|
No matter what macro lens you get you will always end up saying "I wish I could get in closer". The 100mm from Canon is a thing of beauty and great for non-macro shots as well. The 65mm MPE is a weird beast that you will probably only use for macro shots. I have both and find my 65mm stays at home just because it's a pain to use without a rail system unless you're taking pictures of really slow things.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Seamonster posted:I'm a cheap rear end in a top hat and just use a 40mm pancake and extension tubes. Can you give me an example of something you shot? I'm cheap but I'm looking for that ability to get super close without touching it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:No matter what macro lens you get you will always end up saying "I wish I could get in closer". The MPE is the most fun lens. Once you figure out a good flash diffusion system, you can blast away at trails of ants, little spiders, and well-behaved frogs. Only like 1 out of 50 shots will be in focus, but whatever. I use mine more than the 100mm macro.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
By the way, thanks for the suggestions everyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
I do a ton of macro work at my job and I can say that for anything where you need beyond 105mm at ~4 inches (Nikon is the supported equipment there) requires a microscope starting around 20x.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:I do a ton of macro work at my job and I can say that for anything where you need beyond 105mm at ~4 inches (Nikon is the supported equipment there) requires a microscope starting around 20x. Thanks. This is useful as well. Realistic expectations
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Some of the sharpest, nicest photos I have taken, macro or not, were with my Canon 60mm F2.8 USM Macro. and its always amazing seeing insects close up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Whatever happened to this thing: http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-600mm-f4-do-is-to-arrive-in-late-2017-cr2/ I haven't really been paying much attention since the prototype was shown off -- is it actually coming?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Do you guys have shoulder pain? I tried switching my shoulder bags from left / right shoulders but I feel like I still have mailman shoulders  And anyone have a recommendation for a bike ride friendly strap?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
What are you carrying on your bike? If you aren't carrying anything too monstrous then a Peak Design Capture Clip is probably your best bet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Wow that looks really slick, way better than the black rapid. I will carry a 5D4 + 35/1.4. I did try having a 70-200/F4 and that was not very fun
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
A belt mounted capture clip would not be very conducive to pedaling, you'd have a FF camera slamming against your thigh repeatedly. If you wear a backpack you can attach it to one of the chest straps, that would probably work better. Or you could rig up some way of putting it in the center of your handlebars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:A belt mounted capture clip would not be very conducive to pedaling, you'd have a FF camera slamming against your thigh repeatedly. Came here to post this. Having to lug cameras strapped directly to you and having to move quite a bit makes things super weird. Probably great for walking around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Arca Swiss plate on your handlebar seems like the coolest option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
85mm 1.4 L IS is out. Probably just as good as the Sigma ART (which is excellent apparently) but tack on $300-400 for IS. "IS" it worth it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
I got one of the Sigma 85 ARTs and it's really nice, but I've been wondering the same since I saw that it had IS. EDIT: words NeuralSpark fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
I've been doing photography for 8 years now and have never used IS. Lenses are cheaper and there aren't too many scenarios where you couldn't take a few extra moments setting up extra lights or using a tripod. What does IS get you? One, two stops?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Depending on the manufacturer and whether it's in-body or lens-based, it gets you 3-5 stops. That's not nothing and not every shooting situation allows external lighting or the use of a tripod.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Well in that case rent, but you put yourself in pretty tight corner creatively in that scenario. It's never happened to me, personally, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Doesn't shooting at a high enough shutter speed offload a need for IS also? I mean I get lighting and everything like that but if that wasn't a problem?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
Absolutely. But it's been my experience that reception halls more often than not have miserable conditions that can't be compensated for by cranking the ISO to the moon. All of my lenses offer f/2.8 constantly and that is often not enough. It's easier to let event planning know you're going to set up strobes in each corner of the room. Or have an IS lens. Shutter speed low enough to need them make me extremely anxious at this point though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
IS is a godsend for wedding photographers during ceremonies. No one's really moving much, you typically can't use flash (and even if you could you rarely have time beforehand to set them up), halls are almost always dark, and it's nice to be able to lower the ISO a bit for some shots. Three stops of stabilization is the difference between ISO3200 and ISO400. It's also helpful for stabilizing the vertical axis during panning in motor- and other sports. It's a complete game-changer for video work, and it's really nice to have when you're using a telephoto because otherwise it's shake city.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
