|
I've always wondered at the utility of these longer kit zoom. You get like, what, a 28-200 ish equivalent zoom range from that thing? Maybe because it's I primarily use long lenses for wildlife and find 80-100mm equivalent (55-65mm on a Canon ef-s) to be just fine for portraits, but I feel like anything less than like 350mm equivalent to be too short to really get satisfaction from bird, sports, and tele landscape applications. I had a lot more fun with a kit lens + 55-250mm on my old rebel. But the 18-135 is by most accounts very nice for what it is. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jul 18, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
The 18-135 is a nice walking around lens if you don't have a particular need for specific kit. It gives you a wide option and enough tele to work with urban nature plus the optics are pretty good. If you already know that you need a better, longer lens, then you'll probably buy a body-only box and shop for a 300 f/4 or something, but most people buying their first DSLR don't know what they want yet so they get a bundle that lets them figure it out. Also don't underestimate the attractiveness of having a decent range on one lens. Even people who do own several lenses, don't always want to be carrying extra glass around. Having a single, not terrible lens that can handle most of the range you commonly use is valuable if you can't be loving about with swapping lenses for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
I might as well ask for some lens advice for myself too while I'm here. This is the Canon thread, but right now I'm trying to decide between picking up a wide angle prime for my OM-D (rokinon 10 or 12mm) or a wide angle zoom for my 7D. With m43 it's easy because there isn't much selection, but for ef-s there's: Canon 10-18 Canon 10-22 Sigma 8-16 Sigma 10-20 Tokina 11-16 Tokina 11-20 Tamron 10-24 ..and probably more, but that's what a little bit of searching turns up. Seven choices. Anyone here familiar with any of these? Less concerned about fast aperture and more about final image quality, flare & distortion, especially at the wide end. I've used the Canon 10-22 in the past and it was fine (although I've become more critical of IQ since then). My default choice would be the Canon 10-18 but I feel like I could be missing out on a real gem among the third-party lenses. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Jul 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
SmershMouth, I have the Sigma 8-16. I think it's really fun and takes great photos, but it definitely distorts things a bit at the wide end (note- I haven't tried lens corrections in post). Best for non-human subjects imo, especially if the people end up towards the edges of the frame. All of the following are at 8mm  Grand Prismatic Spring-6037 on Flickr Grand Prismatic Spring-6007 on Flickr montana_house_sheeps 228 on Flickr montana_glacierNP 260 on Flickr atv_startrail 062 on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Thanks, those are pretty nice. So much stuff on Flickr, especially from DSLR owners for some reason, is scaled down to the point that it's really hard to judge the image quality. So thanks for not being one of those people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Maybe they're doing some combo upload to twitter/instagram/fb that does really dumb compression? I try to do 100% or 50% jpg. One more thing about the lens- the 8-16 has a crazy convex front element so if you are planning to do a lot with screw-in filters then you might want to look at other lenses. Otherwise, it's a blast. I'm mostly shooting with my 6D now and I miss being able to use this lens all the time, and I haven't really figured out what a good EF equivalent is. Go wide or go home!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Maybe they're doing some combo upload to twitter/instagram/fb that does really dumb compression? I try to do 100% or 50% jpg. Rokinon 14mm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Is the 17-55mm 2.8 worth buying used or should I go for the Sigma 17-50 2.8 new? The latter is only like 280 brand new grey market. I've heard scary stories about the old canon IS motors failing so I'm a little paranoid. Plus the difference is like $250. It would be cool if Canon re-released a 2.8 standard zoom with nano USM or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
I had the canon version and yes it was expensive and yes I did repair it after 6 years of heavy wear and tear. Yeah it costs extra but the ergonomics, speed, and image quality makes it a great buy. Yes it's only efs but by the time you transition to a full frame system you would have gotten a lot of mileage out of it. Either way I think the longer you use gear the less focused you are on specific details. Sorry if i sound all Ken Rockwell
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. It's a great lens, very sharp and with fast AF. It's my lens of choice if I don't need range.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
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).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Either kit is fine. Stop reading KR. Yeah, I sort of got that when I started looking at other sections of his site and it was purestrain  .
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Ken Rockwell is the Bill Maher of photography.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 13:52
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Camera Stats Manufactured: COMMUNIST (RED) CHINA Quick-Tips For The Pro-Cameraman - Don't ever move out of your parents house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
ken "krock" rockwell's camera review website became so popular for his hilarious reviews of bad cameras that it was eventually spun off into a dedicated comedy blog, something awful.com.
SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Jul 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
5d4 announcement coming next month it seems
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Oh I hope it's good. The 5div is probably my next purchase, so don't gently caress it up Canon!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:don't gently caress it up Canon! And have mercy on my wallet.... please 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
akadajet posted:And have mercy on my wallet....
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:How does $3600 sound? Expensive. But I'll probably want one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
My essay bitching about low light performance is getting close to done, should be good for release on launch day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
I can't imagine it'll actually be 9fps like Canon Rumors alleges, but god drat would it rule if it was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
dakana posted:I can't imagine it'll actually be 9fps like Canon Rumors alleges, but god drat would it rule if it was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
9 fps would still leave some distance between the 1DX II, but I think a lot of sports shooters might decide that 9 fps is sufficient. It wasn't too long ago that the best sports cameras shot "only" 9-10 fps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Yeah, I moved from. The 1d3 to the 5d3 a few years ago as I transitioned from mostly sports and journalism with some weddings and portraits to mostly weddings and portraits with some sports. I miss the 10fps a lot in baseball and football especially - a lot of times I'll juuuuust miss the critical moment of a catch that I used to get at 10fps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3CPnVTmD8M
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Did I just watch a video of someone masturbating vs. someone that isn't?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
looks more like a video showing how far behind canon is in the IS game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
I thought that's IS off vs IS on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
blowfish posted:I thought that's IS off vs IS on. While masturbating to legos and anime, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Olympics prep for Getty. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
I peed a little.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Two people are going to be mighty jealous after those are passed out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
all that pro gear and they took the "look at this poo poo" photo with a mavica
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
I like how the half dozen 1DX not MK 2's are just randomly scattered throughout. That's some organizational skills at work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Waiting for an intern to step through that glass door backwards carrying a heavy box, and knocking the whole table over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
I could basically pay off my mortgage with what's on that table. Goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Wait until Canon Professional Services shows off their inventory for the Olympics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
I want to dump all those on a king size bed and roll around in them like they are hundred dollar bills
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
I guess Canon is still the king of pro sports & new photography? I guess thats why krock is so partial to them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 00:12
|
|