Camera Gear v8 "Buy A Pentax ME" (Don't buy UV filters, do hail satan)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Camera Gear v8 "Buy A Pentax ME" (Don't buy UV filters, do hail satan)

«‹›2 »

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Yup, Sony's 35mm f/1.8 fits the bill. $220 new, fantastic image quality, pretty much the best bang for your buck out of the Sony lineup.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2012 00:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:07

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

ExecuDork posted:

It seems like a long shot, but does such a thing exist as a way to charge a camera battery (that normally plugs into a wall outlet) through a USB port? I can find plenty of options for going the other way.

I know a USB outlet is going to put out a small fraction of even the trickle charge that a battery charger normally draws, but something that would let me keep my batteries topped up using this thing (or something like it) on a week-long canoe trip I'm planning would be very handy.

I don't think it will work. USB ports output a very small amount of DC power (5 volts, .5 amps), whereas wall outlets put out a much larger amount of AC power (110-120 volts, 15-20 amps). Even if you converted the USB output to AC power through a voltage converter, it's not going to have anywhere near as much power as the charger is expecting. I would not expect the charger to function, or if it does, it won't work in any meaningful way. The same would be true for pretty much anything you plugged in, so that's probably why no one has built such an adapter.

If you're feeling really creative, you could try to build a DC charger out of an AC charger. It's dangerous and a bad idea, but on the other hand, MacGyver was a fun show. This cable should supply the necessary power.

Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Jul 11, 2012

# ¿ Jul 11, 2012 06:46

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Dr. Lenin posted:

I'm looking to get something to use as a primary all-purpose lens, and I have a chance to buy a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 that is in pretty good shape for $350. Is this a solid lens? I know the Tamron 17-50mm is the most recommended, but after banging around with a kit 18-55mm and an 80-200mm f/2.8 for the past few years I was thinking a little middle ground zoom range would be nice.

It's a pretty good lens - Konica Minolta used to carry a rebadged version of it, which I've used on both crop sensor and full frame DSLRs. Good center sharpness, good color. The corners never really get sharp on full-frame unless you're down to f/8-f/11, but they're fine on a crop sensor. Light plastic build, but not in a way that feels cheap. Like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, it's not the greatest lens in the world, but it's a pretty good lens for the money.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2012 06:49

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

What lenses do you already have? Do you have a flash?

# ¿ Aug 13, 2012 06:28

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

dakana posted:

Picked up a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 for $265 the other day. It's really an unsung hero. Why is it a big deal, you ask? Well, for one, it's full frame. Full frame wide angles are usually pricey.

Here was my logic in buying it rather than the 17-40 f/4L.

Optically, they're very similar -- which is impressive for the Tamron.
The Tamron has an extra stop on the wide end.
The 17-40 focuses faster with USM. Counterpoint: it's a wide lens -- AF is not super critical.
The 17-40 has better weathersealing -- including the mount gasket.
The Tamron can be had for a good $300 less than the 17-40.

Ultimately, I sacrificed weathersealing and AF speed for a lens that was optically very competitive, gave me an extra stop on the wide end, and was over 50% cheaper.

Check it out, APS-H and full frame users, if you are looking for a cheap wide-angle.

Yeah, it's a great bang for your buck. I don't think it makes a lot of sense unless you're shooting full-frame (or APS-H), but it's still pretty good on a crop sensor. I have the Konica Minolta rebadged version sitting on my desk right now. Here is a comparison of it to Zeiss's ultrawide zoom; the Zeiss outperforms it, but just barely and at ~6x the price. Not bad for $300.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2012 06:05

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

GoldenNugget posted:

I was told that a good beginners lens is an 18-135mm zoom to get a handle of what focal lengths I like shooting at. Is this a good idea? I'm hesitant because I'm not sure how much telephoto I would do and the aperture on the ones in my price range are dynamic. Also read the image quality isn't as great.

Or should I just stick with the Tamron 17-50mm?

Stick with the Tamron 17-50mm. If you find yourself at 50mm a lot and keep having to zoom with your feet, consider picking up a Tamron 55-200mm f/4-5.6, as it's cheap and has great optics. Unless you're doing all your shooting at f/8 or f/11, these two lenses are going to have better image quality than a travel zoom like an 18-135mm.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2012 03:50

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

ExecuDork posted:

[T]heir 70-210mm f/4 telezoom (usually under the name "Minolta", or a third-party probably-patent-violating name like "Magnicon") is the precursor to the much loved, AF "Beercan"; I suspect it has either the exact same or very, very similar lens design/layout.

You're right, the MD and AF versions of the 70-210 f/4 have the same optical formula.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2012 06:38

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

NoneMoreNegative posted:

Quite the setup there. Does enough light make it to the top of the dish to actually reflect out in a meaningful way? Or does it not really matter because the light is diffused evenly enough around the rest of the dish?

