|
InFlames235 posted:Hey everyone! Was hoping for a lens recommendation:
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
InFlames235 posted:Any other recommendations or thoughts from people who have done travel photography like this with their DSLR?  evil_bunnY posted:Keep the 50 for portraits, get 35IS or a 24STM
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Switch to mirrorless. I dunno, mirrorless is lighter but not THAT much lighter - especially with a big lense  http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/fRGKPKinx4ndQe4JtEDFBc-970-80.jpg Thanks for the recommendations so far. The 24STM was actually something I was considering too and just keep the 24 & 50 with me. Small, easy to travel with and still gives me flexible options. I guess I was concerned if the 24STM would be wide enough for some shots but some of the pictures I have seen indicate that it's pretty wide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
The 24 is basically a 35mm for crops. It's quiet and super small.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
InFlames235 posted:I dunno, mirrorless is lighter but not THAT much lighter - especially with a big lense Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and you'll never want to go full frame because you'll lose that lens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:You're asking for travel lens recommendations while simultaneously trying to future-proof for full-frame (which seems misguided to me at this point, especially with cheap options like the 24 STM). I've found that for travel I much prefer going the opposite direction to APS-C mirrorless. To each their own, just recommending you keep an open mind and not become too invested in a format until you know the realities. I ultimately hated traveling with full-frame gear. You have a point and I didn't mean to come off as hard-headed in my response. This is really my first time traveling with any photo gear so I might absolutely hate it but there is no way I'm leaving behind this camera on my first trip to Europe. I guess the reason why I was initially turned off by EF-S is I never know if/when I'd want to upgrade. I'm nowhere near that point now and probably won't be for at least 2 - 3 years with my current setup so I guess throwing $100 - $150 into a lens isn't going to be a big deal in that case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Grab your 18-55 and go to your closest city. Take pictures at the church/park/farmers market or whatever seems kind of touristy there. If you can get away with 24mm, then the lens should be a good bet for you. If you keep finding you want to go wider, then maybe either keep the 18-55 or look at Sigma or Tamron 17-50. The extra stop or two might be helpful if you are in museums or cathedrals that allow indoor photography. Maybe helpful anecdote: my wife and I went to Spain a couple of years ago, me with a G7x with 24mm equivalent at wide end and her with an S95 with 28mm at the wide end. With the narrow streets and alleys, there were actually a few cases where I could get a shot but she wasn't able to because she couldn't back up far enough. Also true of some shots in the big cathedrals. Note that both of these would be wider than the 24 on a crop. It all depends on what you like to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
The 80D is a very capable camera. Unless it physically breaks, I doubt that you'll need to replace it or be anywhere close to stretching its capacity even after a few years. Even then, there's a good chance that when you are looking for your next camera, whatever the top-end APS-C body is at that time will probably be about as capable as current full-frame offerings for 95% of photographers. It used to be the case that there was a linear gear progression from 'beginner cameras' to full-frame but that's not really been true for a few years and, as others have pointed out, there are multiple upgrade branches that don't even include the DSLR form factor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Another possible suggestion - what about renting your lenses (but with insurance in case of theft)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:If dropping FTFY
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
I tried to use the M5 to shoot football and I must say I was surprised how well it actually worked. It has a few flaws. Not enough options regarding focus and I'm touching the dials with my nose. This one is taken with the M5 and 70-200 f2.8L IS I.  Vålerenga - Viking 03.04.2017 by Eivind Hauger, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:FTFY This. There's no reason to buy the 2.8 for landscape photography.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:This. There's no reason to buy the 2.8 for landscape photography. When you have a tripod and lots of time to set up then no. But if you are using it as a walkaround lens then the extra stop could be a lot more valuable, especially indoors. The f/4 is still about a grand as well so it's not exactly a budget solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:When you have a tripod and lots of time to set up then no. But if you are using it as a walkaround lens then the extra stop could be a lot more valuable, especially indoors. The f/4 is still about a grand as well so it's not exactly a budget solution. If you are shooting people dancing at a wedding? Yup If you're a reporter covering a protest at dusk? Yup If you are shooting the inside of beautiful cathedrals and museums on your trip to italy? Nope. IS insanely more useful than a faster lens. And it's smaller and lighter to boot, besides being cheaper. And it's still better for shooting landscapes even if you don't have a tripod, because again, duh, IS. If you're going to have to stop down anyway, why would you pick the 1 stop faster lens vs the 4 stop IS having lens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
el dorito posted:Another possible suggestion - what about renting your lenses (but with insurance in case of theft)? That's a spot on suggestion. I might go ahead and go to my local camera shop to rent this one: https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-10-18mm-4-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B00K899B9Y/ref=zg_bs_562261011_6?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6PT9JQ5VDKTKE1FETDD7 Just seems like a perfect walk around lens, paired with my 50mm if I need to do more close-up portrait photos during the trip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
10-18mm is a good lens. Good sharpness, relatively low CA, just distorts like mad until 13mm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
10 is comically wide though, even on a crop. When I got my 10-22 I felt like I had to shoot EVERYTHING with it and after a while I drifted back towards my 18-55 because I rarely went below 18 mm anyways and it meant fewer lens swaps. 10mm is good for two things: standing at the foot of a mountain and getting it all in frame or foreground objects that are 2 feet away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
xzzy posted:
You say it like it's a bad thing... I've mostly moved to full frame but drat i still have fun with my Sigma 8-16.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Of all my travels with my Canon crop system, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 was the lens that saw the most action. It covers the perfect range of 99% of what I was shooting while traveling outside of an african safari where my 70-200 2.8 was pretty much the only lens I used. There are only a few times that I've wanted to go wider than 17 on crop and I could never justify buying a lens for those few instances. Then I said gently caress it all and bought a Sony RX100 m2 as my travel camera and never looked back. I like being able to put it in my pocket and walk along. I will only lug my SLR around again if I'm going somewhere specifically to capture photos like a safari or Iceland.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:You say it like it's a bad thing... I've mostly moved to full frame but drat i still have fun with my Sigma 8-16. No, it's not bad and I still carry the lens everywhere because sometimes you gotta get everything in frame. It just didn't provide as much benefit as I went into it thinking I'd get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Verman posted:Then I said gently caress it all and bought a Sony RX100 m2 as my travel camera and never looked back. I like being able to put it in my pocket and walk along. I will only lug my SLR around again if I'm going somewhere specifically to capture photos like a safari or Iceland. 
