|
Any red flags to look for on a used 60mm f2.8 USM Macro? Found one for $200 (locally used is around $3-400 and new is $600) and suspicious but also really tempted and checking it out tomorrow.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Probably stolen
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
Odette posted:ML users, keep in mind that your camera will be "bricked" tomorrow. wtf???
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Odette posted:ML users, keep in mind that your camera will be "bricked" tomorrow. I get that it's April fools but that's a pretty lovely 'joke' to pull on someone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Probably stolen he had it advertised for $300 but it hasnt moved since two weeks ago so I offered $200 and he took it. but yeah always a consideration (with no real repercussions if it is stolen so whatever i suppose)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Sounds more legitimate than some listings I have seen recently. Someone currently has a 50mm 1.4 EF for $75 with a picture taken on a bad cellphone of a picture of the lens on their laptop screen. You can actually see the red, blue, green pixel array in their picture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Good lens for EF mount in the 20mm-28mm range? I currently own nothing wider than a 35mm and it's been killing me on certain gigs. If anyone even knows of old film lenses that fit the bill I'd be down because lots of my stuff is manual focus anyways. I was looking at the Zeiss 25mm f/2 but it's pretty expensive and there's not that much written about it online.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Good lens for EF mount in the 20mm-28mm range? I currently own nothing wider than a 35mm and it's been killing me on certain gigs. If anyone even knows of old film lenses that fit the bill I'd be down because lots of my stuff is manual focus anyways. I was looking at the Zeiss 25mm f/2 but it's pretty expensive and there's not that much written about it online. /Expensive Options Sigma 20mm 1.4 Sigma 24mm 1.4 Sigma 24-35 /Less Expensive Options Canon 24mm 2.8 IS Canon 28mm 2.8 IS
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Any red flags to look for on a used 60mm f2.8 USM Macro? Purchased from an Old lady who was using it for photographs in her garden but her husband had died so no more garden  it was bought overseas, so maybe thats why. got a bunch of cheap extension tubes for free too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:/Expensive Options
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:You forgot the stellar TS-E 24mm II. True that. Also an excellent choice if you want to step into the /Really Expensive Options bracket
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:True that. Also an excellent choice if you want to step into the /Really Expensive Options bracket 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
If they want cheap they can also look into the Samyang/Bower/etc. 24mm f1.4. It's a pretty drat good lens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
I grabbed a 16-35 F/4L and I like it so far!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Anyone ever use this thing? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...kVkwaAuyg8P8HAQ Seems to be decently priced at just under $500, and for Voigtlander optics, probably kinda nice. The compactness is a nice plus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:I grabbed a 16-35 F/4L and I like it so far! There's also the 17-40 f/4 L that's even cheaper. One of the cheapest L-series zooms available afaik. And pretty good by most accounts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Anyone ever use this thing? The Color-Skopars for DSLRs are generally the same build quality as the rangefinder equivalents and they're okay. I have one (edit: a 35mm f/2.5) in M mount on a film rangefinder and it looks fine, but never gets super sharp in the corners even stopped up when adapted to APS-C - bad sign - but M4/3's is fine.. and the quality it's plenty fine for Tri-X 400. All of the Skopar family is basically Voigtlander's entry level lenses, pre-dating Cosina. Whenever you ask anything about a Voigtlander lens just realize they are Cosina, which is also Zeiss, etc. Cosina is regarded by Leica owners as producing cheap, bad lenses for Leica's with suspiciously nothing between Leica and them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:There's also the 17-40 f/4 L that's even cheaper. One of the cheapest L-series zooms available afaik. And pretty good by most accounts. I'd previously owned a 17-40L but the 16-35 F/4L has IS and better sharpness overall. I think it was worth the premium so far!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
I just got the two LP-E8 batteries i ordered from ebay for an upcoming trip. I had no-name brand ones before and was perfectly happy with the 20/80 nature of them. However these cost a bit more as they were supposedly the real deal, but they clearly look and feel different IRL. Text a bit lighter and maybe blurrier:  Completely different label on the back:  No holes:  Could this be down to the 6-year difference and EU vs Asian market perhaps, or are they just fake? Also the one on the left is my original battery from the 550D kit. I didn't keep it in the little tray and something got into the contacts and corroded them so it doesn't charge any more. Has anyone tried opening one up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
