|
I have a 7dmkII so I could use a crop lens, but I'm planning on my next body upgrade to be a full frame, so I've been leaning towards full frame lenses for that compatibility
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
I know lenses are marketed as EF or EF-S, but what is the actual difference? is a 50mm EF lens on a crop body going to have a different crop to a 50mm EF-S lens on the same body? I know that an EF-S lens on a full frame body results in vignetting, but doesnt that imply that the focal length is different on an EF-S lens to an EF?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Laserface posted:I know lenses are marketed as EF or EF-S, but what is the actual difference? is a 50mm EF lens on a crop body going to have a different crop to a 50mm EF-S lens on the same body? No, it just means the image circle is smaller. That's it. Focal length is a fundamental physical property that has no direct relation to the size of film/sensor a lens is capable of covering.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
They're the same focal length, just made for crop bodies, so they'll vignette badly at the long end. Be aware, though, I've heard that some EF-S lenses actually intrude into the body of a full-frame camera, potentially blocking the mirror or shutter and wrecking things.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Mirage posted:They're the same focal length, just made for crop bodies, so they'll vignette badly at the long end. Be aware, though, I've heard that some EF-S lenses actually intrude into the body of a full-frame camera, potentially blocking the mirror or shutter and wrecking things. The EF-S bayonet has an extra piece that prevents mounting them anyway. You'd have to deliberately modify the mount to make it mount to a FF camera so at that point you kinda put it on yourself. The third party lenses don't have that extra piece , but they also don't protrude into the mirror box. They are effectively EF mount with a small image circle.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
speaking of EF-S/EF mounts... I can't seem to find a 35mm EF-S lens, is there a reason for this? I'm looking for something wider than the nifty fifty for my T3i (I really want a 35mm prime, <20mm seems too wide), is 24mm my only choice? If I buy a 24mm EF mount, will the crop factor give me an effective 38mm lens, or should I just get a 24mm EF-S? I would use the kit lens but I wish the aperture was wider.
nescience fucked around with this message at 16:08 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
nescience posted:speaking of EF-S/EF mounts... I can't seem to find a 35mm EF-S lens, is there a reason for this? I'm looking for something wider than the nifty fifty for my T3i (I really want a 35mm prime, <20mm seems too wide), is 24mm my only choice? If I buy a 24mm EF mount, will the crop factor give me an effective 38mm lens, or should I just get a 24mm EF-S? I would use the kit lens but I wish the aperture was wider. Do you want a 35mm prime, or something with an effective FOV around the same as 35mm on FF?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Do you want a 35mm prime, or something with an effective FOV around the same as 35mm on FF? Continuing this thought: The EF 35mm f2 IS USM (the new one), is an amazing lens for not-L glass. I sold mine since I usually use my Sigma 24mm 1.4 Art on FF and have 2 other cameras with 35mm equivalence. It is especially sharp in the center, wide open, right where it needs to be for APS-C.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Do you want a 35mm prime, or something with an effective FOV around the same as 35mm on FF? I want the latter, effective FOV roughly the same as 35mm on EF.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
nescience posted:I want the latter, effective FOV roughly the same as 35mm on EF. Then yeah, you want a 24mm. The EF-S pancake if you want tiny, the 2.8/IS if you want IS, the Sigma art if you want fast aperture. Choose your poison.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
nescience posted:I want the latter, effective FOV roughly the same as 35mm on EF. 24mm on a 1.6 crop sensor is approximately the same FOV as a 35mm on a full frame.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
nescience posted:I want the latter, effective FOV roughly the same as 35mm on EF. In that case I super endorse the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art if you don't need IS. But, you have cheaper options.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
windex posted:But, you have cheaper options.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Like a cheap, used 17-40 F4L. I gotta say, unrelated to all this and to bump this oldchat, I just got a 16-35 F4L and it is sweet. Couldn't find a used 16-35 F4L or 17-40 F4L in good shape in Shinjuku (Map Camera sells them almost as they come in and offered to put me on a waitlist), and just spent the extra over a new 17-40 F4L. This is my only zoom lens at the moment, and I own much nicer 17mm fov and 35mm fov prime options for MFT, but for what I bought it for (bad weather shooting - I gave up on my waterproof compact experiment), knowing I'd be ok with correcting the distortion in LR, it's a great lens. After an evening shooting with it I have learned to appreciate the 5D3 high iso performance over my MFT body in a whole new way, where the PEN-F starts producing abstract art past 6400, I had a few good shots well past there. It is still a lot more intimidating, to passers by, to encounter the 5D3 vs the PEN-F in the street, though. Shooting film and the PEN-F for the last few months made me forget the reaction people have to massive DSLRs. Probably not going fully back to camp DSLR, but considered it for a bit after today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
