|
Hey guys. I'm looking for a wide zoom for my D7000, probably 10-24mm or something similar. Not really looking to spend $2000 on a nikon f2.8, budget is more in the <$1000 range. I've heard good things about other manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron but don't have any direct experience with them, and I find customer reviews on B&H to be very contradictory at times. Looking to use this for interior/real-estate type stuff but also looking for a wide angle to shoot concerts with. Do you guys have any recommendations?
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
Tokina is coming out with a new 2.8 UW zoom soon aren't they?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
No one here has used that lens, so I can't really consider it a recommendation and I don't feel like taking a chance to the tune of $500. I'm more interested in what people here are using for wide zooms and what they prefer for 3rd party manufacturers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
I'm using the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 on my D5100, which I like. It's built like a tank, seems reasonably sharp for anything I've used it for (read: pictures of my kids as they bug me to stop trying to take pictures of landscapes) and the variable aperture has never really bothered me (but obviously it's not going to give you exactly what a 2.8 lens will give you). It's way under the price range you're looking at, too -- I think it runs about $400 new.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, when I saw this on SAR, I thought it was a bad Photoshop of a nerd's wet dream, but that lens is real... FE 28-135/4, it just looks so comical on an A7 body: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
I like Roger Cicala's photos of him handholding the Canon 800mm on an EOS M
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
I really, really hope that lens winds up being better than their last f4 power zoom. Seems like it should be given the price. I also wish it went wider.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
thevoiceofdog posted:No one here has used that lens, so I can't really consider it a recommendation and I don't feel like taking a chance to the tune of $500. I'm more interested in what people here are using for wide zooms and what they prefer for 3rd party manufacturers. I have the Sigma 8-16 on a Canon. It is super fun, but if 8 is too wide for interior work, probably go for the 10-20, or one of the Rokinon primes. The 8-16 can't take screw-on filters on the wide end if that's an issue for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Tokina is coming out with a new 2.8 UW zoom soon aren't they? Yeah, and I linked it in the Nikon thread when he posted the same question there, but with no response.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Sorry, that was the only response I got and it wasn't quite what I was looking for. I'm currently looking between these lenses: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/619515-GREY/Nikon_2181_10_24mm_f_3_5_4_5G_ED_AF_S.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583992-REG/Tamron_B001NII_700_SP_AF_10_24mm_f.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633618-REG/Sigma_202306_10_20mm_f_3_5.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/823892-REG/Tokina_ATX175PROFXN_17_35mm_f_4_Pro_FX.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918852-GREY/nikon_2207_af_s_nikkor_18_35mm_f_3_5_4_5g.html Probably leaning towards the Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 thevoiceofdog fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Sigma is adding a 24 1.4 to their Art line. I own the 35 1.4 and it is just a stupidly good lens. Outperforming the Canon was impressive; doing it for a few hundred dollars cheaper was even more so. I haven't used their 50 1.4, but have heard nothing but good things about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
I got babby's first light meter, a Sekonic Digipro X-1 for a good used price. Pretty amazing to be able to calculate correct settings for a flash without taking half a dozen test shots with my dslr first, then switching the flash to a film camera and duplicating the settings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
E: Whoops
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
dakana posted:Sigma is adding a 24 1.4 to their Art line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Went shooting over the weekend at a state park and the widest lens I have is my 18-55 kit... I think it's time for an upgrade. Is the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 a good choice? Should I look for a 12-24mm, or one of the lenses thevoiceofdog posted links to? The next widest lens I have is a 28-75mm Tamron, wasn't sure if I should try to cover that 17-27 gap. Nikon mount, if that matters. Fake James fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
I'd go with the Sigma 8-16, the wider the better. I'd say it's the best choice for anyone shooting crop unless you're planning on using filters with it (you can't). Some people are put off by the speed (f/4.5-5.6) but that doesn't matter much when you're dealing with ultra wide for several reasons. First, most important, and the main reason people care about the speed of the lens is control over the DoF. For ultra wides it's impossible to get shallow depth of field. Everything in the frame is going to pretty much be in focus. Second you have light gathering abilities for hand hold shooting. You know that rule of 1 over focal length for sharp handheld shooting? It applies to ultra too. Though you probably won't get sharp images at 1/8th, you'll be fine at least at 1/30th. The rule maxes out when dealing with UWs. The only time I think it'd be useful is if you want to stop motion in low light (faster shutter speed). In my experience shooting wide like that, in general, most moving things are small parts of the frame. Since they're going to be small parts of the frame, I prefer them to have some motion blur. So which ever way you go, just don't worry about speed. I know some people insist they need a 2.8, but I really don't think it's necessary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
I am traveling to Thailand and want to bring an actual camera that isn't my iPhone 6, but that isn't my huge DSLR. I would like something pocket friendly, but that doesn't look like I'm shooting with a potato. I think I want it to have GPS/wifi, but can be convinced I don't need those things. Budget is $500. Where should I start?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
dexter6 posted:I am traveling to Thailand and want to bring an actual camera that isn't my iPhone 6, but that isn't my huge DSLR. I would like something pocket friendly, but that doesn't look like I'm shooting with a potato. I think I want it to have GPS/wifi, but can be convinced I don't need those things. Budget is $500. The Sony RX100 is a fantastic P&S that will fit your pocket just fine and by now should be under $500. It does not have GPS or Wifi, but if I can ask, why do you want either of those? Both can be serious battery hogs. EDIT: $500 should get you into used mirrorless body/small lens territory but very few of those are pocket-friendly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Rx100 ii
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
DJExile posted:It does not have GPS or Wifi, but if I can ask, why do you want either of those?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Edit: poo poo, sorry, wrong thread.
