|
I'm currently borrowing the new Sigma 150-600. It is a monster.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
azathosk posted:I'm currently borrowing the new Sigma 150-600. It is a monster. It looks orgasmic for wildlife. Though the Sport version is double the weight of the bigma, which is already a challenge for extended periods of time... Quick question, the 150-600 is a full frame lens. But this would still work on an APS-C like the d7000 right? From a quick online search it seems so, with no real issues, but maybe someone can better confirm that here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
It'd work on APS-C, and you would crop even tighter than on FX (900mm equiv at the long end, which is loving *long*).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It'd work on APS-C, and you would crop even tighter than on FX (900mm equiv at the long end, which is loving *long*). I once rented a 2x teleconverter for a big football game that I knew would be crowded, limiting my ability to move around. I stuck it on a 300 2.8 on a D300, ending up with a 600 5.6 x 1.5 = 900 5.6. It was awesome. I could sit in the end zone like it wasn't no thang and shoot kickoff returns and beginning drives (great stuff when they ran it in the middle especially) and then could pop it off and shoot at the 450 equivalent, having a 70-200 on another body as they got even closer. Auto focus was acceptable in the bright sunlight. Image quality was fine, especially for newsprint and web sizes. The one problem though was that our such a long distance, heat waves coming up from the turf at times would distort the photo so badly it was unusable, or else make the background look utterly bizarre. I did not think of that, but it ruined a fair few photos. Edit: an example 
dakana fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
dakana posted:Edit: an example
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
If I understand correctly, doesn't using a teleconverter cause you to lose aperture? As in, a 2x teleconverter on a f/5.6 would make it an f/11? And if you wanna use full frame terms, with a crop sensor and a 2x teleconverter, you would have a 900mm f/18 lens (x1.5 then lose two stops?) I'm not trying to nitpick terms, I'm legitimately asking as I've just read up on this stuff. I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Edit: Hurrr, looks like I'm the one who's confused. See below for correct answers. Or even the link that I posted myself. More reading: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2009/01/teleconverters-101 powderific fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
powderific posted:You're confused on how much. 2x teleconverter loses 2 stops, so 5.6 become 8. And the crop sensor doesn't work like that—it might be noisier than an equivalent full frame sensor but it's not the same kind of calculation. 5.6 to 8 is 1 stop. f/11 is 2 stops - 2X on an f/5.6 lens results in f/11 max aperture
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
In the site you linked, they're saying a 1.4x tc would make a f/5.6 into an f/8. But a 1.4x only makes it one stop slower. Also some Tony Northrup video seemed to explain the crop-aperture thing in a way that makes sense to me (even if I don't quite like him.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
As mentioned in that link, it's strongly advised to not break f/8 or else you're stuck manual focusing. Crop sensor doesn't effect the aperture meaningfully though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:In the site you linked, they're saying a 1.4x tc would make a f/5.6 into an f/8. But a 1.4x only makes it one stop slower. f/5.6 to f/8 is 1 stop - full stops go 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22 The other stuff is equivalence debate. The focal length and aperture of the lens are the same regardless of which format it's mounted on - equivalence is just how people compare behavior (angle of view and depth of field) on different formats. A 50mm f/1.8 lens is a 50mm f/1.8 lens regardless of what the sensor size is, because those are physical properties of the lens itself. When you're calculating exposure, it's still an f/1.8 lens
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:If I understand correctly, doesn't using a teleconverter cause you to lose aperture? As in, a 2x teleconverter on a f/5.6 would make it an f/11? And if you wanna use full frame terms, with a crop sensor and a 2x teleconverter, you would have a 900mm f/18 lens (x1.5 then lose two stops?) I'm not trying to nitpick terms, I'm legitimately asking as I've just read up on this stuff. I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:f/5.6 to f/8 is 1 stop - full stops go I know that 5.6 to 8 is one stop. I'm saying that a 2x teleconverter slows the lens down by 2 stops equivalency. I know that the properties of a lens don't care what camera you put it on. I'm talking about equivalency in all my posts. Sorry if I didn't make it apparent. It started with Dakana saying he/she was using the equivalent of a 900mm f/5.6 lens. Like you said, the numbers on the lens don't magically change when you put it on a crop body, but it does behave differently. And I want to know how they behave differently. I think I should know something like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
It doesn't behave differently, you only record a smaller part of the projected image circle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:I know that 5.6 to 8 is one stop. I'm saying that a 2x teleconverter slows the lens down by 2 stops equivalency. Yeah - 2x converters take 2 stops away. So f/5.6 becomes f/11 Mainly they behave differently (or more accurately, you perceive them differently? that might be a better way to put it) in angle of view & depth of field. What Tony Northrup is talking about in his video there is taking it another step farther, because he says that since ISO 250 or whatever on a 135 format sensor, looks the same as ISO 100 on an APS-C sensor (noise wise) , that it affects exposure also. Which then you can argue for by saying it's a valid observation about comparing lenses between formats, or against by saying it's purely a function of the sensor itself and the lens wouldn't even have to be attached for the cleanliness to be different at the same ISO. (Whereas you actually need the lens to talk about the AOV & DOF it offers)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Somehow I confused myself, wrote what the site I linked myself said wrong, and forgot how stops work. Oh well. That's what I get for trying to post during meetings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Yeah - 2x converters take 2 stops away. So f/5.6 becomes f/11 Its helpful to keep in mind that f numbers are ratios of (focal length)/(objective diameter). So the 300mm f2.8 has ~107mm opening and when you add a 2x TC you are changing the focal length to 600mm while the objective diameter remains the same so 600mm/107mm = f/5.6 A 400 f5.6 has a ~71.4mm opening; add a 2x TC and it goes to 800mm/71.4mm = f/11. I realize that you, timrenzi, probably already know this but I wanted to throw it out there for other people reading because I think its neat how it works out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Also as a general pro tip that I'm sure everyone already knows, the next stop is 1.414 * the current stop. Well technically it's the square root of 2 but gently caress getting out a calculator.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Also as a general pro tip that I'm sure everyone already knows, the next stop is 1.414 * the current stop. Well technically it's the square root of 2 but gently caress getting out a calculator. i just twiddle an imaginary dial to the next stop like a Chinese kid using an imaginary abacus
