|
Since we've been on the subject of adapted lenses, anyone have any recommendations for 1:1 or 1:2 macros in the neighborhood of 90mm+? Mount doesn't matter, as long as it has a manual aperture ring and is adaptable to E mount. I have an EF 100mm f/2.8 macro but for some reason it won't stop down past f/5.6 at close focus when mounted on my EF-E adapter. Not that apertures bigger than SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Oct 23, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Since we've been on the subject of adapted lenses, anyone have any recommendations for 1:1 or 1:2 macros in the neighborhood of 90mm+? Mount doesn't matter, as long as it has a manual aperture ring and is adaptable to E mount. Zeiss ZF.2 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar. Best macro lens I've ever used.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
No doubt. And it's only $1 more than the FE 90mm that's supposed to be the Jesus macro. That FE 90mm does produce some pretty nice results based on what flickr shows me. I wonder which is better? Or if there's any appreciable difference at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
I use an old Tamron 90mm f/2.5 with an adapter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Borachon posted:It's a really nice lens and body. I picked up the X-E1 and kit lens to get started on some photography, and it's been great. With hte kit, it's reasonably sized and very flexible. Paired with the 27mm pancake, the X-E1/X-E2 is a great camera to just toss in a bag to take everywhere, and your X-E2 does autofocus better than the X-E1 as well as having wireless capabilities. In terms of the lenses, when I know what kinds of things I'm shooting I'll use a prime, but if I'm just grabbing the camera to shoot pictures at a family event where I'll need both decently wide and a bit of reach, the kit lens is great for it's speed and flexibility. I know this is from a long time ago, but thank you very much! Very motivational, next time the clouds and moon bugger off I'm going to go up a hill to take pictures of the sky. Also seeing photos like that from the same lens means I can't blame the equipment for my terrible photos which compels me to improve. As it's my first non P&S camera I am terrible but at least I'm not shooting on auto. I think the best way to learn at this stage is just quantity, get into as many situations as possible, fiddle with aperture and shutter speed then I'll have more of an idea what to do next time in a similar situation without spending 20 minutes changing the settings. Plus I think my composition is naturally improving from self-critiquing my old photos. So even though I'm not really happy with any of my photos it doesn't bother me too much. Maybe when I think I've nailed the settings but I'm still not pleased with the results I'll start getting burnt out though. But that's likely a ways off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:That FE 90mm does produce some pretty nice results based on what flickr shows me. I wonder which is better? Or if there's any appreciable difference at all. Almost all the macros I've shot on my Flickr are with that Zeiss lens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Crack posted:I know this is from a long time ago, but thank you very much! Very motivational, next time the clouds and moon bugger off I'm going to go up a hill to take pictures of the sky. Just remember that you'll need to be somewhere without much light pollution, and a tripod and a cable release to take pictures like that with the kit lens. That exposure was a 20 seconds or so, and at Bandelier you can just see the milky way with the naked eye. The light on the horizon isn't the remnants of the sunset; it's light from the 60,000 people in Santa Fe (25 miles away) reflecting off the clouds. Borachon fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Even with the 2.0 impending... the 35mm 1.4 is still a fantastic lens and might just stay in my kit. Taken this morning during an engagement shoot: The groom is a pilot and the bride asked me to try and get a shot with a plane in it 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:Even with the 2.0 impending... the 35mm 1.4 is still a fantastic lens and might just stay in my kit. Taken this morning during an engagement shoot: That's really nice. I may try and pick up a 35mm 1.4 for cheap for my X-E1 once the 2.0 hits or maybe just get the 2.0. I have the 27mm, but both 35mm-s just looks fabulous. What's people's opinions on the X-E2 