Edit - typo

Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Dec 1, 2012

# ¿ Nov 30, 2012 20:38

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Samyang also makes a 14mm f/2.8, which has some complex distortion but is otherwise great - bad for architecture, good for landscapes.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2012 02:05

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

It's a hell of a camera to start out on. Do it.

# ¿ Dec 26, 2012 03:29

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

DoctaFun posted:

Anyone have a Tamron 17-50 Sony mount they are looking to sell?

There are very few Sony shooters here, so you may not have much luck. Keep an eye on Dyxum.

Edit - Good news - KEH has two in stock.

Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jan 6, 2013

# ¿ Jan 6, 2013 03:19

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Once upon a time, someone did a side-by-side comparison shot with the two lenses. The VC version was slightly worse. That's not to say it was bad, just not as good as the non-VC version in a side-by-side comparison. It's the sort of thing you probably won't notice in real life situations, or at realistic print sizes. Between the fact that the cheaper one is slightly better optically and that a lot of people get by without stabilization in that focal range, the standard response is to get the non-VC version of the lens.

If you want or need stabilization, by all means, get the VC version. It doesn't bite and it will still take nice pictures. I would if I wasn't already in a mount that offers in-body stabilization, it's a wonderful feature.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2013 17:48

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Sony tends to release new bodies pretty often, but not lenses - they tend to focus on the entry-level market, and most entry-level users never move beyond their one or two lens kits. Off the top of my head, there are five lenses in Sony's current lineup that are just rebadged Minoltas with optical designs from the 80s.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2013 02:23

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Hey neat, a double post. Sorry about that.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2013 02:24

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

EvilElmo posted:

Recommend me what to buy!

What you are looking to buy: Lenses (lensi?), strap and tripod
Budget: $1-1.5k (Australian)
Your photo gear you already have: Canon 7D, battery grip.
What you plan on using your purchase for: Video/Photo. Snowboard/Ski parks.
What you find limiting about what you have now: I don't have anything now!

Surely you have a lens or two already. Way lenses do you have?

# ¿ Feb 21, 2013 09:46

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

A couple of weeks ago, I did some drunken eBaying and picked up what I thought was a great deal - a Pentacon 135mm f/2.8, which I understood was a rebadged Optik-Meyer Orestor with a 15-blade aperture. I was wrong, and ended up getting the later 6-bladed version. Given how cheap I got it for and how expensive it would be to ship it back overseas, I'm going to keep it - might as well get something for my trouble.

Since I'll be picking up an m42 adapter, I might as well look into getting some other m42 glass. Does anyone have any recommendations for m42 lenses that will keep up with a 24mp FF sensor, have radioactive coatings, and can be found for $100 or less?

# ¿ Mar 11, 2013 04:35

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Marumi and B&W make very good circular polarizers. If I remember correctly, B&W is better, Marumi is meaningfully cheaper.

To save money, buy a single large filter (72mm or 77mm) and just adapt it for smaller filter threads.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2013 15:22

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Minolta made a zoom macro, though it was a bit of an odd duck - the 3x-1x macro. They're very rare, with only a few showing up on eBay or other sites each year.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2013 05:48

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Macro tube question - how useful are they in practice, and does image quality take a hit? Let's say I replaced my Minolta 100mm f/2.8 macro with a Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 + a macro extension tube. Other than a loss of autofocus, what's the risk - degraded image quality?

# ¿ Apr 5, 2013 04:21

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Sounds like a lot of hassle. Guess I'll just stick with my dedicated macro lens. Thanks!

# ¿ Apr 5, 2013 04:39

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

I'd say it is a step up from a kit lens, but a step down from the Tamron. $150 sounds reasonable.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2013 03:50

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

404notfound posted:

If you have both a fast prime and a reasonably fast zoom (e.g., the 35 f/1.8 with the 17-50 f/2.8), when would you decide to use one over the other? 17-50 covers the 35 length already so the prime seems superfluous; or if you go with the old "zoom with your feet" adage, then there's no need to go slower and pay more ($200 vs. $300-$350 used) for the zoom. What's the reason for owning both?

For me, it comes down to two questions - will I have a lot of time to compose my shot? And how much light will I have to work with? If I'm at an event and its either well-lit or I can use a flash, I'd rather use a zoom so I don't bump into guests while trying to zoom with my feet. If its dark at the event, or if I'm shooting portraits, I use a prime. Different strokes for different folks.

# ¿ May 3, 2013 05:32

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Star War Sex Parrot posted:

Should I be worried about where I buy Eneloops from? I know there's always concern for counterfeit memory cards, so I assume other camera accessories can be suspect as well.

If you're worried, check Costco - I see 10 packs there from time to time.

Instrumedley posted:

I'd like to pick up a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 to go with a new Canon 6D, but is there any reason to wait until it's redesigned (like the new 35mm f/1.4 Art)?