Oh IS for video totally makes sense, but that whole other realm of gently caress you money where the difference doesn't actually mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Nikon's ok because all you'll ever need is a kit zoom and a 35/1.8 but yeah. The canon 35/2IS is cool but also $kidney I always thought that Canon and Nikon had pretty much the same crappy 18-55 kit zoom. As in, no appreciable difference in quality between the two. Does Nikon have better offerings in this department? The basic Canon 18-55 doesn't seem that great. The 18-135 seems ok for it's range. Are there better options for these types of lenses in Nikon land? (I've always thought of the Fuji 18-55 as king among apsc kit zooms.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
The kit 18-55 is very good for its price point. I don't memorize revisions but I used whatever version came with the 500d for years and was happy with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I always thought that Canon and Nikon had pretty much the same crappy 18-55 kit zoom. As in, no appreciable difference in quality between the two. Does Nikon have better offerings in this department? The basic Canon 18-55 doesn't seem that great. The 18-135 seems ok for it's range. Are there better options for these types of lenses in Nikon land? Fuji's is a $700 lens though. How much are Canon and Nikon's? $100?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Fuji's is a $700 lens though. How much are Canon and Nikon's? $100? Not really, it's $300 as a kit lens. And definitely worth the difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
I had an 18-55 ISII that was ok and later another one that sucked. I guess it's not so much that it's an outright crappy design, just of variable assembled quality, because it's cheap plastic and mass produced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Fuji's is a $700 lens though. How much are Canon and Nikon's? $100? Yeah I think the 24-70/4L as a "kit" lens is the more apt comparison to the Fuji than the uber cheap plastic lenses Canon packs as a kit lens for APS-C bodies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
I'm currently using a 6D with 24-105L for most of my photography, which consists of casual vacation / events shots. I'd like to take more pictures and start bringing my camera more when I go out instead of now only for special occasions. I have a RapidStrap for carrying but right now I think the weight and bulk are a major hinderance to carrying it around casually. Mirrorless is a thought but it's a lot of money to buy a second less capable system, especially if I want a FF mirrorless camera. What do you guys think about getting a 50mm F1.4? May be able to sneak a new lens past the fiancée but I think she'd notice a new camera out of nowhere. INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Sep 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
The canon one is kind of crap (until you stop it down a bit), and the Sigma is gigantic. I'm getting the idea you're looking for small Either get the 50/1.8 STM, which isn't really much better (still needs a little stopping down) but costs a fraction of the price, is smaller, and has much better AF, or the 40/2.8 pancake which is even smaller , also a fraction of the price, and is good from the get go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
35mm f/2 IS made my 5D3 more convenient to carry over the 24-70, but I still eventually went mirrorless. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Either get the 50/1.8 STM, which isn't really much better (still needs a little stopping down) but costs a fraction of the price, is smaller, and has much better AF, or the 40/2.8 pancake which is even smaller , also a fraction of the price, and is good from the get go. So the $125 Canon F1.8 STM is BETTER than the $350 F1.4? What a country!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:So the $125 Canon F1.8 STM is BETTER than the $350 F1.4? What a country! It's shorter, lighter, and the AF actually hits most of the time. So yes, it's better. It's also more consistently built (as in, remarkably consistent performance according to Lensrentals tests vs the mediocre 1.4) @ 1.4/1.6./1.8 it's low contrast and hazy @1.8 the 1.8/STM is low contrast and hazy @2 they both start to pick up a little bit better contrast, and beyond that they keep getting better and better. So the faster aperture isn't really much of an advantage since it's blah image quality there. All in all the 1.4 is a waste of money. timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Sep 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Adjuating my camera strap while wearing gloves I dropped my 24-105L IS (while attached to a 1DsmkII) and the lens now bends in the middle a few degrees near the zoom ring. Do I even bother getting a quote to fix it? The lens is about 12 years old and been through hell. Good used copies go for around $550-$600.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
If the inner assembly with all the lens elements is still intact then it's probably a fairly cheap repair. If you hold it together, does it still focus and zoom properly? If so then you've probably just busted some clips in the casing. I dropped a lens last year in pretty much the same way and the repair was much cheaper than I'd been fearing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
The lens auto focuses. The zoom ring is a little difficult to work at the long end. Photos are only in focus on the right side of the frame. Good to know about those clips.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Do you have homeowners / renters insurance?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
do you have stairs in your house?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:It's shorter, lighter, and the AF actually hits most of the time. So yes, it's better. It's also more consistently built (as in, remarkably consistent performance according to Lensrentals tests vs the mediocre 1.4)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 15:55
|
|
