|
big scary monsters posted:Well that's fine, but then you end up having to scan the photo of the photo. I bought my Nikon D60 used with a split prism screen already installed, although not from Katzeye. I can tell you that it's invaluable for focusing, it's much easier to focus with it on my D60's lovely, dark viewfinder than the much better finder on my D300 that lacks a split prism.
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
signalnoise posted:Are mirror optics really that bad? I wanted to get a long lens and ended up with a 800mm/f8 for like 100 dollars including a polarizing filter because I was the only bidder on this auction. I figured if it sucked it wasn't too bad a price, even if it ends up being a novelty. I haven't really dropped serious money on lenses yet cause I'm still beginning. I mean are they that bad that dipping your foot in it is still a waste? Inherently, mirror lenses have slightly lower contrast and resolution due to the central obstruction in the front, but that's a pretty small effect. The real problem is that most people don't like them, so no one makes quality ones anymore. If you can find an old used one, most of them are better than the cheap new ones you can find. The last-version Nikon one my dad owns is very sharp, but it is difficult to focus well, and split prism finders tend to black out at such small apertures.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
Yah, you have a few options at under $1k, depending exactly how much you want to spend. The 80-200 f2.8 push-pull zoom is about $400 on KEH, and as far as I know is has the same optics as the 2 ring version that came out later. The differences are the zoom style, the 2 ring has faster AF, and it costs more like $7-800. There is also the old screw drive AF 300mm f4. It's super sharp even wide open. KEH doesn't have any right now, but I remember it being around $5-600. There's obviously a bunch of consumer zooms as well. Nikon's 70-300mm VR and Tamron's 70-300 VC are both really sharp, but slower-you won't want to use these indoors, unlike the 80-200. You could also consider a used Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3; it's huge, has no stabilization and requires bright, direct sunlight on the subject, but it is sharp at around f9. The Sigma will have a pretty rough learning curve, though. After having mine for a couple of years, I really love it. It's around $600 used. While we're on the subject of big, heavy telephotos, the old manual focus 300 f2.8 lenses are well under $1k at KEH, when they have them. They are massive and heavy and manual focus, but really sharp, and work great with teleconverters. I'm guessing it's not what you're after, but you never know. You would want to own a solid tripod before buying one of these. I'd suggest the 80-200 push-pull or the 300 f4 prime, depending on what you want to shoot with it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Ashex posted:The push pull zoom is really awkward for me (borrowed from a pro awhile ago). I guess I'll hunt around for the 80-200mm f/2.8 (I'll try to get the AF-S) and 300 f/4 prime for now. Yah, the D in "2.8D" is the same D as in AF-D. It means the lens transmits distance info to the camera, which is mostly (only?) used for setting the flash power more accurately. AF-S lenses will usually also have that D. There's 4 AF versions of the 80-200 in total, there's a non-D and a D version of the push pull (the D version has a crinkle finish everywhere, the non-D is smooth metal under the zoom/focus ring), there's a 2 ring D version, and there's the AF-S version. All except the AF-S have the same optics. If you want to get the AF-S version, the S is the important bit. I don't know if it's the only one designated "IF" as well, but it might be. If the AF-S fits your budget, it's supposed to be a significant upgrade to the screw drive AF models. Of course if that one fits, that might also open you up to the 300 f4 AF-S, which is pretty much the end all, be all of telephotos that don't cost $5k or more. Do you know what you would shoot with it? For any sort of wildlife the 80-200 is probably too short, and the 300 should be much better at taking teleconverters.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
rawrr posted:Yep, there are only two Tamron 17-50s - one with vibration compensation (which is more expensive with poorer image quality), and one without, which is this one (and the one you want). For Nikon there's actually three - two without VC and one with. The two without are one with an in lens focus motor and one without. I don't think anything changed optically between those two, though, so it's not a huge deal unless you have an entry level Nikon body.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Yah, I own the 85 and have no complaints, although I have no other 85s to compare it to. I'm perfectly happy using it wide open, as long as I get the focus right. I was initially kind of disappointed with it, but that turned out to be my focus technique (what a surprise); it's definitely a sharp lens. I've also used the 14 a bit, and sometimes you have to be careful with the distortion, like you definitely want to avoid putting the horizon near the top or bottom, or you have to fix it in post. It also has an odd quality control problem in that in many copies have something misaligned, so the focus scale is inaccurate. The result is that you lose some of the close focus range, although on such a wide lens that rarely matters. It's supposed to be pretty easy to fix, too. You can't really go wrong with them if you want a cheap manual