|
um excuse me posted:Check with eBay as well because holy christ I got twice as much for my Canon 400mm f/5.6 than what keh is offering in the best condition. Yeah, keep in mind with trade ins that the company is trying to make a profit selling your gear later, so they're going to offer you approximately half of whatever the current going rate is.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
red19fire posted:Yeah, keep in mind with trade ins that the company is trying to make a profit selling your gear later, so they're going to offer you approximately half of whatever the current going rate is. Yeah this. I sold some old stuff to them years ago when they sent a guy to a store in Columbus which went smoothly enough, but you're either going to sell it quicker for less money, or migth be waiting a bit on the open market for a higher price.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Check with eBay as well because holy christ I got twice as much for my Canon 400mm f/5.6 than what keh is offering in the best condition. Yeah there's a lot of stuff they give nothing for. I can't remember what I sold them but I somehow managed a good price, but everything else I've checked lately is low low low.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
the main gain you get from KEH (if it's worth the discount you're going to have to take) is knowing that you're not going to get hosed over by paypal and a remorseful buyer. high $ items & paypal are something that always makes me wary, i mean 99.99% of the time you're not going to run into an issue but when you do and you're out a grand or two, that's a big big deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:the main gain you get from KEH (if it's worth the discount you're going to have to take) is knowing that you're not going to get hosed over by paypal and a remorseful buyer. high $ items & paypal are something that always makes me wary, i mean 99.99% of the time you're not going to run into an issue but when you do and you're out a grand or two, that's a big big deal. Yup, this exactly. As well as with Amazon, their return standards are completely insane for sellers. My butt would pucker when I'd sell on Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
The secret to getting rid of a lens for max money on eBay is pretty easy. 5 day auction, start at $0.99 and free shipping and have it end on a Sunday evening around 8PM. Watch the bidding war ensue. Spring time is the best to to sell camera stuff, in my experience, as well. The only other way to make more money is a buy it now listing, but you could wait months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Adorama gives 70% of what they're going to sell it for. They're pretty quick, and if you use the money at their store, they have some pretty good deals (nothing spectacular, though).
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions earlier, everyone! I went with the 50mm 1.8G for the Nikon, and I'm very happy with it. Those pictures are crispy. There is a little bit of a grinding feeling when I twist it into the mount, and I'm not sure if I should be worried about that or not; I got the lens open box off B&H, but it said perfect condition. Here's a picture of it. Typically this is something that I say to medical professionals, but, uh... [  Does that look okay to you? Apart from that, I've got more questions as always. I ordered a polarizer, 72mm to fit my 70-300 Nikkor, and I'd love to use it on my 50 as well. Do I find a step-down that starts at 72mm, then stack more, using the exact figures at the end of each step-down's range, until I hit 50mm precisely? And given how much step-downs seem to cost at the higher end, how much difference does the construction ultimately make? My polarizer has a thin brass filter ring, and I've heard that aluminum/metal filters can occasionally have jamming problems with sturdier materials, but given that they're also like 1/10th the cost of brass, and given how quickly that's gonna add up financially, being able to go significantly cheaper without loving everything up would be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Take some photos of a consistant well lit surface and see if it shows up. Like a piece of paper or a really flat wall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
POWELL CURES KIDS posted:Apart from that, I've got more questions as always. I ordered a polarizer, 72mm to fit my 70-300 Nikkor, and I'd love to use it on my 50 as well. Do I find a step-down that starts at 72mm, then stack more, using the exact figures at the end of each step-down's range, until I hit 50mm precisely? And given how much step-downs seem to cost at the higher end, how much difference does the construction ultimately make? My polarizer has a thin brass filter ring, and I've heard that aluminum/metal filters can occasionally have jamming problems with sturdier materials, but given that they're also like 1/10th the cost of brass, and given how quickly that's gonna add up financially, being able to go significantly cheaper without loving everything up would be awesome. Just get a 72mm-to-58mm ring. There is no reason to stack multiple adapter rings unless you have a filter so esoteric that there is no other way to mount it. Protip: your lens has a ⌀58 symbol on it somewhere that indicates the 58-mm-diameter filter thread. 50mm is the focal length. I have a couple of Sensei Pro rings from B&H. You will want the knurling on the Pro so that you have something to grab onto if a filter gets jammed into it. Here's the specific one you want: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1068092-REG/sensei_surpa_5872_pro_58_72mm_aluminum_step_up.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Well drat, I'm dumb as hell. That 70-300 Nikkor has a 58mm diameter filter thread too. Managed to juke myself out of about $20 there; guess now I have to go buy some $400 lens just to break even on all this. Thanks a bunch. Please don't tell anybody about this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
