|
For less than $100 you can get a used Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 pretty much anywhere. If you want a cheap tele that you won't get too attached to if it gets stolen. I inherited one and it's not blazingly fast but fine if you need some cheap range and the autofocus is rapid enough.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
I realize you might have just been using penguins as an example, but in case you weren't, be aware that penguins only come in to land around sunset, and trying to take pictures of penguins in the near-dark with that lens is going to be a bit of a challenge. I have the 7-200 f/4 and definitely only had about a 10-15 minute window to shoot in before it got way too dark in New Zealand, and the shots taken in those last few minutes were definitely on the "ehhhh that's gonna have to get fixed in post" side of things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I realize you might have just been using penguins as an example, but in case you weren't, be aware that penguins only come in to land around sunset, and trying to take pictures of penguins in the near-dark with that lens is going to be a bit of a challenge. Use a flashbang on the penguins and arrange them in pretty poses while they recover. Best photo op ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Here are some pictures of animals that I took with the 55-250 IS II and a Rebel XSi (450D) (12MP), for your consideration. It's fine at 5.6 IMO... at least on a 12MP camera.  Red-shouldered Hawk 1 by S M, on Flickr Green Heron 1 by S M, on Flickr Great Blue Heron 1 by S M, on FlickrE: but yeah if you're doing low light stuff you're going to want to get something that's as fast as you can afford. But that costs money. Anything in the telephoto department f/4 or faster is $$$$. Unless you go for adapted manual focus lenses; one of the benefits of mirrorless IMO. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
5.6 is fine at twilight IMO if things aren't moving and you have a stabilized lens or tripod. I have the 55-250 STM and it has very good IQ- except for more chromatic aberration, I think it's as sharp as my 300/4L. The ii seems pretty similar optically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Any pics of the 6D side by side with any of the 5D variants? I'm interested in the small details.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Odette posted:Any pics of the 6D side by side with any of the 5D variants? I'm interested in the small details. http://camerasize.com/compact/#380,312,192,328,ha,f
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
Thanks everyone. I might actually be legitimately shooting penguins as I'll be in South Africa, hence also the paranoia  I had no idea about their habits, but in any case I don't want to drag around several grand and kilos of equipment - if it's too dark for 5.6 (which TBH felt slow even on the kit 18-55mm) then so be it, it's just vacation, not a paid gig. But these samples look good enough for the price an my purposes, and really 5.6 isn't that much worse than 4.0 anyway which is the best I could realistically get. I did get to shoot with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS in a zoo once and that was pretty badass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
When i went to see the penguins in South Africa they were out on the beach in the middle of the day so I wouldn't worry about light levels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
Odette posted:Any pics of the 6D side by side with any of the 5D variants? I'm interested in the small details. I have a 5D3 and a 6D -- what in particular are you looking for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
dakana posted:I have a 5D3 and a 6D -- what in particular are you looking for? Basically just side-by-side pictures of the two, wondering why the 6D is something like ~200g lighter than the 5D3. Thought it may have been a reduction in body size, but I'm pleased to see that it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Odette posted:Basically just side-by-side pictures of the two, wondering why the 6D is something like ~200g lighter than the 5D3. Thought it may have been a reduction in body size, but I'm pleased to see that it isn't. 5D3 has a full magnesium alloy body, 6D doesn't
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
astr0man posted:5D3 has a full magnesium alloy body, 6D doesn't Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that bit. Wifi wouldn't work otherwise. I'll probably chuck some money at a 6D later this year. Kind of want to throw money at lenses first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Odette posted:Basically just side-by-side pictures of the two http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Top-Comparison.aspx http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Side-Comparison.aspx
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
I'm trying to decide what lens I want to get for use on the wide end of things. I currently have a Sigma 35 1.4 Art, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 100L Macro, and a 70-200 F/2.8L IS II. I previously owned a 24-70 2.8L and 17-40L at different times. The 35, 50, and 70-200 are my most used lenses. Looking through my LR catalog, Ive' shot about 8% of my photos at or under 24mm, so I'm considering the following three lenses: 16-35 F/4L IS 24-70 F/4L IS Sigma 24mm F/1.4 Art The 24-70 F/2.8L II would be amazing, I'm sure but it would be a stretch financially. Any thoughts, goons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:I'm trying to decide what lens I want to get for use on the wide end of things. I have the Sigma 24mm Art, which is a great lens, but I bought it before the 20mm Art was announced, which I would consider instead, now. Between Sigma primes vs L zooms, question is: How much do you shoot in low light?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
