|
Edmond Dantes posted:I'm heading to NY this week and I want to get a nice lens for my T2i.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:Do you ever plan on going full frame? If not, Sigma makes a APS-C version (30mm) of the ART 1.4 which is just as great in build quality but is about half as expensive. I'm guessing you mean this one.? I don't plan on changing bodies right now, but eventually I probably will. Shellman posted:The 18-35. The Canon 10-18 is an awesome ultra wide though, and goons swear by that tamron. Ah, thanks. Huxley posted:Not to pimp too hard, but if you end up interested in the Tamron I have one up in the buy/sell thread, still. It's a great lens in good shape, I just moved to a smaller setup and don't carry my SLR any more. Cheers mate; it may be complicated since I'll be moving around, but I'll keep it in mind if I go for that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Not to pimp too hard, but if you end up interested in the Tamron I have one up in the buy/sell thread, still. It's a great lens in good shape, I just moved to a smaller setup and don't carry my SLR any more. I'm actually really, really interested in this. But if Edmond Dantes wants first shot at it, it's his.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:I'm actually really, really interested in this. But if Edmond Dantes wants first shot at it, it's his. Go right ahead, mate. I still haven't really made a decision and it'd be quite complicated to set up a delivery with me hopping across cities. Just... Just give it a good home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Thanks man, rest assured that if I do buy it, it will indeed be well loved and only take pictures of great things. Huxley, I'm going to crunch some numbers and shoot you a PM later on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:Thanks man, rest assured that if I do buy it, it will indeed be well loved and only take pictures of great things. Sounds good!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Buy the Sigma 30 1.4 This is the best advice. SUCH a good lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Buy the Sigma 30 1.4 The one Whirlwind Jones mentioned? This one? suboptimal posted:Thanks man, rest assured that if I do buy it, it will indeed be well loved and only take pictures of great things. That's all I needed to know. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
I rarely shoot wider than 35mm, but I'm thinking it would be nice to have for landscapes on an upcoming trip. What are the cheapest, sharpest options wider than 35mm? EF mount, don't care if it's manual focus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:I rarely shoot wider than 35mm, but I'm thinking it would be nice to have for landscapes on an upcoming trip. I have a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 that works pretty well. I think I paid around $250 for it, used. Lightroom's profile correction for it really cleans up the distortion. I like it a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
dakana posted:I have a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 that works pretty well. I think I paid around $250 for it, used. Lightroom's profile correction for it really cleans up the distortion. I like it a lot. Also the aforementioned Tamron 17-50 (non-VC version). I've got it and it's very handy as an all round "covers most focal lengths you're likely to want except telephoto" lens. The other bonus that gets you over the 17-35 is f/2.8 throughout the whole range.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:Also the aforementioned Tamron 17-50 (non-VC version). I've got it and it's very handy as an all round "covers most focal lengths you're likely to want except telephoto" lens. The other bonus that gets you over the 17-35 is f/2.8 throughout the whole range. Huh, just realized; is the non-VC crop-frame only? Both have Canon (APS-C) listed as format, but the non-VC has this on it: WARNING: Not compatible with "full-frame" (35mm size) cameras.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Edmond Dantes posted:Huh, just realized; is the non-VC crop-frame only? Both have Canon (APS-C) listed as format, but the non-VC has this on it: WARNING: Not compatible with "full-frame" (35mm size) cameras. Yep, it's crop only. All Tamron's lenses for Canon use the EF (not the EF-S) mount regardless of whether they're crop-sensor lenses or not, presumably for cost reasons. Edit: To clarify, both 17-50 versions are crop only as the APS-C designation suggests. Not sure why the non-vc one has an extra warning, that doesn't make much sense. rolleyes fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Right. The 17-35 2.8-4 is a full-frame lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Who makes a solid and affordable (ha) m43 to EF adapter?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Haggins posted:My vote is for the 70-200 2.8 IS II with the Canon 2x III extender. Best of both worlds. hey throwing back to this real quick, can someone school me on extenders? there is a difference between these and macro tubes right? I bought a "macro extender" off ebay for a laugh and yeah it made my macros great but the lens obviously (but not obvious to me at the time) couldnt pull focus on anything distant. The canon 2x extender you mentioned here works differently right? At surface it seems to be basically the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
maxe posted:hey throwing back to this real quick, can someone school me on extenders? Yeah, totally different things. Macro tubes consist of empty space that goes between a lens and the mount. It increases the minimum focusing distance, which allows you to take macro photos. Extenders contain glass elements in an adapter that sit between the lens and the mount that increases the focal length of a lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
coool cheers
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Who makes a solid and affordable (ha) m43 to EF adapter? I'm using a Kipon one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEnhMXgL6Vo
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
dakana posted:I have a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 that works pretty well I see it's no longer being manufactured and my used market is a bit limited. How about the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 or the Samyang 14mm f/2.8? They go for 399 and 319 new respectively. They're supposed to be quite sharp, although you have no electronic contact points, so manual focus only, which is fine by me. Some reviews on B&H are complaining about quality control though...
