|
Huxley posted:I shoot mostly a 40D and occasionally an original film Rebel. I have the 50 and the 85, and they're both great on the Rebel, but the 50 is cramped on the 40D, to the point that I never shoot the lens. the pancake 40 2.8 is EF, friend. It's also leagues better than the other two Canon lenses you listed. I think some of the third-party EF-S lenses do work with EF mounts, but with massive vignetting circles because they're designed to fit on EF but take advantage of APS-C image circles. also caberham it's almost like you're in Hong Kong or something. Obsessed with price-tags more so than actual ability? I'm shocked!!
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
I don't think the 40 pancake is better than the new 35 IS. Cheaper, sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
harperdc posted:the pancake 40 2.8 is EF, friend. It's also leagues better than the other two Canon lenses you listed. I think some of the third-party EF-S lenses do work with EF mounts, but with massive vignetting circles because they're designed to fit on EF but take advantage of APS-C image circles. The third-party lenses are all just EF, not the S that keeps them from mounting. My Tamron 17-50 goes on the film body just fine (and obviously vignettes like hell). Thanks for the help guys. Basically, I did some side work this summer that I want to spend on improving my setup, because it might be several years before I can spend three digits on camera stuff again. Just trying to sort out the best way to do it, between upgrading/expanding my lenses vs upgrading my body.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I don't think the 40 pancake is better than the new 35 IS. Cheaper, sure. Yeah. It's smaller and cheaper, but it's a stop slower, doesn't have IS, the AF is kinda slow and noisy. Optics are comparable though (very good) , and it is tiny. It's just a shame it's too long to be my "one lens only" day lens - that's what I keep my 28/1.8 around for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
yeah you want to get a zoom that's more wide than 40mm. The 40mm is great for it's size and good optics. Most people recommend the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 without vibration control. It can be had for 300-500 dollars. It's kind of heavy but it does the job. Only for EF-S mount as on full frame it has vignetting/framing issues. Hear the wide angle primes are pretty great as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
See if you can track down a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4. Decent aperture, works on full frame, should be under $300 used if you can find one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
I have a t3i, and I'm looking for a wide lens for things like sky time lapses where I'd like to cover a wide area in one picture. I have a lens that goes down to 18mm, is a 8mm too wide for what I want to do? Any specific lens recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
You'll start to get a fish eye effect if you go to low.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Soulex posted:You'll start to get a fish eye effect if you go to low. At what point is that not noticeable? My 18mm doesn't look bad, but I know there's a point where there's too much distortion
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:I have a t3i, and I'm looking for a wide lens for things like sky time lapses where I'd like to cover a wide area in one picture. I have a lens that goes down to 18mm, is a 8mm too wide for what I want to do? Any specific lens recommendations? People seem to like the new EFS 10-18. But it hasn't been out very long, so you'll likely have to buy it new ($300).
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:At what point is that not noticeable? My 18mm doesn't look bad, but I know there's a point where there's too much distortion I don't know what it looks like when you go that low since I don't have a super wide angle lens, but past 17mm downwards, each mm exponentially widens with fov angle. So super drastic change from 10-15mm compared to 35-40mm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:At what point is that not noticeable? My 18mm doesn't look bad, but I know there's a point where there's too much distortion You won't get fisheye distortion from a rectilinear wideangle lens - fisheye distortion is a special characteristic of fisheye lenses, and is not about focal length. There are rectilinear 10mm lenses, and fisheye 10mm lenses. (Note; this is about fisheye effect specifically, not normal barrel distortion)
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
This is 8mm (Sigma 8-16) atv_startrail 062 on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:This is 8mm (Sigma 8-16) Looks exactly like what I want to do, hopefully I can find one for less than the $650 Amazon is asking
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