vs. the X-T10? The X-T10 body doesn't seem much more expensive and gets the newer autofocus which still hasn't rolled to the X-E2, right? EDIT: Hell, the X-T10 is cheaper new and about the same used from KEH, but does everything the X-E2 does, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Glad to see XF 35mm f/1.4 talk here because I came to talk about it. I am down visiting family and friends and found my sister's X-E1 + 35mm sitting on a desk literally gathering dust. I cleaned it and bolted it to my X-T1 to see how it would handle the new AF. This lens is really something else. I took it with me last night to the bars and captured some beautiful shots. I think I will leave the 18-55mm to my sister and take the 35mm with me. Here's a straight out of camera Classic Chrome of my best friend in low light, wide open:  Nicky by Manuel Rivera
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:How do you like the 16 - 55? loving it so far, I mean it's not tiny, it's definitely bulky and heavy but my intent for it is to use it professionally in place of a Canon 24-70mm and for 2/3 the cost you have a more compact, lighter weight, equally amazing build quality lens. I'll work on uploading some more photos I've taken so far with it... I was at the zoo the first week I got the X-T1, here's a shot from the 16-55 through some very scratched plexi. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:I was at the zoo the first week I got the X-T1, here's a shot from the 16-55 through some very scratched plexi. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
My turn my turn! Denver Zoo, X-T10
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
More photos of big cats, please  So a few weeks ago I foolishly lent my sister my E-M5 for a weekend. She was thinking of buying her first ILC and I thought she should see if she likes the feel of the Olympus. Long story short she dropped my loving camera off the side of a boat. I'm thinking of buying an X-E2 as a replacement (just to try something different), and I my lens pick is the 35mm f1.4. I was sort of tempted by the 35mm f2 but then I saw the press release today with the recommended retail price. In Australia the f1.4 typically retails somewhere between $600-800 AUD. Shady online stores have it around $500. But there's currently a $200 cash back, so you can get one for $400. The recommended retail price for the f2 is $600! That's the same as the f1.4! How is that the cheaper alternative, Fujifilm Australia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
It'll come down eventually. Right now there's plenty of people wanting to buy a smaller lighter 35 at full retail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Hocus Pocus posted:More photos of big cats, please http://www.camerapro.com.au/fujifilm-x-pro1-lens-35mm-f1-4-53mm-equiv-australian-stock.html I've found Camera Pro to be the best for Australian stock. With our broken currency they're actually cheaper than a lot of grey market options too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
Digital Jesus posted:http://www.camerapro.com.au/fujifilm-x-pro1-lens-35mm-f1-4-53mm-equiv-australian-stock.html Thanks for the heads up, man! I'd be waaay more comfortable buying from them than I would one of those suss sites like TopBuy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Digital Jesus posted:http://www.camerapro.com.au/fujifilm-x-pro1-lens-35mm-f1-4-53mm-equiv-australian-stock.html I had no idea prices were dropping like that, especially with the exchange rate. With rebates, those prices are the same if not a little better than the secondhand prices in the US. Have wanted to try out Fuji for a while but can't really justify splashing out the dough without selling my Sony kit first, which seems premature 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
No worries! Yeah I bought my X-T1 from them and they were awesome to deal with. Will definitely get my 35mm f2 from them when the time comes 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
Hocus Pocus posted:More photos of big cats, please have you forgiven your sister yet