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Also as a general pro tip that I'm sure everyone already knows, the next stop is 1.414 * the current stop. Well technically it's the square root of 2 but gently caress getting out a calculator. Eh, just remember 1 and 1.4 and double those numbers repeatedly to get all the rest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Shellman posted:Eh, just remember 1 and 1.4 and double those numbers repeatedly to get all the rest. I prefer this one as well 2 stops = double the f-number
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
Mango Polo posted:It looks orgasmic for wildlife. Though the Sport version is double the weight of the bigma, which is already a challenge for extended periods of time... It's big and heavy. The Bigma is nothing compared to it. I used it handheld at a hockey match and it was suprisingly easy, but I recommend a monopod.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
azathosk posted:It's big and heavy. The Bigma is nothing compared to it. I used it handheld at a hockey match and it was suprisingly easy, but I recommend a monopod. Weight is why I'm keeping an eye still on the Tamron 150-600, which compares well in performance. Though the Nikon mount is out of stock everywhere so I can't even try it out. I already lost a (cheap) lens due to bad weather, so the Sport's weather sealing is a huge plus. I tend to drag my camera through snow, dust, rain and humidity quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Mango Polo posted:Weight is why I'm keeping an eye still on the Tamron 150-600, which compares well in performance. Though the Nikon mount is out of stock everywhere so I can't even try it out. I don't have any experience of the sigma, but the Tamron is very nice. Works a treat on my d5100, though it looks hilarious mounted on such a small camera. I'd definitely recommend a monopod- I was lugging it around all day and halfway through switched to the 'pod- it made a world of difference. I was shooting in pouring rain, in a thunderstorm without problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Ostensibly Sony's going to announce the A7II very soon, with 5-axis image stabilization on the sensor. God, that makes feature envy even worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
In fact, here it is: http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/20/sonys-alpha-7-ii-full-frame-mirrorless/
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:In fact, here it is: "Most camera manufacturers will milk a popular model dry, but not Sony" Well I guess that's one way to spin "more bodies than lenses" and "no firmware updates, ever".
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Well I guess that's one way to spin "more bodies than lenses" and "no firmware updates, ever".
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Jesus, maybe I ought to wait for Sony to come out with an A7sII with in-body stabilization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
What is the best ~17 to ~55 lens for my Canon that is $500 or less?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Tamron 17-50
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Tamron 17-50 This one? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-SP-A016-17-50-mm-F-2-8-Di-II-XR-IF-AF-Lens-For-Canon-/201213471095?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2ed941e977
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
http://www.xumeadapters.com/ Magnetic quick release filters. Has anyone played with these before? This might be a solution for trying to put filter systems on the Fuji MF cameras with the stupid sliding hood.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This one? eBay posted:This lens DOES NOT include VC (vibration compensation). Yes. This is the lens the Dorkroom loves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
This is the one then? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-SP-B005-17-50-mm-F-2-8-Di-II-XR-VC-IF-AF-Lens-For-Canon-/111524601230?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item19f7625d8e Sorry there are so many Tamron 17-50mm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This is the one then? I think you misunderstood. VC is to be avoided. The vibration compensation version of that lens includes some changes to the rest of the optics that makes it slightly less sharp - at least, that is my understanding. VC adds cost and apparently causes loss of image quality. Get the one without VC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I think you misunderstood. VC is to be avoided. The vibration compensation version of that lens includes some changes to the rest of the optics that makes it slightly less sharp - at least, that is my understanding. Thanks. So the one that is cheap AND better quality. Seems like a no brainer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Hey guys. I've been shooting with a 7d and 6 Carl Zeiss c/y for years and recently I've been kind of losing interest in photography. I want to jump to full frame to change it up, I was going to to get the Nikon d610 but it looks like there's no real way to adapt my c/y glass  . I've been looking into the Sony a7, it's right in my price range but I'm still unsure of the trade offs with say, the 5d mk ii. I know people complain about battery life and the shutter lag/black out time. How's the a7 for portraits with off camera strobes?Would anyone here still choose the 5d mkii over the a7?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:Hey guys. I've been shooting with a 7d and 6 Carl Zeiss c/y for years and recently I've been kind of losing interest in photography. I want to jump to full frame to change it up, I was going to to get the Nikon d610 but it looks like there's no real way to adapt my c/y glass Honestly, the main advantage to a mirrorless camera, to me, is the fact that it's so much smaller and lighter. The fact that you won't think of taking your camera with you as a total pain in the rear end will probably spice up your photography on its own. That's certainly true for me, I hate lugging my 60D (and 3 lenses) around and borrow my brother's X100 all the time. I think I'd love to own a Ricoh GR for the same reason. Full frame would be fun, too, and the A7 is very adaptable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
Read some books, look at some art, or find whatever muse it is that inspires you. I guarantee it'll cost less than a new camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 23:19
|
|