focus lens. The 24mm probably gets the worst reviews, and I'm guessing the higher price on it is partly to blame there. The 35 is supposed to be ridiculously sharp, beating all the expensive AF primes. You can get them chipped for Nikon, so you get all the auto functions except focus, which is nice. I don't know about Canon. They've also announced a 10mm crop lens, and a 24mm tilt/shift, which is super exciting, although the latter might end up being pretty expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I assume you went away from the Canon gear discussed as Canon does not use any screw drive lenses; that said, you can definitely have decent manual focusing feel AND screw drive, go check out the Pentax 77/1.8 for instance. The screw drive autofocus is not attempting to turn the manual focusing ring on many lenses, but rather it is decoupled at that point. Yah, this is also the case for a lot of the Nikon pro screw driven lenses. For instance, the 200 f/4 macro is quite pleasant to manually focus; to switch between auto and manual you have to disengage a clutch. The focus ring doesn't turn during autofocus. The cheaper lenses tend not to have this feature, though. That said, I don't know of any AF lens that focuses manually as nicely as a real manual lens, so I'd second the suggestion to use a manual lens on an adapter if it's cheap enough to make sense for you. I've never used the Pentax 77 though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Does anyone have any idea why Sigma releases new revisions of lenses more frequently than other manufacturers? I don't pay much attention to Canon, Nikon, or Sony - are they in the habit of tweaking their existing designs almost every year? I don't know if Sigma has always released so much so quickly, but lately they've been working really hard to become a real viable alternative to first party lenses rather than the cheap alternative. And it seems to be working, too. They've been putting out lenses that are at least as sharp as the first party stuff, and stayed significantly cheaper, even though their prices have gone up somewhat. I think their quick iterations lately have been to shore up known weaknesses in their lenses, basically. Nikon tends to be slow at updating lenses, except the super-telephotos that no one can afford quickly get updated with the most current VR system. They're especially bad in regards to filling in their DX lineup, particularly in the affordable wide angle prime category (I guess they're bad for FX there too), but I think that's more that they have no intention of doing so than being slow at it  .
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Just to clarify, that's the only "true macro" 1:1 lens? Lots of zooms will go to 1:2 or 1:2.5, without spending way too much or sacrificing too much image quality. The Nikon only goes to 1:1.33 actually. It's the only zoom I've heard of to get that close to 1:1, and isn't super rare, but then I don't know of any zooms that go 1:2 either. Nikon's 18-55 VR kit lens does 1:2.7 though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
Megiddo posted:Someone talk me out of (or into) getting this Nikon D3100 2-Lens Kit for $500 (on sale at various B&M retailers). I've been looking to get a DSLR for a while, but I haven't really used an SLR of any kind since I had a Nikon FG about 10+ years ago. I really don't think I'm going to find a better deal and that if I decide to upgrade within a couple years I could probably sell the kit without losing any money. It's a good camera, and a good deal, but don't buy it if getting all your money back in a couple of years is important to you, because that will not happen. You are correct that unless you go used, you will probably not find a better deal any time soon. On the other hand, if you think you will grow out of it too quickly, you might be better off buying a used, higher end model instead.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
I was in Germany for a couple of weeks recently, and while I was there, I found a Nikon TC-16A for a good price. I'm posting about it in this thread rather than the Nikon one because I think it's interesting to everyone. It's a 1.6x teleconverter, but it also adds limited autofocus to whatever lens you put in front of it. It's driven like Nikon's old autofocus lenses, with the motor in camera body. The range of movement is pretty limited, especially if you are using a long lens, since the amount the elements in the TC can move is fixed, but you have to move glass further to move focus on a long lens. On something like a 35mm lens, though, you can pretty much leave the lens at infinity and get most of the range you would want to use. On an 85mm you can probably figure out a good distance to leave the lens at and not have to move it much, but for lenses that you really want a TC for, like 300mm+, you're still doing a lot of the work yourself. But now you are nailing focus just by getting close, and you can track moving objects, like birds in flight. It actually focuses quite quickly. There's a bit of a catch, though. Unmodified, it doesn't work with digital cameras. The contact pins aren't quite the same as a normal AF lens. Fortunately, someone else did all the hard work for me. It's a fairly simple mod. You solder a short wire to the flex cable at position 3, and to one of the springs that hold the pins in place. The camera gets whatever signal that used to go to contact 3 at contact 6 now, which fools it into thinking there's a normal autofocus lens attached to it. With this part of the mod complete, the camera will only