|
Stochastic posted:I'm looking to purchase another lens for my Canon T1i. So far I have the 18-55 kit lens, the Canon 55-250 IS f/4-5.6, and the Canon 50 1.8. After playing around with this setup for a couple of years, I landed my first paid gig taking photos for adult sports leagues (kickball, flag football). It's a casual deal and doesn't pay a whole lot, but it should enable me to upgrade my equipment a bit. It's nothing special. the digital picture posted:Center of the lens image quality slowly degrades through 200mm - remaining usable. Stopping down provides only slight improvement in center of the lens sharpness. Corner performance worsens by 100mm but then holds through 200mm - remaining reasonable. Again, stopping down provides only slight improvement in sharpness.
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 05:09 |
|
|
phootnote posted:I only have a 50mm 1.8 right now. You'll need wider. The 35mm mentioned may not be wide enough for this, but it's a good choice, right at "normal" on your camera. I'd suggest a 24mm, though, for that specific shoot, to complement the 50mm.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2012 13:22
|
|
|
low-key-taco posted:How would that 85mm 1.8 work for outdoor photography and pretty flower pictures? I know a 3 feet minimum focus would be problematic but the extra zoom would be nice in a lot of circumstances. You would love the 85. Beautiful lens, all the strengths of a good prime lens.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
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. Look at the title of the thread. Pause. Answer your own question.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I can't think of any full frame primes at 14mm that are faster than 2.8. And they're all expensive anyways. Nope. The rokinon 14 2.8 is about $300.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:You show me a $300 Rokinon 14mm and I'll show you a man who bought another lens. I've seen it online for $300 lots of times.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:That 17-70 has a pretty close minimum focus distance allowing you to get 1:2.7 magnification vs 1:5 with the 17-50. If you're interested in doing a little macro, the 17-70 might be a better choice. The 17-50 is better. The extra 20mm and moderate improvement at macro are not good reasons. If you're going to shoot macro, buy a macro, or extension tubes. If you need to shoot in the 50-70 range, there are better choices. As a walk around the 17-50 is the much much better lens.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Noted on both accounts! Canon has been calling me with its sweet siren song, but my photographer ex-gf blinded me to the ways of Nikon and I never looked back Nikon vs Canon vs Snype? You won't be able to see much difference in IQ, DR or ISO, or AF. Find them, hold them, buy the one that feels the best and whose control setup works for you. The current generation of DSLRs are all fantastic. Or, buy one that your rich friend has so you can borrow gear. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Look how dumb you are. Well, in my defense, I was posting something we've all said over and over.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
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 have the sigma 24 1.4 and it's in no way soft.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
ultrabay2000 posted:I had a Transcend 8GB CF card die on me within a year, although I had probably gotten 8000 shots through it. I am unsure if I should go buy another Transcend or a Sandisk. Kingston is also fine.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
xcore posted:OK, I need some help. All this research with differing opinions is doing my head in. Did you note the thread title? It has your answer. Second party lenses are not as good as the 70-200 canons, but the tamron 17-50 is no sacrifice in quality.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Haggins posted:The Tamron 17-50 is pretty good for the price and if you're just starting out, I'd get that. Granted I haven't used the Canon version, but I kinda doubt the Tamron is just as good. The AF on the Tamron is a little slow and it's no where close to L level sharpness/ colors. I have heard around here that the Sigma 17-50 2.8 is as good as the Canon version but I can't confirm that. I've been debating upgrading my Tamron to a Sigma or Canon or just selling it off and saving up $5000 to go full frame with a 24-70 2.8 and a 5D3. The tamron is excellent but not as good as the canon...which is much more expensive. The best trade off is the non VC tamron and the canon 70-200. I think the sigma OS version is supposed to be excellent, but somewhat more expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Instrumedley posted:Anyone have experience with the Sigma 50-500mm or 150-500mm? How do they compare with the Canon 100-400mm? Take a look at the 120-300 f/2.8 from Sigma. The version before it got the dock support and a Sport designation is hardware identical, great reviews on sharpness and AF speed/accuracy. Apparently takes the Sigma TCs extremely well, so you could put a 2x on it and have a 240-600 f/5.6 or a 168-420 f/4. Not too expensive for that generation, too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Playing with my new Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Love it so far. The first two are with it with the canon 2x teleconverter. 