|
Yeah I got the 17-50 2.8 VC a few years ago to replace my lovely 18-55 3.5-5.6 kit lens and I basically haven't felt the need to look for any other zoom lens since. It just handles everything in that range so well. I'm sure there's L glass that beats it out but not anything that I can afford.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:With the STM you don't have to switch it to manual focus to turn the focus ring. The camera just has to be on and awake. There is something to be said for a mechanically linked focus ring. As dinky, cheap and flimsy as the focus ring is on the 50 1/8, it is really fast and predictable to manually adjust focus. The cheapness actually feels more "malliable" than more expensive FTM focus rings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
The Tamron 17-50 VC is simply not as sharp as its older brother, it's also not as cheap. That's why the older model gets recommended.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Unibrow posted:A question from a few days ago, but I thought it would be worthy of a quick effortpost for the newbies lurking the thread. Thanks, that's pretty helpful. I'll probably go ahead and get a new flash at some point, although I don't mind doing manual fiddling occasionally...
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
My question for the VC lens was on the 70-300 just for reference. I do have another fairly newbie question. Eventually, I want to make the investment in a good circular polarizing filter for my lens(es). Is there a specific brand that is recommended? Until I can afford a good one, should I get a rocketfish one? Or should I bother having a filter on the lens at all? I kind of feel like I should at least have a UV filter on the lens to offer some kind of protection for the glass. Any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Phummus posted:I kind of feel like I should at least have a UV filter on the lens to offer some kind of protection for the glass. Any thoughts? There are a lot of thoughts on this topic from the various posters. The majority here say no to a UV filter (degrades quality and doesn't offer protection), with the minority saying yes (worth it for the protection)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Stick it on when travelling, take it off when shooting. One of my friends managed to save her front element from being destroyed by having a UV filter on when she was on a plane. They're cheap as poo poo anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Isn't that what lens caps are for?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
I'm totally going to invent the COMPLETELY CLEAR PIECE OF GLASS front element protector. And sell a billion of them at $50 a pop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Isn't that what lens caps are for? Yeah I was wondering that too. I don't know poo poo about filters though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Unless you are shooting in a sand storm you will not need a UV filter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
uv filters are great if you like adding flare to your photos. they don't even do a very good job of protecting. Regular lenses are already strong as gently caress. See soundmonkey's test where he smacked a lens with a tree branch. Lenses are stronger than you think. Don't buy a uv filter. They're like buying a bestbuy warranty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Phummus posted:My question for the VC lens was on the 70-300 just for reference. Regardless of what you can afford, get a Marumi super DHG. It's 99% percent as good as the "money no object" options. Don't use a UV filter. If you need a filter for weather sealing,, but a clear one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Lens hood is a good alternative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
I use a UV filter on half my lenses. One on my 24-105L for weather sealing and one on my Sig50A because I would really, really hate it for something to happen to it even with the lens hood. I also like being able to just forgo using a lens cap so I can just pull the camera out of my bag and start shooting and just as easily pack it away without having to re-attach anything. That being said, I don't put a filter on my 40/85 because the former is my compact lens and the latter is more of a special use lens which I don't have glued to my camera like my 50. The Tamron 70-300mm VC is probably the best in class for Nikon (from what I've heard) but if you are on Canon crop with no intentions of moving FF, the EF-s 55-250 STM is probably the best for that price point/focal length.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
I need advice for getting a telephoto lens for an upcoming trip to Alaska (leave in ~10 days). I currently have a 6D and 60D, and a 70-300L. I ordered the Tamron 150-600 a couple months ago but it's not likely to get here before I leave. I'll be gone for 3 weeks, which makes rental of even a relatively cheap lens close to $200. I'm thinking about either getting the 400/5.6 L or one of the Sigma super-zooms (50-500 or 150-500), and leaning towards the Canon. Not sure whether I'd cancel the Tamron or wait until it comes in then sell one of the two. If I were to put the 400 on the 6D, I'd have 400mm, I'd have more or less what I'd have with the 70-300 on the crop body. If I put the 400 on the 60D, I'd have >500mm equivalent, but I'd not have the high-ISO performance and would not be able to achieve as high shutter speeds which sound important for hand-holding the non-IS 400. There may be some bright sunny days, but this will be mostly above the arctic circle close with lots of gray skies and shortening days. I keep going around in circles about whether I'll need an IS/OS lens, and how important the weather sealing will be since a rain suit is first on all the gear lists I've gotten. Would the 400L be a mistake in any way?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I need advice for getting a telephoto lens for an upcoming trip to Alaska (leave in ~10 days). I currently have a 6D and 60D, and a 70-300L. I ordered the Tamron 150-600 a couple months ago but it's not likely to get here before I leave. I'll be gone for 3 weeks, which makes rental of even a relatively cheap lens close to $200. It depends on what you're expecting to shoot, but IS doesn't save you from all kinds of blurring issues, especially when it's getting darker. I've used the 400/5.6L extensively over the last few weeks, and it shines at 1/800 or faster on the 6D (where IS doesn't really matter); I find the extra range I get with my 550D is countered by the worse AF and ISO perfomance - I'd often rather crop the image extra rather than using the 550D. I haven't tried the 70-300L, but I tested Sigma 150-500, and the 400L focuses faster, and is sharper (of course it's also double the price). That being said, the 150-500 was more than sharp enough (especially at 300-400mm), and is more versatile.  Grey heron by lejordet, on Flickr the log shown is the in the middle of this cellphone picture (may have to click to see full version)  (Nexus 5, close to 40mm equivalent I believe) dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