dakana posted:See if you can track down a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4. Decent aperture, works on full frame, should be under $300 used if you can find one. I got a Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 for Nikon on KEH for $130. It's pretty good for the price. I'm sure the Tamron one is similarly usable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:Looks exactly like what I want to do, hopefully I can find one for less than the $650 Amazon is asking I'd recommend the EF-S 10-18 for $300 new. The reviews look good thus far for the price.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Wuld love to use a 50mm 1.2 outdoors for even more outrageous bokeh but no way in hell without an ND filter and blacking out the viewfinder...or is a polarizer enough to keep from pinging off the 1/8000 sec shutter? I use an ND4 filter on mine and shoot it wide open during the day with no issues. It doesn't really black out the view finder as bad as you think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:Looks exactly like what I want to do, hopefully I can find one for less than the $650 Amazon is asking There's at least one in the buy/sell thread right now . It's a totally fun lens, but if you want to use filters it might not be your first choice. The front element sticks way out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:There's at least one in the buy/sell thread right now . That's temping. What would I lose in terms of functionality compared to an official lens? Drunk Badger fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Official lens? Off brand lenses can perform just as well if not better than some canon lenses. My tamron 17-50 almost never leaves my camera. The tamron 70-300 is miles better than the canon 70-300 III. Really, its a name people are familiar with so it gets marked up I think. Its the difference between buying Alienware and a HP. Both can do the same thing but its a name attached to one. Also like "mac only External HDs". Thats bullshit. I know a few people who paid more for that then a normal one without realizing that you can format the hardrive to work on a mac without paying extra.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
Sometimes there is a difference - Canon's USM in general tends to behave faster/better than Tamron's or Sigma's, for example. (but Tamron/Sigma still have USM)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Someone made the point about the Canon sensors being produced inhouse and as a result the production methods not being as flexible and state-of-the-art compared to Sony's who produces sensors for Nikon and a lot of other applications. It's got me thinking.. that's pretty significant. I want to do a fairly huge upgrade and really don't have enough stuff to stop me switching from Canon to Nikon.. I know my Nikon friends talk about it coming out of the camera with better colour. Do people with a ton of Canon kit have Nikon envy? Are they really the same with slight pluses and minuses and you can take either system without missing out significantly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Huxley posted:People seem to like the new EFS 10-18. But it hasn't been out very long, so you'll likely have to buy it new ($300). I got one, and I'm enjoying it so far. Haven't had a chance to do a big shot of star trails yet, so I can't comment on the ability to do that. I've been having more fun sticking it in cramped spaces. Keep in mind, none of these have been corrected for distortion because LR doesn't have a profile for this lens yet.  Lave Tube by A.D.Gibson, on Flickr  adgibson-20140610-IMG_7869 by A.D.Gibson, on Flickr Tony Montana posted:Do people with a ton of Canon kit have Nikon envy? Are they really the same with slight pluses and minuses and you can take either system without missing out significantly? Pretty much the slight pluses and minuses part. And it isn't just Canon vs Nikon. Pop into the mirrorless thread, and see people going off on Fuji's X-trans sensor. Or really niche stuff like Sony's a7S, which has a full frame sensor but a low resolution, and is insanely good in low light. Sony probably isn't going to sell it to Nikon, and they'll be keeping the low light crown to them selves with that. Besides, everyone tends to leap frog each other at some point. The leader begins to rest on their laurels and count their money, and the competition finally releases the next generation technology. Also, it isn't all about the sensor. If it was, why would anyone buy Nikon when they could just get a Sony sensor in a Sony camera? I mean, Sony must know how to package their sensor into a camera better than any one else, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:Sony probably isn't going to sell it to Nikon, and they'll be keeping the low light crown to them selves with that. Sony will sell whatever Nikon cares to buy, because their (awesome) niche low light sensor doesn't even have close to the demand to keep a fab operating 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
Let's not forget that the 70D has a legitimately cool sensor in it that nobody else does. (every pixel in the sensor is a phase detect AF point and is pretty quick at it too) Too bad Canon is too stupid to put it in a mirrorless camera. Nope. It'd work too well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
The one thing I'm super jealous of is the nicer inexpensive 35 and 50 1.8s that Nikon have, and the 40 pancake only fills that gap so well (I absolutely love this lens but still). Other than that, I just have shooter envy -- I want to learn from friends and famous pros to improve my technique.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:Also, it isn't all about the sensor. If it was, why would anyone buy Nikon when they could just get a Sony sensor in a Sony camera? I mean, Sony must know how to package their sensor into a camera better than any one else, right? Sony sensors in Sony cameras is a tricky thing. Since their cameras have EVFs, the sensors running a lot and getting warm, subsequently your images are subject to thermal noise. --edit: I mean, I'm praying to the spaghetti monster that by next summer something materializes out of all these patents that have gone public. Among these are RGB sensors, on-sensor amplifiers (like Sony does and reduces noise a lot), hybrid viewfinders (with OVF-, EVF- and hybrid modes), and there was even a patent for a fixed mirror with electronically controlled translucency. Imagine the beast of a camera with all that poo poo. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:That's temping. What would I lose in terms of functionality compared to an official lens? I'll rephrase my question - I thought I read somewhere that some third party lenses weren't comparable or were missing a chip that did things like autofocus or report the lens settings you used for a picture. Being somewhat new to DSLRs I may be misinformed about it all, and you guys have actually used these things