Encrypted fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
I'm getting more into backpacking, hiking and camping and I've got a 7D with 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and 70-200 f/4L IS. For landscape and nature, including some nighttime sky, shots, this is pretty much all I need, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Yeah that's a collection that should suit you well. You won't get any eye popping closeups of bears slapping fish out of the water at 200mm, but that never happens anyways unless you're actively seeking that shot and can rent a longer lens for those situations as they come up. Consider some ND filters too, they're a lot of fun with nature scenes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
17 on crop is wide, but it didn't feel REALLY wide like you might want in a lot of landscape shots, especially if you're trying to get landscape and night sky. The 10-18 or 10-22 might help out in those instances. Sigma also has a wide variety (no pun intended) of ultra wide angle lenses. https://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/wide-angle-lenses?sigma_mount=11993
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
A 1.4 TC is not a bad idea either. I think it pairs really well with the 70-200 f/4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
10mm is fun to have available, but if one is in a situation where weight and convenience is a factor, 17mm is plenty. If you really want to go that wide, use your phone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
The 10-18 is fun, but on anything wider than maybe 15mm, the distortion is really distracting. On most of the shots taken at 10mm, I regret not reframing and shooting at 16-18mm. The 17-55 is a great walking around lens, and better for 99% of landscapes, let alone its wider and constant aperture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Thank you, everyone. I was thinking about a 10-22, but I think I'll keep the setup I have for now until I feel like I'm ready to move up to FF.xzzy posted:Consider some ND filters too, they're a lot of fun with nature scenes. I've been meaning to get one. Any recommendations on ND filters? Also on this note about ND filters, I live about an hour away from where the solar eclipse will be its darkest; any suggestions on filters for solar eclipses?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
tau posted:Thank you, everyone. I was thinking about a 10-22, but I think I'll keep the setup I have for now until I feel like I'm ready to move up to FF. I've always used Hoya and found them to be good. They do an ND1000 (10 stop reduction) which ought to do the job for a solar eclipse, although you'll probably find you still need to use a narrow aperture. Standard disclaimer: even with the filter, don't use the viewfinder for eclipse photography. Live view is your friend. rolleyes fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Photographic ND filters are not sufficient for pointing at the sun, especially at longer focal lengths. Most of them don't block UV and the sun spits out a ton of UV energy. If you want to take pictures of the eclipse you'll want something intended for astronomers. Everyone's favorite ND filter is the big stopper types.. looks like a black piece of glass and it's what people use to get those silky smooth shots of waterfalls. But if you want to do sunsets and the like you'll want graduated filters, which I got no useful advice about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Echoing the 'don't point your camera at a solar eclipse unless you have some serious UV blocker on the end' Something like welding mask glass. Really. You're going to have a lot of energy focused very efficiently on a very sensitive piece of tech. You might get lucky and only melt the shutter. For graduated filters you really need a filter holder because you need to slide the filters up and down to get the horizon in the right place. Lee is the usual brand for that sort of stuff and their gear is really, really good but it is not cheap. Graduated filters come in two varieties, hard and soft. Hard grads are where the filter strength is the same until nearly the middle of the filter then it fades out over a short distance, soft grads are where the gradient starts at the top and ends in the middle with a linear drop-off in strength. Both types come in a range of strengths.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
By way of counter-argument, the last time there was a total eclipse here (nearly 3 years ago) my friend imaged it on his 500D using a 200mm lens, an ND1000 and a standard UV filter. The camera did not melt or burst into flames, and continues to work perfectly today. It's up to you of course. I'm just making the point that it can be done without damaging equipment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
Canon actually published an education page for the upcoming eclipse - it's here http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2017/eclipse.shtml
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Canon actually published an education page for the upcoming eclipse - it's here drat, that grid of the disk size at various focal lengths is awesome. I kept meaning to take my camera into the back yard and figure it out on my own, but now I don't have to! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Yeah, it says they will continue updating it with more info/articles in the upcoming months. For anyone TL;DR, they are recommending solar filters specifically for the job, not standard ND filters regardless of how dark they are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Now to find a place to buy the PROND100000. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:I've always used Hoya and found them to be good. They do an ND1000 (10 stop reduction) which ought to do the job for a solar eclipse, although you'll probably find you still need to use a narrow aperture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Burn a hole into your sensor instead of your eye, yay It is safe to look at a solar eclipse with the naked eye during totality, and the question which sparked this was about photographing a total eclipse. If your eye can take it, so can your camera. As mentioned above, I have seen this done successfully. Have you seen a camera burned out by doing this in the real world? Again, I'm not saying it's without risk but if you're careful then it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
This is only true during the brief period of absolute totality. If you want to observe the precession or track the progress of the eclipse, you will absolutely need a solar filter or some welding glass. An ND filter won't do poo poo and a UV filter is exactly as useful as it ever is on a DSLR (which is to say, not at all).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 13:14
|
|