POWELL CURES KIDS posted:Managed to juke myself out of about $20 there; guess now I have to go buy some $400 lens just to break even on all this. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
POWELL CURES KIDS posted:Thanks for the suggestions earlier, everyone! I went with the 50mm 1.8G for the Nikon, and I'm very happy with it. Those pictures are crispy. There is a little bit of a grinding feeling when I twist it into the mount, and I'm not sure if I should be worried about that or not; I got the lens open box off B&H, but it said perfect condition. Here's a picture of it. Typically this is something that I say to medical professionals, but, uh... I think Nikon stuff tends to feel grindy when new, so it might not be anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Hi again, everybody! Still as pleased as punch with the 50mm 1.8G, and with the portrait work I've been getting, I've actually already paid it off a couple times over...which means it's time to dump more cash into photo poo poo I probably don't need. I'm looking at getting a good lens for landscape photography, and I'm trying to make heads or tails of a few options. I've got a DX-format Nikon right now, but I'm hoping to update to a full-frame camera sometime in the future; I don't know if I'll be buying another Nikon, but mount adapters seem pretty common, and my understanding is that they don't have any impact on the optical quality either. At the moment, the ones I've been looking at are the NIKKOR 24mm f/2.8D and the NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8D, both of which seem very well-reviewed, and both of which should provide a nice fat angle for both my current crop camera and whatever full-frame monstrosity I buy in the future. (I would need to buy yet another step-down to use my polarizer with these, but, you know, it wouldn't be unfair to say that I can go gently caress myself there.) Are these in the ballpark, or should I be shooting for something a bit wider/some other factor I'm unaware of because I'm a dumbass? I was also looking at the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC as an option, as my moron's understanding was that the ED designation meant higher-quality optics, but I don't know if that would be getting into the territory of stupid wide--and, also, from what I can tell I would apparently need to buy a $100 adapter just to toss that polarizer on it. I'm closing in on having pretty good lens coverage, and I won't be buying anything new until I can afford some higher-end stuff, so I'm trying to make the most of the lenses I can grab right now. Does anybody have any guidance/thoughts in general on any of these?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Why the D and not the G? Unless you're shooting really old film cameras, the G works on everything, and the G lenses are really really good. the 24 is a better option, because if you are using it now, it would be equivalent to about a 35mm fov which a lot of people like, and then when you get full frame 24 is still useful. 20 is really really wide on full frame, and 14 is just ridiculous. Of course the obvious choice is to get the nikon 14-24, which is the best lens of all time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
24 isn't really that wide on dx. I'm selling my clapped out 20mm 2.8d if you want a used one cheap-ish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
24 on DX is not wide enough for a lot of the typical landscape shooting. I started off with the 24-105 long ago on FX, and even then I felt limited a lot of the time, especially when doing big foreground shots. If you're planning to switch to FX in the next 6 months or so, I would reccomend picking up either the 14-24 f/2.8 or 16-35 f/4. The former is far and away the better lens, but it's quite expensive. The real deal-breaker is that is also doesn't have filter threads due the bulbous front element, so putting filters on it is a real hassle in the field as you have to use specialized adapters. You also will pretty much never use the extra stop for landscapes; it's not bright enough for most astro. If you want to stick to primes, the 20mm is a good choice. Note that I say 6 months because buying gear to predict your photography habits any further out is an exercise in futility, especially for a person relatively new to the hobby. You also mentioned mount adapters — you should only really be mixing lens systems on mirrorless cameras. You will run into a lot of headache trying to do this on SLRs — Nikon lenses can be adapted on many other SLR systems because of the longer flange distance, but that doesn't mean you should. You often lose autofocus (or at least quite a bit of focusing speed) and/or aperture control. The longer flange distance also means that Nikon bodies are very limited with other camera systems. I'm pretty sure the only relatively common lens you can stick on there are Leica R lenses. They're good lenses, but they're also completely manual focus and come with Leica prices (albeit discounted for being