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:I'll rephrase my question - I thought I read somewhere that some third party lenses weren't comparable or were missing a chip that did things like autofocus or report the lens settings you used for a picture. Being somewhat new to DSLRs I may be misinformed about it all, and you guys have actually used these things The only thing weird I've noticed using the Tarmon 17-50 on my 40D vs using Canon lenses is, when processing the RAW file you have to manually select the lens profile to fix the distortion (vs Canon automatically selecting it). Likewise on Flickr, the lens info just says "17-50" as opposed to the more detailed info from the Canon lenses. There are some third party lenses that fit the EF mount but do not autofocus, but they are specifically created to do so. They're basically old manual focus lenses with the mount updated. They're the Rokinon/etc. lenses that are a good bit less than you'd expect an AF lens to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Sony will sell whatever Nikon cares to buy, because their (awesome) niche low light sensor doesn't even have close to the demand to keep a fab operating 24/7. Any other company, and I would agree with you. But Sony has earned its reputation for loving this sort of thing up. There have been plenty of other technologies that they road right into niche or otherwise let wither on the vine. Combat Pretzel posted:--edit: Well, with Sony's new CEO, announcements of cutting loose some divisions, layoffs in other, they may soon end up sitting back and just trying to cash in as much as possible on what they have developed. And Canon may finally get that backlog of patents into a product and out the door. Or, in a few years we may all be suffering from Fuji envy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
I have a canon 60D with the kit 18-135mm lens and I have the nifty 50 1.8 as well. I have an old, somewhat rickety tripod and a couple rocketfish filters, which I believe do more harm than good (UV and polarizing). I also have case, remote shutter release, cleaning gear, etc. While I really want better glass, its probably out of my price range right now. What would be the best purchases I could make to add to my kit if I wanted to spend $100? $200? $500? I shoot pretty much everything. I do some candid stuff of the kids at family gatherings, try to do some wildlife photography, but the kit lens doesn't have great reach for that. I took a trip to philly and did some building/statue/still stuff. I'm all over the map. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Sell both and get a Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
If you want to experiment more with wildlife/birds/etc I've been very pleased with the 70-300 IS USM. It's around $300-350 used, and is great for wildlife you can get relatively close to. I've tried a lot of the "budget" glass on my 40D, and the Tamron 17-50 and 70-300 (NOT the 75-300) are the two lenses I have that I would call most indispensable for my uses (kids and birds, mostly). Some people here prefer the Tamron version of the 70-300, but I've only ever shot the Canon one. I'm kind of in the same boat as you right now, with some extra to spend on upgrades before my 2nd kid arrives and money shuts down for a long while. I've been back and forth and all the way around (7D! 28/1.8! a film scanner! turn my nifty into the 1.4!) and still can't settle on what would be most fun and useful. Good luck!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
I've used both the Tamron and the canon 70-300 and the Tamron is way better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
When using manual focus, do the EOS cameras still use the AF points to change the weighting in evaluative metering, or does that only work in active autofocus mode?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
I thought the metering system wasn't coupled to the AF system? For instance, spot metering uses the approximate area of the center point but that doesn't mean its "tied" to that AF point...
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:I thought the metering system wasn't coupled to the AF system? For instance, spot metering uses the approximate area of the center point but that doesn't mean its "tied" to that AF point... I know on my 1dmk3 there is a custom function to make the spot meter follow the focus point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Soulex posted:Sell both and get a Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC Do this and then go get that Tamron 70-300 too and you'll be set. Then think about the pancake 40 because it's soooooo awesome :3 I went to a big camera store today and hefted a Tamzooka around. It is...definitely enormous. No other way to say it. It's also hilarious seeing how many zoom markers you fly past (150...200...300...400...500!...600?!?!).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
harperdc posted:Tamzooka what in the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
I have said Tamzooka. It owns. Only small complaint is the rubbery bit at the very front - its sorta grabby and the front lens cap sticks to it in a way I'm not used to. And 95mm filters are 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 13:44
|
|