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
They're both the same lens. Samyang also sells under the brands Rokinon, Bower, Walimex, Vivitar, Falcon and god knows what depending on the region. I don't even know what the point of doing that is, but it seems to work out for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:They're both the same lens. Old brand names that  might still remember, or brand names that sound like old photo equipment brands/not foreign. Not that anyone actually cares.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Old brand names that Brand perception is very important - There's a reason Toyota rebadged their luxury cars as Lexus when selling in them in the US. No American was going to buy a 40k$ Toyota. Americans will drop 10k on a robot made Rolex, but wouldn't dream of paying 8k for a Grand Seiko that has as much handcraft in it as a 25k Vacheron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:I'm using a Kipon one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEnhMXgL6Vo Er sorry, I meant attach M43 lenses to my Canon. I'm interested in the Helios lenses for some video and portrait work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
m4/3 lenses aren't going to cover your sensor? Edit: Helios lenses appear to be m42 screw mount, completely unrelated to Micro 4/3. Any dumb adapter will work for these, but be careful since these lenses screw in instead of having a bayonet mount like anything modern does. I've heard stories of people not being able to remove the adapter from the mount (though I've never personally experienced this). Adapters are cheap so I would just buy one for every lens. 1st AD fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Maybe you mean M42 screw mount? E: beaten
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Right, one more question and I'll leave you guys alone. How's this Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8? I've been reading and watching reviews of all the lenses we've been discussing these past few pages, and this seems to be a bit of a step up from the Tamron 17-50 non-vc (which I know goons love, but I've been reading some not so stellar reviews). It's also discounted quite a bit for the next few days, which makes it only 20 bucks more expensive than the Tamron. Thanks for the patience, guys.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Ugh yes m42... My brain has been slowly betraying me over the past week. So really any cheapo adapter will work? I've read that even with adapters there are issues that come up like the mirror not having enough clearance, so I was wondering if there are certain adapters that can help me avoid that problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
EOS and m42 have a difference in flange distances of about 1.5mm, I'm pretty sure the adapter itself covers that nicely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
If you google you find lists like this where people log what lenses are fine on full frame bodies. IIRC it was bigger problem with original 5D, later bodies had smaller mirrors. But don't quote me on that, I don't have full frame 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Edmond Dantes posted:Right, one more question and I'll leave you guys alone. I've owned it and used it on a T3i and it worked fine for me. It's a good lens in terms of IQ/features but without being able to AFMA it can be hit or miss especially with the older non-global vision lenses. Sigma can probably adjust it for you if you are willing to send in the body and lens though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Ugh yes m42... My brain has been slowly betraying me over the past week. get an adapter with a focus confirm chip, makes things much easier. edit: I have this one, works nicely (that's sold out, but gives the general idea) next-day-edit: I haven't seen any indication that the mirror would hit the lens, as they don't protrude beyond the adapter (I'm using a 6D and 550D) for any of the lenses I own. The helios lenses - I have 3 of them - have an awesome look.  Note that some adapter/lens combos won't let you focus to infinity, not sure why yet, but I assume poorly made adapters. The linked adapter focuses to infinity on all my lenses - it also presents itself as a "1-65535mm f/1.4" lens. dorkanoid fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
This is pretty cool. If you bolt a bunch of telephoto lenses together, you can do some serious astronomy:quote:The array consists of eight Canon 400 mm f/2.8 L IS II USM telephoto lenses coupled to eight science-grade commercial CCD cameras. The lenses are mounted on a common framework and are co-aligned to image simultaneously the same position on the sky. The system provides an imaging capability equivalent to a 0.4 m aperture f/1.0 refractor with a 2.6 x 1.9 degree field of view.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
quote:The Dragonfly Telephoto Array is therefore executing a fully-automated multi-year imaging survey of a complete sample of nearby galaxies in order to undertake the first census of ultra-faint substructures in the nearby Universe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
So, what's the advantage of old lenses + adaptors? Relatively low cost for good quality glass, presumably with the disadvantage of losing things like autofocus?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Certain old lenses just have a unique way they render colors/contrast, bokeh, etc. People talk about "Minolta colors" or the way some Canon FD lenses render black and white because the lens elements have yellowed with age giving you that yellow filter effect but without an actual filter (so its better). EDIT: and radioactivity Seamonster fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:This is pretty cool. If you bolt a bunch of telephoto lenses together, you can do some serious astronomy: That is incredible. It's also $84,000 in just lenses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
dakana posted:That is incredible. It's also $84,000 in just lenses. To be fair that's chump change for a physics/astronomy experiment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Yeah scientific instruments are mostly either cheap and disposable or $stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
dakana posted:That is incredible. It's also $84,000 in just lenses. C'mon, I'm sure they rent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 14:47
|
|
