put a filter on -- near enough to five inches wide at the big end, at least 4.5" of that is glass. Elliotw2 posted:You can always play with the reflex telephoto primes. They're all fixed aperture, and usually only middle to bad quality, but they're cheap enough if you want to play with 500mm or so. Sony even makes an official one that can autofocus if you have an Alpha camera. That 75-300mm is part of why I'm a Nikon fanboy -- Canon changed the mount for digital; I was considering a new plastic-barreled Sigma 75-300, then got the lightly-used 20-year-old first-party lens with similar specs, better glass, and all-metal body for cheaper used on ebay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2014 09:35
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Just got married, there's a big pile of cash from gifts and we're heading off for a honeymoon in Ireland soon. We were talking about getting a camera rather than just using our cell phones, and I thought it might be my excuse to get a DSLR  I already have an ME Super, so I'm kind of tempted by the idea of getting a Pentax K-30 or K-50 and interchanging lenses, but by god there aren't a lot of Pentaxes on the store shelves to play with. The possibility of using cheap old lenses on both my film and digital camera is appealing, but I'm not dead-set on that. Should I try hunting up a store with Pentax cameras? Should I just say screw it, hit up Frys and buy a Canon? We're looking at the sub-$1000 range for body+lens, which was another attraction of Pentax (seems to be cheaper). Any recommendations? Anyone know a shop in the SF Bay Area that sells Pentax gear? (If you think I'm an idiot for loving around with a DSLR on our honeymoon, feel free to say so and possibly suggest a cheapish not-crap point and shoot  )
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Just got married, there's a big pile of cash from gifts and we're heading off for a honeymoon in Ireland soon. We were talking about getting a camera rather than just using our cell phones, and I thought it might be my excuse to get a DSLR You're not an idiot for loving around with a DSLR on your honeymoon, since you obviously already know how to use an SLR. It's not like you'll be learning photography on the go. However, using old manual focus lenses on a new DSLR via the viewfinder is a process of pain though (combine tiny APS-C viewfinder with no manual focus aids and 'bright' focus screens that don't show actual DOF below f/2.8 or so, and it's not so much fun) - doing it via live view is easy (although I don't know much about Pentax's live view implementations, someone else can chime in here) since you can magnify it and see your actual DOF, but that means shooting with the camera held out in front of your face at arms length. Plus you'll be asking lots of random people to take pictures of you and the wife guaranteed, so get an AF lens with it if you do this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
I started off with an ME Super and got a K-30 and I really love it. They can be had on KEH with the 18-55 WR lens for $450. The kit lens is pretty great, but since $450 is quite under the budget you set, you can spend some of that on some other lenses, if you wanted to. I do love having two control dials on the K-30. Trying out single-dial cameras, they just weren't my personal preference. The Pentax DSLRs are smaller than the Canon or Nikon DSLRs that I tried out in store, but I have fairly big hands and I don't have a problem using it comfortably. In fact, I kind of dislike huge, gigantic cameras. But again, that's my personal preference. If you're handling an ME Super comfortably, that's a tiny-rear end camera, so the smaller size of the Pentax DSLRs might not affect you at all. If you DO decide to go with Pentax, there are a lot of old lenses that will work with your camera, as you know. But if you want a more modern lens, it seems like there are fewer, and more expensive, options. In my experience of browsing, at least. For example, recent Tamron lenses aren't available in Pentax mount. Also, modern lenses won't quite work with the ME Super, if you were thinking of that. The pentaxforums lens reviews will be one of your most viewed pages. That's just my experience! I hope my observations help you a little bit
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Another Pentax-user here. In my opinion, Pentax has three features that I find very attractive: 1. Weathersealing. The K-500 doesn't have this, but pretty much every other Pentax from the last few years does. The K-30 has it as one of its major selling points, so I think I'm not the only one who likes the idea of using a camera in the rain. You need to pair the weathersealed body with a weathersealed lens to really take advantage of this, and I don't know of any older lenses (prior to the DA- series) that are weathersealed. Having said that, I've taken plenty of shots in rain, snow, mist, blowing sand, blowing debris with non-sealed lenses and I've never had any problems. 2. In-body image stabilization. Canon and Nikon put it in (some) lenses, Pentax and Sony put it in the bodies. This helps, again, with the old glass because that cheap old lens gets to benefit from some modern image-stabilizating tech. There are trade-offs here, but overall I like this feature even if I don't really notice a big improvement in my shots. 3. Massive backwards compatibility. As you know, any current Pentax DSLR can mount lenses going back to the introduction of the K-mount (1975) without any modifications to either lens or camera, and back a few more decades with a simple screw-mount adaptor for M42 lenses. The downsides to Pentax, if you think of it from a I'm-sticking-with-this-brand-now perspective (which, as an aside, is dumb - can anybody accurately predict their personal situation 5 years from now when you might want to jump to some new and awesome thing?), are: 1. A somewhat limited availability of the newest lenses from the third-party manufacturers (chiefly Sigma and Tamron). Those companies produce their lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts first, then look at Pentax / Sony / Olympus. Sometimes a particular Sigma or Tamron lens won't be available in K-mount. 2. No current "full-frame" option (i.e., the sensor is the same size as a frame of 35mm film, 24x36mm) and the only suggestion of a future FF option from Pentax has been layers of rumours. FF vs. APS-C is a debate that pops up from time to time around the Dorkroom. 