|
pseudonordic posted:Understanding Exposure is fairly cheap, so if you have the extra $16 to pick up your own copy then do it. It's a great guide that illustrates how the three main aspects of photography interact to create an exposure. The new (third) edition also happens to be loving gorgeous in-person, loaded with full-page size prints and some pretty thorough explanations of how/why he made the decisions composing each shot. I know saying "but it's pretty" might not mean much , but I legitimately enjoy cracking open that book for any reason I can find. It's really just well-made across the board. And, you know, it actually taught me to pay some loving attention to my exposure.  On another note, can I ask why everyone still insists on the Tamron 17-50 as this end-all-be-all kit lens? I mean, yes, it's definitely sharper than a normal kit lens. Yes, it's definitely a constant 2.8 aperture. ...Barring that, it's pretty much just the same. Some folks might hate that the zoom ring moves in the opposite direction, but that's less of an issue. The real problem is the focusing ring: It is the tiniest little sliver and intolerably loose. If you're only going to be using AF, it's a bit noisy but fast -- but if you plan on focusing manually, this lens will do nothing but serve to infuriate you. I really only keep it on for a 24 or 35 perspective now, but I wish I had just bought a 35mm f/2 six months ago instead. It's a struggle to force myself to use this little bastard. I swear I got more use out of the 18-135 kit lens (and that's getting sold too). Honestly, just beware. It seems like the default "You want a lens? Buy this," option without much consideration beyond "well it's 17-50 and f/2.8 is faster than f/3.5". My strongest recommendation would be to RENT EVERYTHING FIRST, specifically from https://borrowlenses.com, before dishing out the cash for anything as costly as a lens. Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Jun 20, 2012 |
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
rawrr posted:For most people, a lens that's noticeably sharper and one to two stops faster is reason enough to upgrade. That said, I just checked Amazon, and apparently they've been $500 new for a while now, making them less of a good value new (i.e. buy used). So aside from being 2/3 to 2 stops faster, what benefit does it offer over the kit? I mean, the kit has IS and the same focal range, so figuring out if you like 24 or 35 or whichever lengths more seems like an irrelevant issue -- both cover the same lengths. I'll admit f/3.5-5.6 might suck for trying to start out as ~*Mr. Super-Bokeh*~, but is that really worth the difference of buying another lens? The kit lens inevitably gets sold by everyone with one -- seems like buying the Tamron 17-50 to replace it is just prolonging the inevitable and saying "f/2.8 is worth $200 more than f/3.5". Again, I'd get used to which focal lengths you like on your own kit lens before you run out investing in a nearly-identical one. This thing is not that different from what already comes standard. Except the AF is louder. Like a mosquito with an airhorn. It just seems premature to emphasize "NO YOU NEED f/2.8"  Why isn't the first bit of advice just "BUY A MANFROTTO 190XPROB"? 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
I'm just saying for a proof-is-in-the-pudding situation, a ton of the poo poo I've churned out between the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Canon EF-S 18-135 /f3.5-5.6 IS are painfully similar. I'm not looking for some magical lens at the price point of $450, but the performance is incredibly "oh, that's it?" looking at it as an upgrade from the kit. And admittedly, my advice was more towards the First-DSLR crowd and not focused on a serious gear debate over the merits of every little difference. It might've been the wrong thread to mention my perspective in, but I asked the question because I'm trying to see what the "goon-allure" to this lens is. Yes, I absolutely appreciate having an f/2.8 lens, but the ubiquitous GET A TAMRON 17-50 just seems overplayed and stupid to me. There's a reason Craigslist is absolutely flooded with them, and it's not because everyone wants to share their perfect lens with the world out of the goodness of their hearts. As for "significantly sharper" and "has significantly less CA", I wouldn't agree at all. If you're pixel peeping on every fine detail, maybe it's more apparent, but I swear I've gone out on days just to figure out why the hell I bought this lens. It's soft as poo poo at 2.8 and looks even softer at wider angles. I'm not saying "the kit is great" at all, I'm asking "why is this great compared to a kit"? And "significantly better built"? This thing whines like a loving kazoo over a PA system on AF, isn't THAT much faster than an entry-level lens, and has a focusing ring looser than a whore. If you're saying "it has a nicer rubber on the rings", maybe, but the build quality is strikingly similar to any other entry-level lenses to me. I'm not saying it's a piece of poo poo. I'm not saying don't buy it. I'm asking why the hell does everyone act like this is the lens to buy next? e: I know I'm an rear end in a top hat and contradicted myself on "sharper", so I should clarify -- Yes, there is a difference vs. a kit. It is not an "oh wow" by any means and can even get down to pixel-peeping. I guess I just don't understand why everyone seems so thrilled by this. I'm not trying to poo poo in the sandbox for everyone else 
Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
Chicago. I'm on Craigslist just hoping for an "I don't know how much this is worth" sale all the time and the Tamrons are just flooding the area, I guess. I didn't realize it was a local thing.  But seriously, a new one every day and $280 asking price? That's literally the same rate as the 18-135 kits here. And from what I've heard from other owners, this "looseness" is standard. It's been this way since it came out of the box for mine. Again, I didn't mean to come in angry and threadshit, I'm really just wondering what makes it ~special~ enough to be a default-buy for the forums. I like having an f/2.8 and I'd have undoubtedly gotten another, this just seems like a really small difference as opposed to picking up a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. And yes, I know the price reflects it -- I'm just saying this feels like looking for a car to replace your bike, then buying a motor-scooter. It'll get the job done, but it's no supermodel by any means. e: I'm not saying I could've afforded the 17-55 back then either. I'm saying it seems like it would've been wiser to just save in the long run than leap to buy a less-substantial upgrade. And if you're shooting video, you'll want a smooth focusing ring for manual pulling, not quiet AF. Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:The focusing noise is also not an issue for most of us who don't care about video. You have different needs, so of course you are going to need a different solution. This is virtually a non-issue for video purposes. It's that it's loving annoying to hear it screeching in your ear and it can definitely ruin a "moment", especially in a quiet place. Mine was echoing off the walls during a graduation; the shutter sound wasn't even noticeable. If the manual focus didn't suck as well, it wouldn't be a pain to switch during times like that. The AF on the new 40mm pancake is the only usable-AF during video shooting on a Canon, and it only works in realtime on the T4i. You're never going to be using AF during a take. And while I do shoot video for school, it's certainly not the only consideration I'm taking. Photo became a completely different obsession after I started using DSLRs. I wouldn't compare a Gitzo to a Sachtler, nor an EF-lens to a PL-mount one -- I'm not disagreeing on separate needs, but that doesn't mean "everything you say is irrelevant to photo". It's way more sensible to have an L-lens on a 60D than a 50mm f/1.8 II on a 1DX. It's not a "pro" body by title, but it benefits from quality glass all the same. v v v Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
So the new EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pancake is in stock at B&H now. Time to sell some poo poo and grab one for testing  e: Even though it's not as fast, I'd say it offers an awesome new unreal-cheap-prime entry between the 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 in terms of price and focal length. Plus, the STM is a major bonus. $200 is perfect impulse-buy territory, it feels like it's too cheap not to give a whirl. Odds are I'll end up waiting and rent it anyway and I still want to see what it looks like on a crop anyway Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
The Full-Time AF on video only works with the attached T4i body, but Canon seems to be bragging about the new STM focusing drive all the same. It's supposedly faster/more silent than the USM motors, I'm just interested to see how it performs at $200. e: and I'm instantly rebutted by this article http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/camera-lenses/canon-ef-40mm-f-2-8-stm-1083886/review I guess it's just to be less "jerky" during AF? I still want to see what the gently caress is up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Duckjob posted:Looks like a fancy body cap: Jesus, that sounds like a lovely printer from 1995. I honestly think I'd rather hear the AF clicks on the USM. Then again, I won't ever have to*, but just between the two... that's an improvement? and I had my hopes up *during video Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
e: disregard, I totally mistook the bags up there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2012 11:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
MrEnigma posted:Just picked up a used 17-50 tamron, loving the 2.8 and the 17-50, (had a 17-40 L before and liked it). But holy cow IS THIS THING LOUD. BZZZzzzt BBBBZZZZTttt And the minute you switch it to MF, it's looser than Courtney Love's Heart-Shaped Box  But despite how much I've hated its little flaws, it's still the best non-L glass you're going to find, I can't deny it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2012 04:13
|
|