shoot wide open, and thinks a 5mm f/1.0 prime, shooting at 8mm is attached to the camera (yes, that's impossible). If you try to stop down you get the fEE error. The autofocus works with digital cameras like this, but on my copy (and it sounds like, many others), it severely front-focuses without the next part of the mod. Luckily, Nikon used the same chip for this TC, a 50mm f1.8 prime, a 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 and a 70-210 f/4. There are two pins on the TC which determine what lens or TC gets reported to the camera. By clipping both of them off, it reports the 70-210 zoom. After doing this, the AF miraculously becomes accurate, and you no longer have to shoot wide open. I'm not exactly sure why this fixes the AF, but it does. You have to set your lens's aperture to 6 stops below wide open, because on the 70-210 zoom that's stopped down all the way. That does mean that you can't stop down any further than 6 stops even if your lens is technically capable of doing so (who cares?). It does also mean that you cannot use lenses that only have 5 or fewer stops of aperture, unless you switch the camera to use the aperture ring rather than the dial on the camera. I can't really say much about the image quality yet. I haven't tested it out to make sure the AF really is completely accurate, but I can definitely say that it's within the capabilities of my D300's fine tune. I just finished the mod this afternoon (actually I finished fixing the tear I made in the flex PCB ). I can say, though, after playing around with my Samyang 85mm on it, that it does seem like stopping down a bit is a good idea. My parents have an AIS 300mm f/4.5 that I will be testing extensively with the TC  . That should give me a 480 f/6.7 lens. It should AF alright; technically lenses slower than f/5.6 don't, but some guy got AF to work with a 500mm f/8 on the TC, which is f/12.8. I'm probably going to break down and get a manual focus super-telephoto one of these days. The old manual focus 800 f5.6 shows up on KEH for around $3000 fairly often, that's practically free compared to the new AF-S one! I can totally hand hold one of those if it autofocuses, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
The aperture could be f8, but you can still lose additional light through the optics. This is usually called a T-stop (T for transmission). On most modern lenses you lose about 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop, but I could see a Holga lens transmitting a lot less. 3.5 stops is really severe though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Since my Yashica Electro 35 GSN gave up the ghost, mechanically, I'm going to hack the lens out and adapt it to E-Mount for my NEX. Anyone done this mod before? I'm going to document my progress, but I'd love to have someone to toss questions at. Definitely show off your progress here. I don't know anything about doing this, but it sounds fascinating and I want to see how it's done.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
dakana posted:Sigma makes a 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG IF HSM. No idea how it really performs, but it's pretty unique in that it's a 12mm rectilinear on full frame. Yah this is the only equivalent lens, it has basically exactly the same angle of view as the 8-16 does on crop (technically even a bit wider, actually, if you are comparing on Canon, whose crop sensors are a touch smaller than Nikon's).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:What is the cheapest, decent full frame body you can get into for a fairly normal used price? D700? A used D700 is still pretty expensive for a 5 year old dslr, really. It's a really good camera, though, with an excellent sensor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
Gray Matter posted:Camera plebe here, I know nothing about anything other than what little I've gleaned from this and a couple other dorkroom threads. I see a couple of options in the ~$500 range. There's a D3100 with just the 18-55 for $425, with the 55-200 added for $500, and with the 55-200 VR instead for $575. There's also the D3200 with 18-55 for $500. The bundle you linked is a decent deal, but there's a couple of issues, which depend on how you think she would use the camera. Neither of the lenses bundled with the camera are very good for indoor photography, because they don't let much light in (which is normal for kit lenses). The 55-200 in particular is basically only usable in bright sunlight, until you have a ton of practice with holding it steady, and even then, it's pretty mediocre. The $575 bundle with the VR version of the 55-200 really is worth the money if you can stretch your budget, and you think your wife would want a longer lens than the 18-55. The VR is Nikon's term for image stabilization, which basically means you can get sharper photos in weaker light, because it counters your hands shaking. The lens is also just better than the non-VR version. One lens that would be really useful for indoor shots is the 35mm f1.8. It's about $200, and doesn't zoom at all, but it lets in a ton of light compared to the other two lenses. Of course, getting the bundle with the 18-55 plus the 35mm lens is getting considerably over your budget. I think the best bet would actually be to just get the kit with the camera and the 18-55, and promise to get her another lens when she has a feel for the limitations of the kit lens. In the long run this might cost you more money, but on the other hand you could just as easily waste money by getting a bundle with a 55-200 only for her to end