One on the right drops all the legal markings; it's a fake trying not to get sued.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
I would imagine 99% of ebay batteries are fakes. I'm even cautious of purchasing "OEM" on Amazon from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:I would imagine 99% of ebay batteries are fakes. I'm even cautious of purchasing "OEM" on Amazon from time to time. If it's not sold by Amazon, at least in Japan, 100% sure it's fake. The knockoffs are bad even when known, I had to buy 3 L39 to Micro Four Thirds adapters to yeild one that was actually L39 and mounted lenses upright with no light leaks. 6000 yen / $50 for all three is still cheaper than $200 for a proper branded variant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
My experience so far was that the mystery batteries had about 80% of the capacity at 20% of the cost, if not less. The previous one still works fine, I just wanted a couple more for a trip where I might not be able to charge them easily. I'd be perfectly happy if the seller provides some sort of a discount or partial refund, but even if not it's no big deal. I also just received a used 55-250mm IS II that we talked about before. I had to dig through some ancient classifieds but managed to find one for 90 bucks which is like 50% less than most seem to sell for around here. Then of course I immediately got a lens error message after taking my first shot with it, but it turned out to be just dirty contacts and it works perfectly fine since cleaning them. Looks brand new otherwise, and came with an UV filter of course. It actually feels reasonably nice for the price, and f/5.6 isn't so terrible when the best I could hope for realistically at that range would be f/4. Plus it has IS and is pretty light and compact. I'll need to take some more shots but really it seems that it's as good of a deal as it appeared.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
I'm looking to replace the 18-55 kit lens I got with my t3i with something better. What's the ideal expensive / not expensive option for that range? I'd prefer a full fame mount as that will be my next camera purchase at some point. I was also thinking about one of the Sigma or Tamron all in one lenses, something that goes from ~18 mm to 250/300 mm. Are those worth looking into, or am I better off with more shorter range lenses?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
All in ones mean they'll not excel at anything. Get a good wide angle, something else to fill in the middle range, then take out a loan for a kickass 300mm+ telephoto. All manufacturers have pretty good options somewhere in the 35-200mm range so it's really a question of deciding how much you want to spend.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:I'm looking to replace the 18-55 kit lens I got with my t3i with something better. What's the ideal expensive / not expensive option for that range? I'd prefer a full fame mount as that will be my next camera purchase at some point. What kind of light do you usually work with? And do you want this next lens/set of lenses to be the last set you buy for a long time or are you just wanting the next rung up from kit lens territory? How often do you shoot? Will you be shooting side jobs, eventually doing it part/full time?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
It's going to be a hiking / tourist lens to complement the Sigma 150-600 I also bring with hiking. As for budget, keeping it under the $1k I spent on the Sigma would be ideal
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Sigma 17-50 2.8 or 17-70 2.8-4? I've heard good things about the Canon 15-85 3.5-5.6, but it's still the standard kit lens aperture range.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Sigma 17-50 2.8 or 17-70 2.8-4? I've heard good things about the Canon 15-85 3.5-5.6, but it's still the standard kit lens aperture range. The 17-70 is a macro, which could be nice with my 100mm macro. Might have to go with that one. Speaking of macro lenses, what's good for third party ring flashes that would fit the one I currently have? http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-100mm-f-28l-macro-is-usm-refurbished
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:The 17-70 is a macro, which could be nice with my 100mm macro. Might have to go with that one. As for walkaround lenses, the 24-70 f/2.8 and 24-105 f/4 are also pretty nice. Between one of those, your 100mm macro, and that nice telephoto, you've got a pretty good kit.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:It's going to be a hiking / tourist lens to complement the Sigma 150-600 I also bring with hiking. As for budget, keeping it under the $1k I spent on the Sigma would be ideal For being in the elements, as far as Canon lenses under $1K, I'd go for a weather sealed 24-105 f/4 L or maybe a 24-70 f/2.8 mk I (or a used mk II). The 24-70 f/4 IS is also an option. Sigma lenses are cool but I know little about them.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
The 24-105 has pretty bad CA and being soft compare to 24-70 II. Go for the 24-70 f4 instead. It'll be smaller, lighter and sharper.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Encrypted posted:The 24-105 has pretty bad CA and being soft compare to 24-70 II. Go for the 24-70 f4 instead. It'll be smaller, lighter and sharper. Why not the Tamron 24-70 f2.8?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