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Digital Jesus posted:http://www.camerapro.com.au/fujifilm-x-pro1-lens-35mm-f1-4-53mm-equiv-australian-stock.html Had a not-so-good experience with them the other day. Either someone was telling porkies or their webstore isn't automated in any way. Purchased an ex-demo lens online at night, got a phone call the next afternoon to tell me that someone had beaten me to it by purchasing over the phone right as the store opened. I asked how that could possibly happen, and was told they manually verify credit card and PayPal purchases from around mid-morning to mid-afternoon. I asked if their webstore allocates stock when an order is made and was told "No, it doesn't". Said I should've called to make the purchase and I wouldn't have missed out. Serves me right, I suppose. The solutions they offered were either a full refund or a new lens at their full price. They budged a little when pushed, but not much. Upcoming Christmas sales will likely push prices down a little, and I'm in no hurry (and the Fuji cashback lasts until 3rd Jan). Up until this happened, I've found them quite good and their advertised prices are some of the best around. I've bought some stuff from DigiDirect in the past, and the Sydney CBD store (the only one I've dealt with) has top-notch service. Prices might not be advertised as low as others, but they're easy to negotiate with. They missed sending out an order via courier on one occasion and one of their staff drove to my house to deliver it in person, which was a pleasant surprise. That $200 cashback does make the cost of a lot of Fuji lenses great value. The 27mm/2.8 is a steal at what is essentially half price at $199.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Is there anything similar for Canada? Thinking about picking up a new lens for Christmas - budget is ~$500. I'm pretty much looking at the 35mm f/2 I guess. I was hoping to get something in the 85-200mm range but from where I stand I need to spend at least a grand for that. Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
http://www.photoprice.ca/ is generally a good place to compare prices, as it not only includes US retailers, but factors in shipping and taxes into the price comparison. In general Canadians are SOL for consumer products, especially now that the exchange rate has plummeted, taking most cross border deals along with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Probably a newbie question here. I'm looking to get a zoom for my E-M5, with the aim of shooting wildlife. Previously I had been pointed by this thread towards the Oly 40-150mm (not pro unfotunately - out of my budget range  ). But I've seen a couple odd things pop up here and there about Vivitar 70-150mm f3.8 Close Focus lenses with m43 adapters. These also appear to be insanely cheap in some places.Anyone got an opinion or guidance regarding the Oly 40-150mm f4.0 vs Vivitar 70-150mm f3.8 Close Focus? Alehkhs fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Oct 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Any reason you're not considering the Olympus 50-200 or Panasonic 100-300? They're both relatively inexpensive (especially used) for what you get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
DJExile posted:have you forgiven your sister yet Nah - and not because of the loss of the camera - accidents do happen etc etc. I'm annoyed because she had a real blasé attitude about the whole thing. Only told me what had happened a few days later when I asked when would she be returning it. Did she honestly think I would just forget about it? Then when she did tell me what happened it was a real "oh well!" moment on her part and she sort of shrugged off any sense of guilt or responsibility for gifting my $1500 of camera gear to some ocean floor crabs. Barely any sort of apology. Don't lend your gear to people, they are terrible and will wreck your poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Slowhanded posted:Any reason you're not considering the Olympus 50-200 or Panasonic 100-300? They're both relatively inexpensive (especially used) for what you get. Eh, I might just wait and do that, but they're about 3-4x the price of either of the two I was asking about, and last time I asked about wildlife zooms for my E-M5 I got pointed towards the Oly 70-150mm  . Are either of those two you mentioned splash/dust sealed? (I know the two I asked about aren't, but I'd love to get a zoom that was so I don't have to cry so much over not being able to afford the upcoming Leica 100-400mm)
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
The Oly has some weather sealing but it's not the heavy duty gaskets you'll see on the higher end lenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
What lens is this? I'm not seeing it anywhere. Edit: Oh wait, you were pointing me at more lenses that would need adapters. I'm gonna end up buying a lens that's not compatible with my camera, aren't I? 