up not using it. This D3200 bundle is also only $75 more than the equivalent D3100 bundle, and might be worth the money. I haven't actually used the D3100 or the D3200 myself, though, so other people will have to help you decide if it's worth the extra $75. I guess my recommendation would be to get a bundle with just the 18-55 kit for now. EDIT: Okay, my post might have sounded a bit too negative, and a wall of text. There's really nothing wrong with the bundle you posted, although I still would recommend getting the VR 55-200 over the non-VR. TL;DR version is that you might not want to get the 55-200 at all for now, and see if she wants more zoom over the 18-55. If she does, you can get a 55-200 later, but if she is more concerned with taking better photos indoors or in low light, the 35mm f1.8 is a better second lens. This might cost more in the long run, but saves you the risk of getting her a 55-200 that just sits on the shelf if she doesn't find it useful after all. ShadeofBlue fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Yah, a plastic hood shattering acts like a pillow for the lens itself. All of the force of the impact goes into throwing the pieces of plastic around. A metal hood might absorb some of the impact by denting, but not nearly as much.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
Atalante01 posted:Going to Africa in January and I'm looking to get a telephoto lens for Safari. Need a recommendation before I get analysis paralysis and have to give up photography. You could always rent a lens, which is what a lot of people do when they go on trips like that. Make sure you rent it a few days before you leave so that you can practice a little with it first, if you do.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Chroisman posted:Thanks very much for the advice everyone, I'll read some more about the 7100 to make sure it's exactly what I want, and maybe take a look at those Fujis and stuff as well. Thanks again. Go to a store and handle some cameras. It's really the only way to actually see and feel the advantages (size and weight) mirrorless cameras (like the Fuji) have over a DSLR. As for image quality, a full frame sensor is better, but even micro-four thirds is so good nowadays that it's unlikely that you will care about the difference until you get really good at photography.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
 I'm so jealous.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
A smug sociopath posted:I've had one for about two years now, and it's had a place in my standard kit ever since buying it. It's quite sharp even wide open and has nice ergonomics; the focus ring more reminiscent to old manual lenses than the loose rings you see on modern Canons etc. It just has a nicely firm feel to it. However, some people have complained about the lens being low-contrast. I personally don't mind that. I bought it new and think it's insanely good value for money, so if you can get it at a discounted price, go for it. Seconding, I own one too, it's great. Focusing at f1.4 is a unique challenge, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:I ended up buying a used Fuji X-S1 (X10 sensor in a bridge camera with EVF) for a whopping $250 shipped from Amazon merchants. Buying used/clearance is the way to go for bridge cameras in my opinion. At full price they're just way too expensive. You might as well buy an entry level DSLR and crop like crazy (EDIT: this is probably an exaggeration). That said, I do think they are underrated. I started on a Kodak bridge camera that I bought on clearance, and it was quite a capable camera.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Can you actually influence that via the optical design? I'm fairly certain that the size that an out of focus spot makes on the sensor is entirely determined by the focal length, aperture, and distances involved, so, in my opinion, no it is not possible to influence that via the design. You can, however, mess with the shape of the out of focus spot, and how harsh/smooth the spot's edges are. Particularly smooth bokeh can make it seem like the background is more out of focus than with harsh bokeh. There's a lot of aesthetic trickery that's used in making cameras and lenses to try to get around physical limitations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:So I recently picked up a sigma 50mm-500mm nikon mount, keh listed that the lens had a loose zoom but I figured for the price it was a steal. I got the lens and put it on my nikon D7000 and the lens doesn't autofocus and doesn't expose correctly. I examined the mount and noticed this. Hey, I've been trying to sell my 50-500mm for a while now, you should return that and buy mine  .10 contacts is normal for that lens, obviously they shouldn't be bashed in though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:I think you can still get one with the 10-30 for 300-350 or so. I think the idea of a camera that small , that has AF that can actually keep up with a little kid is a very attractive package for a mom with little ones. Just noting for people who might be interested in one, they're about $250 on Amazon right now, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Lytro's releasing a "professional" version of their lightfield camera, for some 1500 bucks. Too bad details are scare about the resolution of the images ("custom-designed 40-megaray light field sensor"). I like the concept, but I feel like they need to bring this to cell phone cameras, not try make it more "pro". Pro cameras can already focus ridiculously fast and accurately. Eliminating