Phanatic fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
I think wifi would be worth it, especially if you want to post on the road via your iphone/ipad. I didn't think much of it when I got it with my 6D, but I use the hell out of it when traveling. GPS I don't use but it is a battery hog. I don't notice the wifi draining it much. Anyway, I'd second the rx100 II. It's $600 but if your budget isn't flexible maybe you can find one used. I bet there are few people who wanted to upgrade to the III and are off loading their II.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
I'd go for a GR or Coolpix A. Less flexible than the RX100 and also doesn't have wifi/gps, but I like my GR way more than I ever liked my RX100. Depends on what you like in a camera though as I could definitely see the GR's pokey AF and fixed lens being not ideal for some.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Given that there's plenty of tutorials online showing how easy it is to modify the bokeh of wipe aperture lenses into shapes like hearts, stars and poo poo like that, I'm pretty surprised that no one makes an apodization filter to screw onto your lens. What gives? There appear to be radial ND filters, that darken towards the center to help alleviate vignetting with certain lenses. But nothing that does the opposite and helps with apodizing and subsequently smoothing bokeh. --edit: Pretty much something like this, which someone else 'shopped. 
Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Don't be the guy with the photography vest who uses the blackrapid double camera sling and 2 bodies everywhere you go. It would be much more reasonable to bring two 5dIIIs with these lenses instead~
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:14
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:It would be much more reasonable to bring two 5dIIIs with these lenses instead~ Be the guy with the Hasselblad H5D and the Leica M.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Given that there's plenty of tutorials online showing how easy it is to modify the bokeh of wipe aperture lenses into shapes like hearts, stars and poo poo like that, I'm pretty surprised that no one makes an apodization filter to screw onto your lens. What gives? There appear to be radial ND filters, that darken towards the center to help alleviate vignetting with certain lenses. But nothing that does the opposite and helps with apodizing and subsequently smoothing bokeh. drat you! Now you've got me looking at the Sony STF... urgh, such pretty bokeh, why did you have to bring up apodization??