Alehkhs fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Oct 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Would a Sony A5000 be worthwhile grabbing as far as an entry level mirrorless goes, or should I look for something else? I have a powershot s110 that I'm going to sell to partially fund a mirrorless purchase, and there's an open box A5000 for 314 at a store where I am.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
dahkren posted:Would a Sony A5000 be worthwhile grabbing as far as an entry level mirrorless goes, or should I look for something else? I have a powershot s110 that I'm going to sell to partially fund a mirrorless purchase, and there's an open box A5000 for 314 at a store where I am.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Bizzaro Quik posted:Do you know why video on Fuji's is so bad? Is it the sensor, or the software side of things? I'm sure it's probably a mix of both I take it? It is very likely due to the X-Trans sensor color filter. Most digital cameras accomplish video by only sampling a portion of it for video (this greatly reduces the difficulty of handling the amount of data). So, if a 16 MP sensor is recording 1080p video, the camera is literally recording only 1,080 horizontal lines of video (instead of the full ~3,200). This isn't that hard to do with a Bayer sensor, since the pattern is very regular line-to-line. However, finding the correct way to demosaic the X-Trans arrangement would be very difficult because it is far less regular line-to-line. There probably is a way Fuji could sample an X-Trans color filter and still get good video results and they definitely haven't prioritized it. That said, they may just be waiting for a simpler approach to the problem. Most Sony cameras these days aren't line-skipping, they're reading off the whole sensor and downsizing the read-out into something manageable directly afterwards. If Sony's sensor business sold this capability with whatever sensor Fuji uses next in the X-Pro2 or whatever, that would solve the whole problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Alehkhs posted:What lens is this? I'm not seeing it anywhere. The Panasonic is a native lens, while the Olympus one is from their 4/3 DSLR line. The latter is as native as lens can get for an adapted, but if you don't want to deal with an adapter (which I understand... but it's still fun playing with old glass!), get the Panasonic, which is a tremendous deal. If you're worried about weather sealing, remember that plastic bags are dirt cheap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Slowhanded posted:If you're worried about weather sealing, remember that plastic bags are dirt cheap. Weather sealing can gently caress right off   Then again... DJExile posted:*huff*
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
I'm just having a really tough time turning down a Vivitar 70-150mm f3.8 AND 2x converter AND m43 adapter all for under $50. I mean, is that worth it just to fool around? Just tell me "No, that lens absolutely sucks for wildlife. You would be better off burning the money" and I'll forget about it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
$50? Are you serious that's literally nothing in camera $$$.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Saros posted:$50? Are you serious that's literally nothing in camera $$$. This is why I'm asking. I can just buy it and see, but I was hoping someone had experience with one.  No! No. Screw it, I'm going to toss in with the 70-150mm and will report back if/when I shoot with it. Alehkhs fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
There are some really nice old manual focus lenses out there. But when you start getting north of 100mm the probability of quality goes down. What good stuff there is tends to stay expensive, and even then there's going to be some purple fringing that you wouldn't be seeing with newer glass. That being said, I've heard of there being some good vivitar series 1 telephoto lenses out there. But I don't know anything specifically about this 3.8 you're talking about. I bought a Minolta AF 100-300 APO, a late 80s/early 90s lens that was seemingly highly regarded and considered something of a sleeper and a good candidate for adapting to E mount (full aperture control and fast autofocus is available with the LAEA4 adapter), and was only about $100. Even though I still see great-looking photos on flickr supposedly taken with that lens, my copy is riddled with bad flare and chromatic aberrations and basically sucks. tldr: could be a good lens, could be a bad lens. Even if some people report great results with it, remember that copy variation can be pretty extreme. YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
moonduck posted:It is very likely due to the X-Trans sensor color filter. Thanks for the detailed answer. Doubt my X-T10 will be shooting good video anytime soon, right? Would take a huge firmware update I take it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Speaking of nothing in camera dollars, my OM-NEX adapter finally arrived. (This was attempt #4 with Chinese eBay seller #3, I ordered the first one back in April.) I have an old Olympus 50mm f/1.8 MIJ that's been rattling around in my camera stuff box for several years, I picked it up on a whim for $6 from KEH's "as-is" section when I was ordering some parts for another project. I have no idea what they thought was wrong with it as it works perfectly fine, maybe the few specks of dust inside? Anyhow this is the first time I've actually been able to shoot with it thanks to the adapter situation. Not bad for $6 plus a $12 adapter, uploaded a sample shot taken wide open at f/1.8 with a 100% crop (no sharpening either in-camera or LR). I was just planning on using this thing for copy work but I could see it making a nice walkaround on my A7. I have a Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM, but it's rather heavy and owing to its extreme optical design, not an ideal choice in good light.  Really lame to link to a gallery, but Imgur seems to have gotten rid of generating thumbnail code  edit: whatever, I made my own thumbnail, gallery with full res is here Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 08:39
|
|