focus time for a cell phone camera seems like an actual benefit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Moonbloodsflow posted:You guys suggested the Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 for my M43. But I'm also looking at the Panasonic 14-140mm f/4.0-5.8 OIS. For a first lens, which would you pick up first? Everybody seems to be on the 20mm side. I'm sure I will end up owning both, or something comparable sooner rather than later. But I'd just like some more input before I spend the money. Keep in mind I only have the 14-42mm kit lens that came with my Olympus OMD-10. I'm also open to other suggestions. I just want to get the most for my money until I figure out how far I am going to take this. Do you more often find yourself wishing to zoom in more, or to take better pictures in the dark? The only other consideration is whether you want a tiny lens to go with your camera, which can be nice to have sometimes, and whether or not those are the best choices for the problem you want to solve. For a better low light lens, the 20 f/1.7 is excellent for sure. I don't know if the super zoom is the best choice for a longer lens though. Unless you are dead set on not changing lenses in situations where you need both wide and telephoto lenses, it's probably better (certainly a ton cheaper) to get a 40-150mm or something similar.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
It's not plastic, but you can't post that and not also post this (7D durability test): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCT-YMgjm9k
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
The x70 will be a full stop worse in that case, since the lens is slower.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Sigma 200-500 f/2.8. Known as the 'Sigma Bazooka'. Also it's $26,000 and 16kgs/35 pounds It's the "Sigmarine," thank you very much.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Might have asked this ITT already but is th re a reason that catadioptric (mirror, or reflex) lenses aren't really a thing anymore? I've got a hankering for some longer-range shots and they're really inexpensive. Honestly, the real problem with mirror lenses is that getting the focus right is incredibly hard on such a long lens. Their sharpness is generally good for their price, but that doesn't matter much if every photo is just slightly out of focus. The only one I've really enjoyed using is Nikon's last 500mm one. It has a super long focus throw (more than a full rotation), so you can actually fine tune the focus like you need to. It's pretty expensive for a mirror lens, unfortunately.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:This one? Gotta be a bit careful, there's multiple types in the search you linked. It's the one with an orange ring and a tripod mount. My parents have one, you can take good photos with it, but it does take a lot of practice, and it won't quite match a "real" telephoto in quality. Basically, it's about as good as you would expect from a 500mm lens that costs around a third (I think?) of what a consumer 500mm zoom does, when you get the focus right.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 06:27
|
|
|
The one I’m talking about is this one: https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/reflex/500mm.htm I don’t have any experience with the one you linked, it might also be fine. It will probably be harder to get precise focus with it though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:So to reiterate, you didn't mind it so much because it had a really long focus throw - am I correct in saying "kind of like cinema glass" - so you can make finer adjustments more easily? I've never used cinema glass, but that sounds right .It's definitely a good idea to try out the 70-300 first. Any mirror lens will be darker and harder to use. Neither the 70-300 or any mirror lens is an indoor lens. They are all outdoor in bright sun kind of lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
toggle posted:I'm looking to get a proper telephoto lens for my OM-1, been using the 40-150 f.28 for years but want something a tad longer. Looking at the Olympus 100-400 f/5-6.3 or the 300 f/4. The 100-400 is affordable but isn't as nice as the 300. I got the 300mm f4 recently, and it’s incredibly sharp. I need to post some photos I took with it in the bird thread actually. I haven’t been particularly bothered by it not being a zoom, but there are definitely photos that I’ve needed to crop, so in principle, a longer zoom like the 100-400 would have helped in those cases. I’m not very experienced with wildlife photography, though, so having some room helps with getting composition and focus right, and also with actually finding my target. I’ve used it with the 2x TC, too, and I can’t even see a drop in sharpness. Definitely a pretty severe drop in AF capability, though, at least on my E-M1 mark ii. With the 2x TC, you really need your subject to be in sunlight. I think if you already have the 40-150, the 300 makes more sense. It seems to me that it would be rare that you need both 100mm and 400mm at the same outing. I was also considering the 100-400, and figured I’d have it stuck on the long end all the time, so I just went with the 300 prime, since it’s supposed to be quite a bit sharper, and it’s also faster of course. I’m happy with my decision so far .EDIT: I posted a couple of shots in the bird thread. I’ll try to edit and post a few more. ShadeofBlue fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Sep 1, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2022 04:39
|
|