part of a discontinued system). Unless you have a rather complete R system laying around nearby, it's not worth the effort trying to adapt these. Nikon (and Canon) have very complete lens line-ups, not to mention the third-parties lenses for these mounts. Conversion are really a consideration for mirrorless cameras, with their less mature lens catalogs (increasingly less of an issue) or when the buyer has a large collection of lenses from a previous system. I don't think any of the mirrorless systems have good tilt-shift lenses, either, so that's another use-case. Exotic lenses still tend to be the realm of DSLRs at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Y'all are the best, thanks everyone. I'm gonna chew my options over a bit longer. In the meantime, where do you usually go to get photography news/reviews and such? What's reliable? I read a lot of B&H Explora, petapixel, I get some lens info off of Ken Rockwell's website, improvephotography, premiumbeat...it's hard to tell what's useful and what isn't, and I'm sure there are resources that I could be using that I'm not. Any tips there?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
K-Rock often has terrible opinions. I like DP reviews, though I stay away from the forums.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Krock posts controversial poo poo to make people mad so they click links to his site and make him money. Dont trust his reviews
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
DP reviews here too, their editorial content is pretty solid and gear reviews are well done with as much detail as anyone needs. The forums are full of idiots who have nothing better to do all day but post on a photography forum. My favourite was the guy who said that sending pictures via wifi reduced the image quality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:K-Rock often has terrible opinions. Don't ever read the site unless its just for a laugh OR to get technical specs for a lens or camera body as its just a basic copy and paste. Them are my rules. Helen Highwater posted:DP reviews here too, their editorial content is pretty solid and gear reviews are well done with as much detail as anyone needs. The forums are full of idiots who have nothing better to do all day but post on a photography forum. My favourite was the guy who said that sending pictures via wifi reduced the image quality. I think it depends upon the quality of the air near the wifi network. Pollution surely must cause the bits to rot, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
DPreview has, IMO, gone downhill. The best reviews are a one-two punch of Imaging Resource and The Camera Store TV on Youtube.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Don't ever read the site unless its just for a laugh OR to get technical specs for a lens or camera body as its just a basic copy and paste. Them are my rules. That's why I use $30,000 cables supported by quantum ionisers to transfer the digital signal from my camera to the computer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:That's why I use $30,000 cables supported by quantum ionisers to transfer the digital signal from my camera to the computer. You know it's of the highest quality, not just anyone can use the Quantum title! Us peasants can only hope to ever hear audio that is so pure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
This question is maybe a little bit off-topic for the thread, but in my case it is about camera gear. It's just that I'm selling said gear on eBay. The person asking me to ship my domestically (US) listed lens to Vietnam is going to file a PayPal claim for non-receipt of goods, get their payment refunded and keep the lens if I go through with sending it to them, right? Or maybe not exactly that. But it's probably a scam, eh? My heart wants to believe that this person just can't find any good old nikon lenses in their country and its forced to seek them out abroad. But then why not look at sellers in Japan, Hong Kong, or Australia instead? They'd be closer, and my listing isn't especially cheap. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
That's exactly what's going to happen
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
I never , ever, ever ship anything international that I sell on ebay. Especially not anything expensive. And I also keep a close eye on shipping addresses, because sometimes they will be for forwarding services (like when you see a ridiculous number listed in the field as an apt/suite, like 9989971) , which according to paypal rules voids your seller protection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Protect yourself - give them a shipping quote including tracking, signature, and sufficient insurance then tack on another 20% for the hassle. If they agree to pay, then you're pretty safe. I've sent stuff all over the world without issue. Most of the time they don't want to pay the shipping cost, but those that do are likely legit buyers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:Protect yourself - give them a shipping quote including tracking, signature, and sufficient insurance then tack on another 20% for the hassle. If they agree to pay, then you're pretty safe. I've sent stuff all over the world without issue. Most of the time they don't want to pay the shipping cost, but those that do are likely legit buyers. Protect yourself - if anybody asks you for extra money to ship something after you buy it on eBay, tell them to get hosed, because that's against the rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Well, my shipping quote is for USPS Priority Mail, which last time I checked only includes a service area of, well, the US. So I would realistically need to re-list it and include international shipping as an option, then let them buy it. It would include a larger shipping cost in that case. International shipping originating in the US is always kind of pricy, especially for shipping that takes less than a couple of weeks. I've paid a decent chunk of change for return shipping to Japan for camera gear that hasn't met my tragically OCD standards. Going the other direction, some of the big Japanese camera gear resellers that list on US eBay seem to have very reasonable shipping charges for their US-bound international packages, and they often have as little as 3-4 days between drop off and arrival at my doorstep. It's kind of amazing. Speaking of tragically OCD standards, I've had a continuing spate of bothersome, far from perfect wide angle retrofocus (and RF) lenses. Here's an example from what I consider to be the best of the dozen I've tried. Just as a sanity check, does anyone here see the difference between the bottom right and bottom left corners? It's not nearly as bad as, e.g., every Nikon Ai wide I've tried has been, but I'm curious if anyone else sees anything wrong with it at all. This was f8, on 6x7:  9971 by S M, on Flickr
SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Right looks sharper but I can't tell if it's because the left hand side is brighter and has less defined shadows or if it's the lens. Looks like it was unevenly lit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Well, my shipping quote is for USPS Priority Mail, which last time I checked only includes a service area of, well, the US. https://www.usps.com/international/priority-mail-international.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Protect yourself - if anybody asks you for extra money to ship something after you buy it on eBay, tell them to get hosed, because that's against the rules. That and ALWAYS ship with some signature based service on anything you sell that's more than $100. That $100 is my figure but it's only $2.65 via the USPS and keeps people from the "I never received it!" scam. Thankfully this batch of sold stuff went well. My D750 went for $1400 to a guy in Florida and he was about to return it but started to figure it all out. Whew. Also: Seller Protection is ONLY good if you ship to the address eBay indicates (MAKE SURE it says "seller protection available" before shipping). mAlfunkti0n fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
My bad for mis-naming. That's what I use for international shipping already. It's a bit pricy when dealing with boxes large enough for well-packed medium format gear. Relative to domestic shipping, at least. Last time I just did first-class international and the guy started a dispute with me and almost ended up keeping the money and the merchandise because it took so long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
underage at the vape shop posted:Right looks sharper but I can't tell if it's because the left hand side is brighter and has less defined shadows or if it's the lens. Looks like it was unevenly lit. Yeah, it's borderline, and could be due to field conditions like lighting in this single case, but the softer left corner crops up in a lot of my photos with this lens. Honestly, it's still better performance than about 6 other wide angle lenses (35mm & MF) that I've hosed with in the past year. I'm curious if others notice it. I'm trying to decide if I should just try another copy of this lens, or go all-out on a different system. That photo is from the RB67 KL 65mm. Otherwise a very sharp lens. I've already got a GS-1, so could go for a 6x6. Kind of considering either a Mamiya 6 or a 500C/M. They both seem to have good 50mm options. I like the idea of the M6 for its compact size, but thinking the Hasselblad might be more durable and have better lens build quality. At this point, that's my overriding factor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
I wouldn't have noticed in that particular photo if you didnt point it out. Id be like you about it though, it doesnt bother me in your photos but it would drive me nuts once I noticed it in mine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:
What did he reckon was wrong with it? I'm still annoyed at my F80 (N80) getting returned to me because "the film wasn't loading"...loaded perfectly when it got back to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Shrinking Universe posted:What did he reckon was wrong with it? I'm still annoyed at my F80 (N80) getting returned to me because "the film wasn't loading"...loaded perfectly when it got back to me. Not sure really, he seemed to indicate something needed to be automatic or it would not work. He was a very nice guy, but did admit he wasn't too sure of how everything worked. I told him to take some time over the weekend and shoot with it, I didn't mind him running up the shutter a bit. He decided to keep it so I was happy with that result. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
Enos Cabell posted:That's a great idea, I'll give that a try. Of course after a week of beautiful sunny weather, it decided to be all overcast today. Did you get your filter? I'm thinking of buying a second filter for another camera body and like this idea of yours. What specifically did you ask them to make?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 16:49
|
|