3. Sneering backhanded damning-with-faint-praise insults from the CaNikon faithful. But that's not really a big deal. For $1000 you can get yourself set up with a really nice Pentax DSLR kit - something like a K-5II (or IIs - same camera, slightly different set of filters over the sensor) with a couple of good lenses. From a bit of poking around, it looks like a K-50 with the two-lens kit (18-55 / 50-200) can be had with room to spare for any accessories you might want. And yeah, spend some time on the reviews on PentaxForums.com, despite some of the whining and weirdness they're generally useful, especially the in-depth reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:For $1000 you can get yourself set up with a really nice Pentax DSLR kit - something like a K-5II (or IIs - same camera, slightly different set of filters over the sensor) with a couple of good lenses. From a bit of poking around, it looks like a K-50 with the two-lens kit (18-55 / 50-200) can be had with room to spare for any accessories you might want. Yeah, Costco has that 2-lens kit (plus bag, plus SD card) for $700, but since we're leaving on Friday I'm just not sure it could get here on time. Maybe I should call the Costco stores in the area and see if anyone has it... Edit: Oh snap, found a store that has one, here's what I'm talking about http://www.costco.com/.product.900450.html, thinking about driving over tonight. Pham Nuwen fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Cool. Worth at least a look, I'd say. I haven't been inside a Costco in years, do they let you get hands-on with any cameras? That bag is nothing special, and the memory card is middle-of-the-road. If the image file size from a K-50 is similar to that from my K-5, you can expect to fit around 500 pictures on that card if you shoot RAW; the highest-quality JPEG output will be around 1/4 the file size so you might get 2000. But you can shoot video on that camera, too, which obviously eats up memory space depending on the length of the videos. In any case, you can pick up another memory card pretty much anywhere. Get a more-interesting colour than black, because you can.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Cool. Worth at least a look, I'd say. I haven't been inside a Costco in years, do they let you get hands-on with any cameras? Yeah, I was at the local store yesterday and got hands on with some Canon cameras, hopefully this other one has the Pentax out for playing with
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Cool. Worth at least a look, I'd say. I haven't been inside a Costco in years, do they let you get hands-on with any cameras?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Sort of. They're attached to the counter by a short tether, but you should be able to get a decent feel for the ergonomics. The main benefit to Costco is their extension of the manufacturer's warranty by one year, and turning it into an in-store replacement warranty. Costco hosed me over, I drove an hour and then found out their inventory system has shown 2 cameras that were recently returned... None actually in stock. I ended up finding the same body+lenses kit on Amazon, added what looked like a decent Pentax bag and a 32 GB card, for a total of about $715 shipped next-day. Should be here tomorrow. I ordered a red one
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:
It doesnt make it go faster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
I guess that's one way to protect your gear from being stolen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Musket posted:It doesnt make it go faster. screw you I love my red D3200 and I'm really, really hoping the D7200 will be available in red. :P
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:screw you I love my red D3200 and I'm really, really hoping the D7200 will be available in red. :P Really? I had to get mine in red because black was out of stock. Some days I wonder if people see me more as a tourist than an amateur photographer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Medieval Medic posted:Really? I had to get mine in red because black was out of stock. Some days I wonder if people see me more as a tourist than an amateur photographer. I don't really care what people see me as and I like red.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Medieval Medic posted:Really? I had to get mine in red because black was out of stock. Some days I wonder if people see me more as a tourist than an amateur photographer. That isn't really a bad thing. Looking like a serious photographer can be off-putting to some people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
I think the red looks pretty loving decent when it's not shown in the Amazon product image white backdrop: (some random picture I googled up) Plus my wife likes the color.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Looks like Pentax really went with candy-apple red. Nikon's red color is more of a dark metallic. I like 'em both.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Costco hosed me over, I drove an hour and then found out their inventory system has shown 2 cameras that were recently returned... None actually in stock. Awesome - about the Amazon Red Goodness, not the Costco-sucks part. Musket posted:It doesnt make it go faster. RangerScum posted:I guess that's one way to protect your gear from being stolen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:And ANYTHING is better than matte black for any object you can put down on the ground outdoors and instantly lose. I was wavering, but this is essentially what tipped me over to red: no more "WHERE THE gently caress IS MY CAMERA" situations, because it's going to be the most visible thing in my house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:This is why I'm a big fan of the colour pink. All of my most steal-able stuff would be various shades of pink if I could have my way. Nobody ever steals the pink lab cart, the pink labelling tape, the pink-ribbon-tied-on tools and instruments and books and wires and on and on and on. Pink is the anti-theft. Red just looks good. And ANYTHING is better than matte black for any object you can put down on the ground outdoors and instantly lose. Sadly stoners have been using the pink lighter trick since time immemorial, and it doesn't really work anymore, people still steal them. Just very slightly less. Now "lighters with pictures of buff dudes without shirts" is the new way to not get your lighter stolen (by dudes who aren't into that, at least). Not so much an option for cameras I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Now "lighters with pictures of buff dudes without shirts" is the new way to not get your lighter stolen (by dudes who aren't into that, at least). Not so much an option for cameras I guess. And stoners will steal anything, so there's not much point worrying about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:And stoners will steal anything, so there's not much point worrying about that. Only if it's edible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Oddly, I have a K-30 and I'm shopping for a ME. The only advice I have is get the 18-135', not the 55/200. Supposed to be a way better lens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
I love my red K-50 and collection of decades-old k-mount primes. Only complaint is that it is quite bad for video due to whatever phenomenon causes moving objects to look like wobbly jello.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:17
|
|