I wouldn't expect them to refresh that lens anytime soon, it's a fairly new design and is still highly respected. I'd expect a redesigned 24-70mm f/2.8 or a 135mm f/2 or faster before a refreshed 50mm f/1.4. I wouldn't wait, it might be a long wait.

Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 03:58 on May 14, 2013

# ¿ May 14, 2013 03:53

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Combat Pretzel posted:

Can anyone suggest a decent third party wide open 24mm prime with EF mount? The options I know of right how is Sigma and Samyang, and both seem to have kind of significant drawbacks (excessive softness and/or vignetting). I'm like a Canon 24mm/1.4, but I'm not Rockefeller.

I used to own the Sigma. Though it was crummy at f/1.8, it improved significantly at f/2. Still nothing jaw-dropping, but defintely useable.

# ¿ May 16, 2013 17:28

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

S100, definitely.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2013 15:25

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Combat Pretzel posted:

About third party 70-200mm/2.8, how hampering is the blurry corner performance of both the Tamron and (even more on) the Sigma in practical non-peeping use?

I used to own the Tamron (prior generation, before they added VC) and never had any concerns about the corners on 24mp FF. It is one of the sharpest zooms I've ever used.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2013 20:44

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

For walkaround use, mid-range zooms are fine as long as you don't need/expect sharp corners wide open. Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 and 28-75mm f/2.8 are good enough for most people in most situations. For me, primes have turned into low-light lenses, rather than what I must use for acceptable results.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2013 17:43

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Does the front rotate while focusing? If so, you'll need to get a cup-style hood. Otherwise, a petal style hood will work. Unless you can find a hood specifically for that lens, you'll probably need one that screws into the filter ring. As for size, I believe you own a NEX, right? 40mm * 1.5 crop factor = 60mm, which is close enough to 50mm that a hood for a 50mm lens should work fine.

# ¿ Aug 2, 2013 21:06

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

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.

Here is an interesting review of the differing optical designs of the lens. The latest version is sharper, but more distorted.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2013 07:56

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Delivery McGee posted:

But at least Zuiko glass isn't radioactive.

Why do you hate fun?

# ¿ Sep 29, 2013 05:16

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Mine shifts ever so slightly, but I only notice it at >300mm. It's really no big deal.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2013 00:13

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

I believe they're the same. The main thing to look for is the "VC" designation, which shows it has anti shake built into the lens. Neither has it listed, so I assume they're the same.

As for why one is cheaper, who knows. Could be clearance from that seller. Could be grey market. Could just be your lucky day.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2013 17:04

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

BlackMK4 posted:

What is the cheapest, decent full frame body you can get into for a fairly normal used price? D700?

Sony a850s go for about a grand on eBay. They make great landscape/architecture/studio cameras, but may not be the best option for fast action.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2013 06:24

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Paul MaudDib posted:

The 35/1.8 DX.

I'll throw one more vote on the stack. Buy it and don't look back. Fantastic optics, great price.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2013 08:13

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Bubbacub posted:

Looking to pick up a fast wide-angle lens for a wedding. Tamron 24-70 2.8 or Sigma 35 1.4?

What body are you shooting with? How well lit is the venue?

# ¿ Dec 23, 2013 08:12

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

I thought the D800/E still used a Sony sensor? Is it the 600/610 that are Toshiba-based?

# ¿ Jan 30, 2014 22:48

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Whoops, missed that. You're right.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2014 22:54

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Shaocaholica posted:

So does anyone think theres any market for it given the current A-mount landscape? I built this back in 2008 when there were zero FF A mount cameras except for Minolta film bodies. I've been sitting on it for 6 years now not using it since I switched systems to Nikon.

It should sell over at Dyxum.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2014 09:06

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

Ethanfr0me posted:

I'm looking for babby's first DSLR and I want to get the best photo / video capability (50/50 usage) for under $1500. Is the 70d with the kit lens a good bet?

The Sony a77 is worth a look as well. Excellent video autofocus, great resolution with the right glass (the lens bundled above is one such piece), and it's compatible with cheap/good Minolta AF lenses. It had poor reviews early on due to the 1.0 firmware being buggy, but it's pretty nice now.

Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Mar 23, 2014

# ¿ Mar 23, 2014 05:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:07

Bob Socko: Feb 20, 2001

SeaborneClink posted:

I bought a Sigma APO 400mm 5.6 Canon mount, how much am I going to hate it and want to buy a Canon 400mm 5.6L as per my original intentions?

You'll hate it less than the hole in your bank account that the Canon will make.

Seriously though, I've heard it's mediocre wide open. Usable, but mediocre.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 06:43

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Camera Gear v8 "Buy A Pentax ME" (Don't buy UV filters, do hail satan)

«‹›2 »