How much better is the 16-35 compared to the 17-40? Worth the extra money? One camera gear review site I've looked at gives the impression that Nikon has an edge over Canon in quality of high-end wide angle zooms. Is that in any way a valid claim? What is the 17mm equivalent lens in MFT? The rokinon/samyang? Isn't that a fisheye? I thought the 16-35 was rectilinear. Does the 7.5mm have a lot more distortion? I also have MFT and Canon gear. My olympus camera has better ooc jpegs than my older Canon stuff, and the compactness makes a huge difference in usability for me, but the way it handles color and white balance is closer to Nikon and Sony (all three share a common sensor manufacturer). There's just something about the way Canon images look that appeals to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
The 16-35/4 is stellar, and Nikon had a huge edge until that and the 11-24/4 came out. Now not so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:How much better is the 16-35 compared to the 17-40? Worth the extra money? I use the Kowa 8.5 and Voigtlander 17.5 on MFT, the Kowa has legendary low distortion. It is superior in every way to the 16-35 F4L - no visible distortion, faster, dof bonus makes focusing pointless except at macro distances.. except no IS (it's in camera tho), and must be perfect as its a contactless lens. I am happy with the sharpness on the 16-35 at f4 and f8 at 16 and 35mm, haven't shot anything else. My only complaint is the barrel (16) and pincushion (35) distortion, which is typical for uwa zooms as far as I can tell, even on Nikon. The Canon apparently has a sweet spot at 24mm with no distortion but I have a Sigma 24/1.4 Art.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Also, yeah. After spending all day today as well shooting my 5D3, going over things in post now, it's hard not to love the blues Canon gear puts out. A tiny bit of LR clarity slider (+5) with the exposure and contrast nailed pops blues even more. On the PEN-F with the Voigtlander, I get crazy yellows, the PEN-F itself along with the Kowa make for images a bit more neutral.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Of course, the Kowa. I'd forgotten. I saw the test results for it on photozone.de and had kind of discounted it because the corner resolution was nothing extraordinary, but I suppose that being as distortionless as it is, it's actually pretty incredible. I'm going to look into this some more. Yes 'neutral' is exactly how I'd describe output from my OM-D, as well as a lot of the Nikon stuff I see. Fortunately being able to dial in a huge range of color adjustments easily & quickly with the oly menu helps counter that... as long as you know what you're doing. Since we're on the subject of wide zooms in the Canon thread I should ask about something I'd be much more likely to afford/buy for my 7D: the 10-18 stm. Is it a better deal than the older 10-22? I remember seeing a lot of wide angle shots from Canon DSLRs on Flickr and thinking that there always seemed to be a kind of weird appearance to the corners. Not that they weren't sharp; more like there was a lot of suppressed color fringing. I'm thinking that's something that occurs a lot with retrofocus wide-angle lenses?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Of course, the Kowa. I'd forgotten. I saw the test results for it on photozone.de and had kind of discounted it because the corner resolution was nothing extraordinary, but I suppose that being as distortionless as it is, it's actually pretty incredible. I'm going to look into this some more. I would say, PEN-F with Kowa 8.5 raw, vs 5D3 with 16-35 at 16 and lens correction profile applied otherwise untouched raw, the PEN-F and Kowa are sharper in the corners, both due to distortion correction in software and the 5D3 AA filter. The Kowa has less edge sharpness falloff at f8 than say my Sigma 24 until f8 but is always less sharp in the center. It's a genuinely good lens, and I only bought it as an experiment because shooting street photos in crowded areas was a chore with the 17.5 (too much distance required for framing), so I've been pleasantly suprised.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
I just got my first (D)SLR ever, a used 20D. I have probably forgotten everything I learned as a kid about photography, but right now I'm just trying to come to grips with even turning the thing on. Wikipedia says something about a max CF card size of 8GB, is this true? My other question is whether such a thing as an SD -> CF card adapter exists, and if so, whether this is recommended at all. I understand if this is a bad idea, but this is the first CF-only device I've owned in over a decade. It would be nice if I didn't have to go out and buy a bunch of new flash cards.
Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I just got my first (D)SLR ever, a used 20D. I have probably forgotten everything I learned as a kid about photography, but right now I'm just trying to come to grips with even turning the thing on. Wikipedia says something about a max CF card size of 8GB, is this true? My other question is whether such a thing as an SD -> CF card adapter exists, and if so, whether this is recommended at all. I understand if this is a bad idea, but this is the first CF-only device I've owned in over a decade. It would be nice if I didn't have to go out and buy a bunch of new flash cards. 8GB is huge for a 20D. And I haven't googlized it, but I suspect it is a hard limit. Do not get an adapter. SD is slower than CF, and I can't imagine that would be better with an adapter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Some online sources say that the camera's CF formatter can only handle 8GB, but there are reports here and there that suggest preformatted cards of larger size will work. I don't really know where to look for anything definitive though, so if any goons know the lowdown for this particular factoid, I'd much appreciate it  edit: and yeah, 8 GB is huge. Even shooting in RAW that would give like 900+ photos per card. Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Yeah, my 30D gives me around 900-something photos on an 8GB card.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Sorry to charge in, but I just got hold of an old EOS 1000S and I'm wondering if anyone knows where I can find a manual or similar for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:Sorry to charge in, but I just got hold of an old EOS 1000S and I'm wondering if anyone knows where I can find a manual or similar for it. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/eoscamera/EOS1000FRebelS/ Links to a site that doesn't work for the manual, but has all the camera specs. You may want to check in the film thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2864270
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
The Canon T90 speaks to me I feel it speaks to all of us!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
I am really happy there is no dick in that photo. But then the cry for help would make sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:The Canon T90 speaks to me shutter is stuck. happens if you let these sit too long without putting a few clicks on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:shutter is stuck. happens if you let these sit too long without putting a few clicks on it. Nah there's no film in it
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Interested in upgrading from my T2i. The refurb 6D and 7Dmk2 from Canon's shop look like they'd be nice upgrades in my price range. But I'm trying to figure out which one would be better for me. The 7Dmk2 looks great for sports/wildlife/action shots, but I'd mostly be using it for landscape photography and low light stuff, so I guess what I want to know is which would be a more substantial upgrade over my T2i for that kind of stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Interested in upgrading from my T2i. The refurb 6D and 7Dmk2 from Canon's shop look like they'd be nice upgrades in my price range. But I'm trying to figure out which one would be better for me. The 7Dmk2 looks great for sports/wildlife/action shots, but I'd mostly be using it for landscape photography and low light stuff, so I guess what I want to know is which would be a more substantial upgrade over my T2i for that kind of stuff? What kind of lens do you have? If you've invested in mainly APS-C lens, then you're probably better off getting the 7D2. Me, I went the 6D route because I love big heavy cameras and I found a drat good deal on a secondhand one. Either way, you'll be spending big bux.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Have you looked at the 80D? I'm not sure why you'd choose the 7D2 over that if you are considering a crop-sensor camera and weren't mainly taking sports/wildlife photos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
The only lenses I have now are the Canon EF-S 24mm and the Tamron 17-50 (which is essentially EF-S), so if I went with the 6D, I'd have to ditch those lenses and get new ones, right? Because full frame bodies only work with EF lenses, correct?Odette posted:Either way, you'll be spending big bux. BetterLekNextTime posted:Have you looked at the 80D? I'm not sure why you'd choose the 7D2 over that if you are considering a crop-sensor camera and weren't mainly taking sports/wildlife photos. e: Woah. So I hadn't really done my research on the 80D, but it looks just as good as the 7D2 for the types of shooting I'd be doing, if not a little better. And I could get a new one for the same price as a refurb 7D2. Plus I'd already have compatible lenses for it. Yeah, that sounds like the best option for me. Anyone wanna weigh in before I definitely set my sights on that one? Rageaholic fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:The only lenses I have now are the Canon EF-S 24mm and the Tamron 17-50 (which is essentially EF-S), so if I went with the 6D, I'd have to ditch those lenses and get new ones, right? Because full frame bodies only work with EF lenses, correct? I have a 70D (which is almost the same as the 80D minus some output ports). It's a great camera and you're not going to get a big step up from there unless you go for something like a 5DIII. I can't think of a good reason to buy a 7D over a 70/80D right now unless you have some very specific requirements that the APS-C cameras couldn't meet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I have a 70D (which is almost the same as the 80D minus some output ports). It's a great camera and you're not going to get a big step up from there unless you go for something like a 5DIII. I can't think of a good reason to buy a 7D over a 70/80D right now unless you have some very specific requirements that the APS-C cameras couldn't meet. Also, the sensor in the 80D is very similar to the one in the EOS M3, which I did shoot for several months before getting tired of small camera big lenses and going to MFT for mirrorless. It's pretty good for a Canon sensor, and it actually takes more effort to get some finer details out of a 5D3 raw. The 80D is a much more capable camera than the M3 is, though, so you'd likely spend less time needing those tweaks. And, I went to a 5D3 from a 70D for better high ISO quality + better autofocus in dark environments. The 5D3 does very little much better than other cameras, but it's those few things... and for most people they don't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
I saw some of the 12800 ISO shots on the DPR review and I was kind of blown away, especially on a crop sensor. Compared to my 60D where I dare not go above 800-1600 most of the time. It did give me a bit of envy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
windex posted:Also, the sensor in the 80D is very similar to the one in the EOS M3, which I did shoot for several months before getting tired of small camera big lenses and going to MFT for mirrorless. It's pretty good for a Canon sensor, and it actually takes more effort to get some finer details out of a 5D3 raw. The 80D is a much more capable camera than the M3 is, though, so you'd likely spend less time needing those tweaks. Yeah, the 80D sensor is a decent improvement on the 70D. It offers better DR than the 70D and similar performance to a FF on that front. More AF points too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Thinking of getting a Canon T6S, or a Nikon D5500. I saw on Ken Rockwell he recommended the standard 18-135mm kit lens for the Canon was fine as a starter lens (whereas everyone seems to say to avoid the Nikon kit lenses). Agree/Disagree? I was thinking of buying the body and lens kit, and then buying another nice prime to go with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Thinking of getting a Canon T6S, or a Nikon D5500. I saw on Ken Rockwell he recommended the standard 18-135mm kit lens for the Canon was fine as a starter lens (whereas everyone seems to say to avoid the Nikon kit lenses). the 18-135 STM is actually a pretty decent lens, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:58
|
|