There's also the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 which is a great lens, especially for the price.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
thats for crop sensors only
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:I'm trying to decide what lens I want to get for use on the wide end of things. I currently have a Sigma 35 1.4 Art, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 100L Macro, and a 70-200 F/2.8L IS II. I previously owned a 24-70 2.8L and 17-40L at different times. The 35, 50, and 70-200 are my most used lenses. Looking through my LR catalog, Ive' shot about 8% of my photos at or under 24mm, so I'm considering the following three lenses: Consider the 24-105 over the 24-70. Lighter, sharp, and the f/4 is a non-factor for wide, really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Don't forget the 24 and 17mm TS-E lenses, they're really fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
astr0man posted:5D3 has a full magnesium alloy body, 6D doesn't Odette posted:Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that bit. Wifi wouldn't work otherwise. It's just a scootch smaller, too. Somewhat noticeable in the hand, but not really in a bad way.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Consider the 24-105 over the 24-70. Lighter, sharp, and the f/4 is a non-factor for wide, really. The 24-70 F/4L IS is lighter than the 24-105 F/4L IS.  windex posted:I have the Sigma 24mm Art, which is a great lens, but I bought it before the 20mm Art was announced, which I would consider instead, now. The 35 Art and 50 1.4 are my go-to low-light lenses at the moment. I think I really just want to have coverage wider than 35. Sounds like the 16-35 F/4L IS is the winner!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:The 24-70 F/4L IS is lighter than the 24-105 F/4L IS. Sorry, I was just referring to your reverential desire for the 24-70 f/2.8II. As for the 24-70 f/4, unless the IQ is much better, I'd still go for the extra reach of the 24-105.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
I'm shooting a concert tonight and all of my long and fast lenses are in storage. None of the local camera shops can rent me anything useful so i asked at work if anyone had a lens that they could lend me that was 135mm or longer and F4 or faster. I ended up with this beast. Solid steel, m42 mount (with an EF adapter) and it weighs about 6kg. I really hope I can be close enough to the stage that I don't need to use it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Upside is if a fight breaks out you'll have a club to defend yourself with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
That thing looks awesome but incredibly difficult to use
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I have to ask. What the gently caress is that thing? Looks like a goddamned thermos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
the lens
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
I'm pretty curious about the final image quality that thing produces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
I'm pretty curious about what the hell it was originally designed to go on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:I'm pretty curious about what the hell it was originally designed to go on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M42_lens_mount
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
What are the holes for? Some kind of mount? Or are those speed holes??
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Tripod mount
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 11:47
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
It's a TAIR-33 300mm f4.5. It's actually a medium format lens but my colleague has stuck a Kiev - M42 adapter on it and then an M42 - Eos adapter on that. Even the lenscap is made of metal (and threaded) The holes are for the photo sniper package (which is missing from this particular one).  Note, this image shows the slightly smaller TAIR-3 Here's a Flickr search of TAIR-33 images. They are not terrible but you couldn't comfortably use it for birds or anything that moves because it's so drat unwieldy. Helen Highwater fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
Looks more like a cannon to me
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Khablam posted:Looks more like a cannon to me take it through the airport in assembled form
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
After trying to use that thing (and failing because there's no tripod mount and I'm not able to hold it steady enough for sharp photos), I know how the USSR managed to clean up in Olympic weightlifting all those years - they just threw vests on their photopool and sent them out to compete.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:The 24-70 F/2.8L II would be amazing, I'm sure but it would be a stretch financially. I have the 24-70 F/2.8L II and it's legit worth the money, it stays on my camera 90% of the time even though I love my 35mm 1.4 Art. If you can get the funds together I'd highly recommend it, still sharp as a tack at 2.8
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
Bang3r posted:I have the 24-70 F/2.8L II and it's legit worth the money, it stays on my camera 90% of the time even though I love my 35mm 1.4 Art. I bought one back in September and I hardly ever swap it out. Probably 95% of my shots are with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
ML users, keep in mind that your camera will be "bricked" tomorrow. It's AF here now, had a pretty bad panic attack when this happened. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 05:41
|
|