Doggles posted:I'm looking to upgrade my zoom lens. Currently I have the 55-300mm DX lens and I'd like to move up to the 70-200mm 2.8 lens. The older 80-200 f2.8 (two-ring version) is no slouch, either. Unless you absolutely need the VR you could save some money picking one of those up. I used one for years before I got my D800 and decided to go exclusively primes. Easily one of my favorite lenses I've ever used.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:33 |
|
1st AD posted:They also kill your hard drive, goddamn. Christ, ain't that the truth. I do professional film/video work as well so I'm used to ridiculous file sizes, but the fact that a still camera can produce such large files astounds me.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not really understanding why it's such a big thing either. For someone not familiar with cameras, the manual may be too "techie" for them to fully understand. A secondary "For Dummies" or whatever reference would probably put that stuff in easier to understand language. If someone needs it, they need it. Big deal.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
A 16mm lens on a DX camera would look the same through the eyepiece as a 24mm lens on FX. A 16mm lens on FX would look wider than on DX, and a 24mm lens on DX would look narrower than on FX.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 21:56
|
|
Legdiian posted:I guess I phrased my question incorrectly. I have an 18-55 kit lens on my DX camera. The 24-85 lens on a FX camera is going to give me a wider angle shot correct? And on the other end, when zoomed all the way in I will get roughly the exact same field of view? Yes. On FX the 24-85 would have the equivalent FOV that a 16-56.6 would have on DX.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 22:59
|
|