|
Yeah. Considering Canon have done a good job with the 40/2.8 STM, they seem to be able to make optically good lenses on the cheap so 50/1.8 STM should also be reasonably good. Oh well, time for a new nifty fifty 
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 10:50
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
49mm filters ugh.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:49mm filters ugh. Step up rings be real expensive. The old one was 52, which is a size shared by how many other lenses in Canon's lineup? I think one? (the 40/2.8) I'm curious to see whether there's any optical performance improvement whatsoever - the MTF looks pretty much identical to the old one. I think that the new coatings will remove some of the godawful halation that plagues the old one, but there won't be any resolution improvements. STM should make the focus a heck of a lot more accurate though at least. Still hoping they will redo the 1.4 with IS, and some improvement to the design.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Yeah, I read elsewhere that the optics are the same. Even if that's the case, there are some improvements to the lens (aperture blades, build quality, etc.).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
I'm going to Italy with my girlfriend in September and I want to get the best walk-around lens money can buy (presumably an L lens). I have a 70d so it probably needs to be wider than 24mm, but ideally I wouldn't have to swap lenses 80 times per day. I currently have: 10-20mm Sigma (probably my current favorite walkaround, but I have to swap it out a lot) 40mm pancake 50mm 1.8 18-135 kit lens 70-200mm f2.8 Sigma (my other favorite lens, but it weighs a ton) I'm thinking the 17-40 is the least likely to have to be swapped out while walking around, but I can still imagine times where I'll miss something because I can't go beyond 40mm. Maybe the 24-105 would reduce the swapping, but I'm not sure - I imagine I'm going to spend more time at the wide end with all the old buildings and whatnot. Any strong opinions? Is there something else I should keep in mind - weight, size, etc?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Erwin posted:I'm going to Italy with my girlfriend in September and I want to get the best walk-around lens money can buy (presumably an L lens). I have a 70d so it probably needs to be wider than 24mm, but ideally I wouldn't have to swap lenses 80 times per day. The 17-55 is much, much better than the 17-40, L or not. It's also a stop faster, slightly longer, and has IS. There's also good third party recommendations like the non-vc tamron 17-50 that is loved around here, but if you're trying to stay Canon, the 17-55 is a much better buy. Edit: The 17-40 was the defacto choice for a nice normal zoom on the 10D over a decade ago. Not so anymore basically timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 15:19 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:The 17-55 is much, much better than the 17-40, L or not. It's also a stop faster, slightly longer, and has IS. There's also good third party recommendations like the non-vc tamron 17-50 that is loved around here
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Step up rings be real expensive. The old one was 52, which is a size shared by how many other lenses in Canon's lineup? I think one? (the 40/2.8) e: I'm wrong, Was thinking 52 was standard but it's 58 for other canon primes. Thoogsby fucked around with this message at 16:00 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Erwin posted:the best walk-around lens money can buy (presumably an L lens). woot fatigue posted:
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:The 17-55 is much, much better than the 17-40, L or not. It's also a stop faster, slightly longer, and has IS. There's also good third party recommendations like the non-vc tamron 17-50 that is loved around here, but if you're trying to stay Canon, the 17-55 is a much better buy. Thanks. I'm fine with 3rd-parties, considering my favorite lenses are Sigmas. I just figured L glass might be the answer here. Why is the tilt-shift lens the perfect walkaround lens? Architectural photographs? Won't it be too narrow on my 70d? The quoted post even says 24mm is too narrow.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Just picked up a 70-200 2.8 version 1 non IS.  Its an awesome lens. I've rented it for weddings (both IS and non IS) in the past but finally decided to just invest in buying one to have. I'm also leaving for a safari in Africa tomorrow so that created a little urgency.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:The 17-55 is much, much better than the 17-40, L or not. It's also a stop faster, slightly longer, and has IS. There's also good third party recommendations like the non-vc tamron 17-50 that is loved around here, but if you're trying to stay Canon, the 17-55 is a much better buy. I've got one of the crop sensor 17-55s on a 70d. It's a fantastic lens. You're not going to be able to knock someone out with it and still take pictures like a solid L, but it's more than rugged enough.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Managed to reproduce the functionality of a TC-80N3! Sure maybe it's not as pretty.... 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
I have an 500D and the following selection of lenses: - 17-35mm f/2.8L - 50mm f/1.8 II - Ancient 400mm f/6.3 manual focus lens my father used to use on his old film SLR in the 70's, usable with adapter I picked the 17-35 up on the local Craigslist equivalent for (IIRC) $300 or so some years back with a few minor caveats, and it's served me well as a general-purpose lens. Sorta big and awkward, but whatever. Unfortunately, recently the focusing seems to have given up the ghost completely - neither manual nor automatic focusing works at all. When I turn the lens over there's something that kinda rattles inside, as if something is loose. Now, as much as I like the nifty fifty, I'm thinking I should either try to repair my old trustworthy 17-35 or just replace it. Is repairing lenses a thing that is done? I suspect my lens might very well have been manufactured in the 90's. If repairing it is gonna cost me several hundred dollars, I might as well just replace it with the Tamron 17-50 thing everyone is talking about, but on that note I poked around for used lenses and saw that you can get a 17-40 f/4L for about $150-200 more than what the Tamron costs. Going down a stop just for the L doesn't seem like it's worth the price of admission at all to me, but I figured I'd ask if I'm wrong. Also, if I want to upgrade the camera body, 70D is the way to go yeah? It seems to be about the same price as a 7D mk1 these days but I figure it's probably as good or better what with being a five years newer design. Used 7D mk1's are really really cheap now though...