If drunk badger has an aps-c camera (which I'm assuming since they mentioned having an 18-55... I think. I'm phone posting) then the 24-70/105, while very nice for the constant apertures and L-series IQ, don't really get all that wide on a 1.6x crop factor. Of course, the wide end is supposed to be the weak point of that 17-70 sigma (bad corners even stopped down), so maybe it's a wash. We had a photographer come to my work to take some photos for an advertising campaign (I totally would have produced a better final product than this guy but whatever) and they used a 24-105 L / 5D3. The purple fringing and uncorrected distortion on the wide angle shots they turned in to us were pretty surprising to me because I'd always assumed that to be a very good lens. Guess not.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Yeah tamron is pretty good too (they basically design/build some canon stuff too). The 24-105 is kinda old now and most of the newer gen canon lens are much better with better coating and glass design. And that they were made with ultra high res stuff in mind eg. the newer 16-35 f4 and 24-70 are really drat good.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
I briefly had the Tamron 18-250 and then got the 18-270 and it had back focusing issues that didnt go away even after sending it back to Tamron twice, once with my camera body. sometimes if you're lucky and only using centre focus it will work well and take okay pictures. Its really heavy too. They're OK as a walk-around when you have no idea what you might see, but as I learn what I Like to shoot and what events/locations I go to I tend to stick to my Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and canon 60mm macro. The 60mm macro is amazingly sharp - better than a nifty 50 by a long shot. easily my favorite lens in my kit. maybe the new one is better but my 50mm I only got for night time shots and even then its pretty average at them. I also have a 70-300 tamron but its just bleh. This is on a 550D.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 is pretty much my default lens for walking about and random stuff. Unless I know I'm going to need range, I can do pretty much anything with that. That plus the nifty-fifty on an APS-C body will give you decent wide angle performance in most lighting conditions out to moderate tele range. When I got my 70D it was bundled with a Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 zoom. I found that one disappointing between the variable max aperture and the slow autofocus. It's not a terrible lens if you want a cheap bit of glass that will cover a wide range, but I haven't used it at all since I bought the Sigma a couple of years ago (I have a hella old Canon 100-300 lens if I need distance).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:We had a photographer come to my work to take some photos for an advertising campaign (I totally would have produced a better final product than this guy but whatever) and they used a 24-105 L / 5D3. The purple fringing and uncorrected distortion on the wide angle shots they turned in to us were pretty surprising to me because I'd always assumed that to be a very good lens. Guess not. What you're saying is they were doing something that was actually going to get published and either not shooting in JPEG without in camera CA correction or shooting in RAW and negligently not correcting some very basic things. I love my 24-105. You're not going to find a better general purpose zoom for EF mount @ $500. Sure the 24-70 f4 is marginally better but don't forget the extra cost and the loss of "portrait" range focal length. The STM 24-105 is yucky variable aperture.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:What you're saying is they were doing something that was actually going to get published and either not shooting in JPEG without in camera CA correction or shooting in RAW and negligently not correcting some very basic things. Adding to this... Most camera manufacturer lenses require software correction these days, in camera or in post. The reason for this is because it is way easier to solve CA and some other issues there, as fixing it through physics requires things like flourite crystal elements or exotic coatings, which increase costs a lot and are not perfect either. The only Canon lens I currently own is the 135 f2L, which is pretty much CA free only from f4 and smaller. Everything else in EF mount is Sigma Art and now a Zeiss. Even the Zeiss has CA issues in the right context. Isaac Newton insisted that it was impossible to remove all CA from a lens, and while we did wind up with achromatic lenses which proved his assertion wrong, they only go so far (e.g. a bunch of the Zeiss glass for SLRs started showing CA very trivially on recent cameras with tiny or dense pixel pitch / spacing). So, CA is always going to be a thing, but how much time you spend correcting it... has little to so with the lens, as it's every lens. Most likely your guy knows the images are going to print, where ink bleed will mostly kill the CA, or he's ignorant of the problem, or just doesn't care.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Seamonster posted:I love my 24-105. You're not going to find a better general purpose zoom for EF mount @ $500. Sure the 24-70 f4 is marginally better but don't forget the extra cost and the loss of "portrait" range focal length. The STM 24-105 is yucky variable aperture.  It's a great walkaround lens for anything except macro. Maybe on a 5DSR you wouldn't use it but you wouldn't use a 5DSR as a walkaround camera anyway
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 13:38
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!