600mm f8 by torgeaux, on Flickr  600mm Wide Open f5,6 by torgeaux, on Flickr  Bob Approach on 18 by torgeaux, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Alpenglow posted:Is that Sigma the unstabilized or the OS version? I'm really curious about potentially going from a Canon 300/4 IS to the first version of the Sigma with OS. It's the OS version, but not the latest "sport" version. They've been broken down and are identical, but for the USB interface. This version got great reviews but for their QA issues, so I bought this from lens rentals, who had given it the thumbs up. No focus issues so far. Fast focus, accurate and sharp even on the 2x tele.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 11:16
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The idea was indeed more as walk around on a FF camera. I'd prefer wider aperture, shallow DOF and all. Not too excited about the third party options in the zoom lenses. I have to decide between a Sigma/Tamron with image stabilization with so-so IQ, or a Canon L non-II (the II is too expensive for me, also I hate the white tube) with good IQ and no stabilization. Buy my 70-200 2.8. Great price in the sale thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Arg. So my Zeikos grip came in for my 6D today. It has an issue. If I adjust the ISO using the dial on the grip, my dial on the camera does not work. I have to shut everything off for a few seconds before I can regain control. Just making sure, that is not what the regular Canon grips do .. right? Yes, the official grip does not screw up functions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Just me, unpacking the car after a busy day shooting. I want him to get arrested and go to jail sooooooo bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 11:21
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:What the hell is that from? Lamar Odom (Khloe Kardashian's husband) was photographed by paparazzi. He then destroyed all the guys cameras, including breaking into his car and throwing his gear in the street. Being investigated for assault and destruction of property now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Don't forget about the 85 1.8. Almost as good as the 1.2L, and like 1/5 the price. More versatile, really, if not quite as good as a pure portrait lens. Faster AF, lighter, and cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
megalodong posted:My first DSLR buying question time! Yes. No. The tamron could last the life of the hobby, the limits of the kit lens will drive you to upgrade eventually. The package deal is a very mediocre flash, and a bag you can't pick to fit your own needs. Unless they happen to hit you just right, packages like that are not worth the money.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
whsa posted:I have a D610. I should have mentioned that my wife uses the camera to shoot wildlife...that's the whole reason I'm looking to get longer reach than 200mm. Decent 400 and 500mm lenses are just not going to happen unfortunately. They're not identical. I have the older, cheaper one, for canon, and it's great. But the new one is sharper, measurably. Some new materials/coatings for the same lens design.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:Yeah, it's not really competing with the super expensive fast lenses, it's competing with a 70-300 with a teleconverter. If they can make it sharper at 600 than the tamron, the aperture will stop no one from buying it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
So, sigma brings it again. TWO 150-600 lenses, one Sport, one Contemporary. Differing in lens makeup, so one sacrifices some sharpness for weight. Interested in how the pricing shakes out, too. At 6.3 pounds, the sport is a brute.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
NaDy posted:I've posted this in the Canon thread but I thought I'd post here as well as it's a little more active. The 24-105 is great. On a crop it will be marginally sharper. But it's also not as great a walk around focal length, at a field of view equivalent to 38-162.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:Why is there not more love for Canon's 200-400 F/4 with built in 1.4 Teleconverter? Even in photography dollars, $20k is steep. I don't hesitate to spend on my hobby, and that's the kind of thing that never passes from fantasy levels of desire.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:I have a bit of an involved question, and I have zero knowledge of cameras, so I want to apologize ahead of time for any nonsense. In the absence of a computer a digital camera is a non-starter. Consider a used camera and a cheapo computer as the gift package. And give up all your free time to explaining the net. Or, buy him a nice film setup.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:You can do a bunch of poo poo with a camera and phone: Back to my point. Doing these machinations to look at DSLR images on a phone is insane. At least a tablet would allow some decent review. A $200 computer would make it worthwhile.