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It would be much more reasonable to bring two 5dIIIs with these lenses instead~ I just got back from a Disney world trip with the boy. Saw a nice man taking a non-discript family photo, but I could see he had a Canon with a 70-200 2.8 II as a second camera. I waited a sec to see what he was shooting with while his 1Dx hung unused. It was a 645D.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I just got back from a Disney world trip with the boy. Saw a nice man taking a non-discript family photo, but I could see he had a Canon with a 70-200 2.8 II as a second camera. I waited a sec to see what he was shooting with while his 1Dx hung unused. It was a 645D. The amount of time I've spent at disney world seeing dads schlepping around 30lbs of camera gear in the hot orlando sun confirms that this story is entirely within the realm of possibility. As does the recent thread on dpr where someone asked for advice on what to bring on his upcoming trip which resulted in two distinct groups of posters 1) The ones who suggested a compact camera, or something like an X100 , LX100, RX100, etc. 2) The ones who suggested that anything less than pro zooms and a giant bag of primes would result in the anguishing loss of cherished family memories that could never be re-obtained. This person was bringing a 1 year old with him by the by.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I just got back from a Disney world trip with the boy. Saw a nice man taking a non-discript family photo, but I could see he had a Canon with a 70-200 2.8 II as a second camera. I waited a sec to see what he was shooting with while his 1Dx hung unused. It was a 645D. If you had the money, you would do the same. Admit it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
I'd go to Disney World sometimes twice a week with a 50D and a 70-200 2.8 IS Ii on a black rapid. Wasn't too bad. Then again I lived 5 minutes from the park and rarely stayed all day. It was nice having the luxury of being able to go just to shoot. Now for people on vacation with their family, it is pretty silly to carry around two cameras and/or a backpack full of lenses. That poo poo wears you out, especially if you stay at the park all day. You're there to have fun with family and friends and ride rides all day. Your not going there to play Ansel Adams or Jay Maisel of Disneyworld. The max I'd recommend is a DSLR with a 17-50 for a crop or a 24-105 on a frame. The less than that the better. A point and shoot is ideal. Also as a pro tip to anyone planning on going. For the love of god don't go during the summer. First, summer in Florida is hell on earth. It's hot, humid, and it rains every day. Secondly, it's also the busiest time of year for the parks. So not only is it miserable out, but you'll be waiting in long rear end lines too. Fall and winter are the best times for both crowds and weather. Haggins fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Feb 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
blowfish posted:If you had the money, you would do the same. Admit it. Hell no. I'd have a fuji or olympus backing up the 645D. Or a second 645D.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Haggins posted:
For the love of god don't go the week between christmas and new years unless you think pandemonium is your idea of a fun family vacation. Late Oct (avoid columbus day) is awesome - food and wine festival @ epcot and it's slow Early november is good, early december better (slowness wise) and christmas decorations are out of this world there
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Yeah that week is bad too and food and wine is my favorite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
I've been shooting with a Nikon d5200 for about 5 months now and still really enjoying it. I bought the kit that came with 18-140 mm lens (f3.5-5.6) and have not yet purchased anymore lenses. I enjoy this lens -- especially outdoors during the day. I find that I can even pull off decent bokeh when zoomed far enough while far away if the lighting is right and I can keep the aperture open. However, during low-light indoor situations I find myself limited. I can still get decent shots, but I do find myself working at low shutter speeds and having to mind my breathing and such. I happen to be able and willing to drop $200 on a new prime lens and am motivated by an event I am shooting for a friend soon. This event takes place at night in a low-light coffee shop. It is a poetry reading. I want some decent shots that will include between 1-4 people at a time with decent background blur and sharpness (not sure if I am using this term correctly -- need higher shutter speed) for the focal plane. So I am between a 35mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.8 which are available at a local store for nearly the same price. Any thoughts on this? I guess the scale I'm working on is somewhere between street and portrait and while I've seen/heard that the 50mm nikkor has excellent bokeh and is sharp, I am concerned that the crop factor may limit me. Is it as simple as taking a few steps back?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
I would get the 35mm dx. For most people it's more versatile. To see if you like it, tape your zoom at 35 and 50 and see what feels better for your type of shooting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
My wife's family has gone to Disney every year for New Years for at least the last two decades. This past year we went the week before Christmas and the difference was night and day. New Years and the summer months are stupid crowded. As previously said go in the fall during the food and wine festival. But yeah when I started going with them I would bring a dslr on a strap with at least two lenses. Now that I have kids I'm lucky if I even have the energy to carry a g15 around. There is nothing worth taking a picture of at disney that requires that much gear. dont hate the playa fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Feb 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Usually not, but if you're going there and by chance you see a pulitzer worthy picture at epcot, with your kids and mickey mouse, the committee is just not going to accept that picture unless it's a raw file from a 645d. Maybe a Nikon D800, if you're lucky. It's why you don't see people shooting anything less than 4x5 large format anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
Apparently some French retailer accidentally leaked the release date of Lightroom 6. Supposedly you can preorder it for March 6. Facial recognition and GPU acceleration are the only new things mentioned. http://www.canonwatch.com/adobe-lightroom-6-leaked-online-available-march/ Probably bullshit given the lack of a beta.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
Hmm, I was thinking of buying a LR5 book, but maybe I'll wait. I'm ok with it but there are a lot features I don't use, mainly because I only recently switched from Aperture. Last time I used LR was version 1 and a lot has changed since then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 21:24
|
|