|
How is it different from the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? Better optics?
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
Goddammit, anyone else end up with one of those bum SD cards from Sandisk that won't format?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Where did you get it? Probably a fake Brand new at a camera store. I wanted to shoot an event but I'd left my other cards at home, so I ran across the street to a Hunt's Photo. At least I still have the packaging with the serial number, so I can talk to Sandisk.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
Supposedly the 85 f/1.8 focuses faster than the f/1.2, so keep that in mind. I'm really happy with my f/1.8, the f/1.2L seems way overpriced. Edit: Oh, FD. Huh. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Apr 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
The day after I got my 135L, I got to use it on Joe Biden.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
I shoot similar sorts of events, and I'm also planning to upgrade to a 5d3 eventually. I got an 85mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/2 L. They both work great on a crop body. The 85mm is my favorite lens right now, I suspect that will shift to the 135L when I go full frame.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
So when you get hosed up luminance in photos of people on an LED-lit stage, is it because the lighting is in one of the dips in the spectral sensitivity?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:No. It's generally because LEDs are relatively intense sources of a single wavelength of light. I don't understand how narrowband sources gently caress with luminance, though. Is the calculation on the camera is some kind of weighted average? Sodium vapor street lights would have the same problem, but I haven't noticed any issues with those. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 13:46 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
How is the focusing on the Canon 50mm f/1.4? I have a full set of primes, but I find myself avoiding 50mm because I don't want to hear the bzzt bzzt bzzt of the nifty fifty.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Willing to take a hit in image quality to have a lens that doesn't sound like a NASCAR pit stop.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The autofocus system is kind of slow and fragile, but it’s quiet enough. Hm. If I want something that's not slow and fragile, is the Sigma 50 1.4 a better choice?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Haggins posted:At $11,799.00 it's a little bit out my range but I could swing it if I stop going on vacation for the next 10 years and start farming my own food. Any thoughts? If you're Mitt Romney, sure. If not, get a 100-400L and put the rest of the money in an IRA.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Will it work well for zoo animal portraits? I'm trying to pitch a book to taschen so it will be for a professional business. The 100-400 might be too slow for zoo portraits. You might want to poison the animal feed so they stop moving and are easier to photograph.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:Is there a thread dedicated to capturing audio? I have a D7100 and I'd like to add an external microphone to it. I will be filming loud things (streetbikes at full throttle very close to me). Is there any reason why you need the audio to be on the camera? I use a Zoom H4N, which has a decent built in stereo mic, plus inputs for external microphones, and I sync the audio during editing.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Setting levels is probably tough if he's up close to the bikes, I'd want my mics farther back from the camera.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:I need a good portrait lens for a 5D2. Was thinking the 50 1.4 or possibly the 85 1.2L. Haven't heard much good about the 50 1.2L but I'm not sure if that's just photgraghy sperging or not. Don't forget about the 85 1.8. Almost as good as the 1.2L, and like 1/5 the price.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
What's the closest full frame equivalent to the Sigma 8-16mm?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Dumb question: for a lens to have an effective focal length less than the back focal length, there must be an intermediate focus between the last lens surface and the sensor?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Last lens surface to sensor distance.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
By "nodal point," do you mean focus? So if you sent in collimated light through the lens, the rays would converge into a spot there?
Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Ok, I was thinking about lenses the wrong way. Just had to look up a ray diagram for a wide angle lens (this one has a 210-degree FOV).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Looking to pick up a fast wide-angle lens for a wedding. Tamron 24-70 2.8 or Sigma 35 1.4?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Sigma announced a new 50mm 1.4 Art. If its anywhere near as good as their 35 1.4 is supposed to be, this should absolutely crush it out of the park. Goddamn, finally. I've been using a nifty fifty for 2 years because there hasn't been an obvious upgrade choice until now. Just got a Sigma 35, and it's incredible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Vignetting is always more severe on full frame sensors.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
I'm planning a week long trip to Iceland this summer. Probably doing some camping and day hikes, so I don't want to carry too much poo poo. I think I'll take a 5d3 + 135/2, 35/1.4 and the Sigma 12-24. Anything else I'm missing? Is it worth renting a tilt-shift lens for landscape shots? I don't have a light tripod, so that will be at the top of my list for stuff to buy for this trip.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Yeah, I like wide lens + narrow lens combo for landscapes too. The 35 is just for farting around town, I'd leave it in the car if I went on a hike, or take a shorty forty. Think I'll pick up a 200/2.8 because that looks like a nice and relatively compact lens for pretty cheap. gently caress heavy tripods, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Did you shatter it or something? Surely getting it repaired would be cheaper than buying a new lens. I have the older Sigma 30, and I've never had focusing problems.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
The price was $850 when I looked at the lens on a government purchasing website. I wonder if that's the price it'll settle at after the early adopter premium fades.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Verman posted:While not specifically "on camera" gear, what does everyone carry their lighting gear with? Ideally I would love a rolling pelican or skb case but I was seeing if there was anything less than $300 to look at. Yesterday I used a bicycle pannier and a mini hand truck we found in a parking lot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't understand how people have the patience for exposure blending.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Yeah, I have the Lee 0.6ND grads in hard and soft edge, plus a big stopper, a little stopper, and a circular polarizer. I feel like I have all the filters I'd realistically need for any situation. Is there a good case I can use for the 4x4s and 4x6 filters? Dealing with the individual soft cases feels a little cumbersome sometimes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Looking for an Arca-compatible plate for my 70-300L. It's pretty compact relative to the other chunky white Canons, do I need one of the long plates or will one that's sized to fit a camera body work ok?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
If you're going to mostly be photographing outside during your trip, your kit lens is fine. Before I upgraded to fancy L glass, I think I got more keepers with my kit 18-135 than with my Tamron 17-50. It's a fast constant-aperture lens, but I didn't really love it for anything besides that. Pick up a cheap 50mm or 30mm prime if you want to do some shooting indoors. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Oh, if you already have the 50, you'd probably be just fine using that for the whole time. Bust out the 18-55 if you want some wide angle outdoor shots, stop down, manual focus, no problem. I kinda feel like the 17-50 is overrated. It's a good, affordable lens, but don't feel bad for not having one. Try to find a shorty 40 if you can, it's significantly nicer feeling than the nifty 50. The focusing is quieter, it's sharper, and the color rendition is better.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Has anyone used tried anything that allows them to mount two cameras to one tripod? Ideally I'd like to use a Fuji X-E1 and a Fuji GW690ii at the same time to do different things (and use the X-E1 as a light meter). I've got a nice sturdy Manfrotto that can support the two of them, but the question is how to split one camera mount in two. http://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=30
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
That aperture seems overkill for a WA lens. I'd get a Sigma 12-24 and save the cash.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Why are all the Tamron 150-600s going for a couple hundred bucks above the retail price on Ebay? Is the backorder time for a new one supposed to be really long?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I don't know if I'd want that trade-off. I mean, I know you're not gonna get a 600mm f/2.8 for less than $crazy, but that seems like overkill length for a really slow aperture. You also have to factor in the cost of a team of Sherpas if you want to haul a 600/2.8 anywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
I've been printing landscapes at 20x30 with my 5D and I feel like I could push them even larger.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
Given that you can buy an off-brand carbon fiber bicycle frame for $500, the margins on tripod legs must be ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 20:13
|
|