dorkanoid posted:It depends on what you're expecting to shoot, but IS doesn't save you from all kinds of blurring issues, especially when it's getting darker. Thanks for the input. I ended up jumping the gun and getting the 400 last night.  The 70-300L is amazing for af/is/iq, but barely long enough on a crop for wildlife so the added reach will be nice. The 70-300 may still be my carry-around-while-working lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Thanks for the input. I ended up jumping the gun and getting the 400 last night. I have a huge "hole" in my setup between 105mm and 400mm, and I'm considering the 70-200 4L IS, but not sure. I think I'll have a look at the 70-300L too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
dorkanoid posted:I have a huge "hole" in my setup between 105mm and 400mm, and I'm considering the 70-200 4L IS, but not sure. I think I'll have a look at the 70-300L too. One thing to keep in mind is that it can only take certain off-brand TCs. Otherwise, if you don't need the extra stop it's pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Thanks for the input. I ended up jumping the gun and getting the 400 last night. You're gonna love it. Its a great lens. Hopefully you kept your order for the Tammy, too. You'll be able to sell either one easily, probably at no loss, once you figure out which works better for you. I've seen the Tammy going for $1500 on eBay recently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
I actually got my Tamzooka at a local camera shop so always look around. Paid $1170 for it including taxes (marked at $1100). It was either that or go that ebay route (at least $1200 and from Japan) or order online and wait some untold number of months.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Ok. For sports (soccer). Tamzooka or Sigma 120-300 2.8?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Soulex posted:Ok. For sports (soccer). Tamzooka or Sigma 120-300 2.8? I am not a sports shooter, but from everything I've heard, 2.8 is the way to go for sports.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Though do bear in mind you can get a 5D3 AND a Tamzooka for the price of the Sigma 120-300 2.8 ART 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Between those two choices I'd take the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 fo sho. You want that wide aperture for subject isolation and night games. You probably don't need the newest SPORT version and could save a bunch of money getting one of the older versions used if you can find one. There's a couple on ebay now, a non-OS for $1300 and a non-SPORT OS for $2450.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
You want aperture much more than reach. Unless you're shooting from pro locations right on the edge of the field on fields that are incredibly well lit, a faster lens will help you make shots you otherwise wouldn't get once it gets dark. Also for indoor gyms, too. I'd also recommend finding what shots or angles work best with that focal length instead of regretting what you can't get from your lens, too. Work to strengths.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
theloafingone posted:I use a UV filter on half my lenses. One on my 24-105L for weather sealing and one on my Sig50A because I would really, really hate it for something to happen to it even with the lens hood. Short of stabbing your lens with a screwdriver, nothing is going to hurt it without a UV filter. Dust, smears, spray, mud, snow, etc -- it all is easily cleaned off and the glass is pristine. I sometimes have caps on, sometimes don't. I always have hoods on, though, and that does more good than anything else. And the things that would hurt it are just going to go through your UV filter anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
And really you should use a clear filter if you don't need UV filtered out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this is the place to ask this, so please redirect me if necessary. I have a 40D. At the end of the year, I'm taking it to the snow/sub-zero temperatures for the first time. I've never tried to use any camera in below-freezing weather, so this is a totally new experience for me. What do I need to know ? e: more specifically: How do I keep the lens from fogging up ? (I had this issue in 5C weather last year) Do I have to worry about condensation, etc. getting into various nooks and crannies ? Is there any danger of moving parts freezing completely ? And anything else that an Australian who has never spent an extended period in cold weather wouldn't even think to ask about ? Lady Disdain fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Put it in a ziploc when you come back inside. That's all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Yeah, or just warm it up gradually. I used to baby my 60D when I took it out in the snow, but I stopped caring and it gets tons of condensation when I bring it inside. I just let it dry for a day or so before I turn it on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Well that's simple enough. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
I'm looking for a starter flash to pair with my t3i kit and 50 1.4 and maybe as a fill with a telephoto if a flash has that kind of reach (I see people with bigmas and flashes taking pictures of nesting birds in harsh sunlight?). I had settled on getting an affordable Yongnuo but I'm having trouble choosing between the 560-III, the 565-II, and the 568 II. I almost always shoot on full manual, and know nothing about ettl etc. - does anyone know what the best fit would be?
MixMasterMalaria fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Istari posted:Well that's simple enough. Thanks. The battery is also going to go to poo poo really fast. Remember, it's not unmanly to stuff batteries down your pants to keep them warm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:The battery is also going to go to poo poo really fast. Remember, it's not unmanly to stuff batteries down your pants to keep them warm. Oh. My ski holiday is suddenly starting to look rather exciting. Thanks for the advice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
I was all for UV filters because I was paranoid as poo poo with my glass, now mine is somehow sitting on A slight angle on my 24-70 and I can't get it off 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
If thats crossed the plastic thread on the end of the lens, that's not great. If you can some how gently get it off and then screw it on straight and off again a few times, the little plastic ridges in the thread might get pushed back to where they should be.. but if it's on there real tight then you've probably done some damage. Didn't you feel it when you were screwing it on wonky?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Now that the title of the gear thread says to hail Satan instead of not to buy a UV filter, look what happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Now that the title of the gear thread says to hail Satan instead of not to buy a UV filter, look what happens. Would it be more appropriate to post my flash question there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:41
|
|