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Axeface posted:I'm looking to get into photography, shooting in a range from big landscape-style stuff (I'm in Colorado) to lower light conditions in an apartment, out on the street, and so on. I'd also like to be able to shoot a little video if possible; I've got a friend very much into the idea of shooting a short film, and I'm pretty drat intrigued by the idea myself, so something with at least basic capability in that direction would be great. The D7000 here is what I've mainly been looking at, as it's in my price range, seems a bit more geared towards beginners to the hobby, and comes with a kit lens, a concern for me right now financially given the cost of quality lenses. I was able to track down a D7100 to handle and it felt pretty good in my hands, so I'm presuming its immediate predecessor would also. You've answered the question. The Nikon feels better. Done deal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:I've done a few modeling shoots with a friend, so the club she dances at could use them for promoting the club. few of her friends have expressed an interest in getting similar shoots done. The other thing I've been doing is helping my dad when he does building shoots of local landmarks for regional banks yearly news letter. So nothing specific, I'm still trying a bit of everything right now. Execudork nailed it. The overlap in those two areas is. . . small. Also, being good at one isn't a great advertisement for the other, as the overlap in clientele is again small.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It would be much more reasonable to bring two 5dIIIs with these lenses instead~ I just got back from a Disney world trip with the boy. Saw a nice man taking a non-discript family photo, but I could see he had a Canon with a 70-200 2.8 II as a second camera. I waited a sec to see what he was shooting with while his 1Dx hung unused. It was a 645D.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Indestructible Hoya HD filters For some people, they're worth it. Low, low percent though. And things that scratch a filter won't necessarily scratch the lens.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 03:48
|
|
)
|
EL BROMANCE posted:OK before I put people into a rage, I know cheap filters are generally garbage. However, I've got a trip coming up and beyond a Hoya UV that was given to me (I wouldn't have bought it, don't worry), I don't have any and I'm about to leave the damp and dreary shores of the UK for Mexico for two weeks where I'm led to believe the weather is slightly better*. If you're that budget limited, buy the cheap CPL and shoot some test shots. If it hurts as badly as it might, return/resell it. If it's OK, use it. CPLs are very useful, as a rule. The ND is likely to suck so bad you'll never use it. A bad ND will have horrible color cast issues.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:Worthwhile clear filter for a Canon 24-105 /4 L? It's 77mm across, not sure what's a good choice. Would this do the trick? Why? If it's just for weather sealing, what conditions will you encounter?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:I don't understand your question, I don't think. I'm just looking for a clear filter that won't cause odd light effects and will keep poo poo from touching the surface of the big negative meniscus at the end. My other hobby keeps me outdoors a lot, and in a lot of environments, so there's potential for sand, grit, smoke, water, branches, whatever to touch it. Easy. The lens Hood for that lens will protect it fine. A clear filter is only necessary for harsh conditions, driving rain, sand storms, predictable salt water spray. Short of that, don't put glass between you and your subject.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Constellation I posted:http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-77mm-Protect-Filter-Japan/dp/B000WMFYKM Please, read the thread title.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:Why did you go on a tirade about UV filters. The dude asked about clear glass filters, not UV. Please explain the difference on a digital camera. iSheep posted:When I was photographing some AR15s being shot a casing flew into my lens, I had some generic cheap protective filter on there. The difference in strength of the lens versus a filter is huge. But more importantly, how close were you? I've been hit with a lot of casings from M-16s, and none were hard enough to break glass.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:To be fair, some Canon lenses apparently need a front filter installed to complete the lens' weather sealing: Yes, that's why I asked about whether it was for weather sealing. Even then, most lenses are fine in mist/normal slightly wet conditions. But, if you only feel safe with one, use it. Read up on how they impact ghosting/flare, as you can mitigate that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 05:09 |
|
|
OK, I have a friend looking for a DSLR (or equivalent) in the $3-400 range. He's previously shot Nikon film cameras. I'm obviously recommending he go used. Whats the best bang for buck there in the Nikon world?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 03:28
|
|