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Official Canon servicing for lenses ends about five years after end of production. A browse of Wikipedia suggests the 17-35 was replaced circa 2001, so your local official Canon repair centre will almost certainly turn you away. There are plenty of independent repair centres out there, that might take a look. Only a phone call to them of them will give you an idea of if they will and the cost (if something is broken, then successful repair will depend on them having access to being able to another lens they can salvage the part from.). The other option is to sell it on ebay as a dead lens, somebody will buy it, either to try to fix it or for donor parts. The 17-40 was the first lens I ever got, back when I joined the DSLR revolution with a 20D. It's a solid rather than spectacular lens. I can't comment on the comparison to the Tamron. Unless you're shooting action and you're after the larger buffer, 8fps and more autofocus modes, I'd go for the 70D.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
If you want to spend more than the tamron 17-50, get the canon 17-55 IS rather than the 17-40L
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
One of the big advantages of the 17-40, and a good chunk of its increased cost, is the fact that it's a full-frame lens. Also, I'd add to Pablo Bluth's benefits of the 7D is that there aren't just more autofocus modes; it's a faster, more intelligent, and better in low light system in general.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
I just found £70 of Amazon vouchers I forgot I had. I have a Canon 500D, my only lens is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and I already have polariser and ND8 filters for it. Is there anything useful I can do with that £70 short of "put it towards the cost of another lens"? Just wondering if I'm missing something obvious.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
My 6D survived the rain it seems. Not sure if the rice bed was necessary or even would've helped in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:This is looking like a much better lens for not that much for money.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Thanks for the help earlier guys! I decided to listen to the advice. Went with the pancake lens instead of the nifty fifty and I am completely happy I went with the conventional advice. Just the other day, I was testing out the continuous shooting (Canon 5D Mark III). After about three shots, there was a delay and nothing was happening. Couldn't release the shutter or anything. All of a sudden, the camera started "catching up" on the missed shutter releases on its own. I've never used the continuous shooting function before, and I was shooting on a SD card. It hasn't done that since, so I'm assuming it was just a weird hiccup since I hadn't bothered to format the card and was using a Sigma lens. But is it something I should look more into? I haven't been able to replicate the issue since. VVVVV It was 600x Speed. Once it started working ok, I didn't run into any further issues, but it was weird. I thought the camera froze, then it started clicking away nonstop. Muttonchips fucked around with this message at 06:18 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
What's the write speed of the card you're using
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
I think the transfer rate is also faster to the CF slot versus the SD slot.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
You really need a 1000x or faster CF card to shoot RAW continuously
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:I just found £70 of Amazon vouchers I forgot I had. I have a Canon 500D, my only lens is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and I already have polariser and ND8 filters for it. I'm guessing the reason I didn't get a response to this is because there isn't anything really, but just double checking before I start agonising over what lens I might like!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
If literally your only lens is a 17-50 then I'd recommend getting a cheap zoom like the Canon 50-250 (there's probably something better but that's the first thing that came to mind and it's cheap).
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Just make sure its the STM version though. The previous ones were kinda crap in comparison.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:I'm guessing the reason I didn't get a response to this is because there isn't anything really, but just double checking before I start agonising over what lens I might like! What kind of stuff do you like to shoot, and what do you wish you could do that you can't right now?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
dakana posted:What kind of stuff do you like to shoot, and what do you wish you could do that you can't right now? I mainly shoot landscapes when I'm out hiking/backpacking. There isn't anything specific where I thought "I wish I could do that if only I had x", although now I think about it a remote trigger might be cool to get myself in shot sometimes.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Having thought about this a bit more, most of my landscape shooting is (obviously) wideangle and £70 gets me most of the way to the Canon 24mm STM pancake. The major advantage would be that it's 1/4 of the weight of the Tamron 17-50 which, when carrying a backpack full of tents etc., is worth considering. Hmm...
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
I would not consider a 39mm equivalent from the 24mm pancake wide enough for landscapes. If you want to go cheap and wide, try the samyang/rokinon 14mm 2.8. Its manual focus and distorts like mad but quite sharp and low CA. It will also cost a bunch more than your 70 quid but you will experience wideness like you never have before on your 500D.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Someone made a profile for LR, that corrects its distortion pretty drat well. But it's FF only. If you have a way to adapt it for APS-C, you'd be set. http://www.photo-worx.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Someone made a profile for LR, that corrects its distortion pretty drat well. But it's FF only. If you have a way to adapt it for APS-C, you'd be set. They aren't that hard to make. You just print a target and take a bunch of nicely lit pictures of it from a few distances and feed them to adobes app.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Oh, there's an app to autogenerate those? --edit: That link I posted even mentions it. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
dakana posted:One of the big advantages of the 17-40, and a good chunk of its increased cost, is the fact that it's a full-frame lens. There's also a 16-35/4 IS that's sort of replacing the 17-40.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
24-105, can hear and feel Dirt/Sand/Grit rubbing around in the tube that is in between the focusing ring and zoom ring when I adjust the focusing ring. How the gently caress it got in there is a good question. But should I worry about this?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
anyone taken the (shallow) plunge on the new 50mm 1.8 STM yet? thoughts? wish it had been 58mm filters but ah well, that was never going to happen emdash fucked around with this message at 02:27 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
TheQat posted:anyone taken the (shallow) plunge on the new 50mm 1.8 STM yet? thoughts? Got mine on Saturday, love it. Focus is very consistent now, and the modern coatings make a big difference in the wide open contrast.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Is there a better focusing screen for the 5D MK3? Third party, anything. It's too dark for manual focus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Is there a better focusing screen for the 5D MK3? Third party, anything. It's too dark for manual focus. I think focusingscreen.com does them, but you have to compensate the meter yourself since there's no custom functions for it on the mark 3
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:11
|
|