|
SoundMonkey posted:I don't know, and yes, in that order. Buy the Tamron (it's a huge upgrade over the Nikon kit - huuuuuuge), but do NOT buy the VC model.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
Did the standard 17-50/2.8 (not VR) get significantly improved over the past few years? I paid $400 for mine on amazon back in 2008, now it's selling for $500 and the only difference seems to be the addition of a few more nonsensical acronyms in the name. XR Di-II LD SP versus Di-II LD. If they're basically the same lens, keep an eye out for the older version because they're selling about $150 cheaper than the newer version. Edit: Just looked it up, apparently in the newer lens XR stands for "Extra Refractive Index Glass" (means it's shorter) and SP stands for Super Performance (oh, so now we get the super performance). Correct me if I'm wrong, but in an entry/mid-level lens I'd have a hard time justifying the $150 difference between this and the older version, and an even harder time justifying the extra $300 for VC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
beergod posted:Is the VR worth an extra $150? Is it a significant upgrade over a Nikon kit? I'm trying to decide if I want the Tamron or a Nikon 10-24. VC (Tamrons VR acronym) is not worth the price of admission. The Tamron Non-VC 17-50 2.8 is going to blow your kit lens out of the water. And before you ask in a future post, the lens is filled with bees. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Multicoated high-refractive-index optical bees. But still bees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Even though I don't really need it, just bought my DSLR! Grabbed a t4i on sale. Time to start shooting weddings!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Multicoated high-refractive-index optical bees. But still bees. The bees provide the ISO buckets. Bryan told me so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Is the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro worth getting for my D5100. I have a Nikon 55-200 but want something with more reach that can also focus closer up so I can switch to shooting plants without putting on my 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:Is the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro worth getting for my D5100. I have a Nikon 55-200 but want something with more reach that can also focus closer up so I can switch to shooting plants without putting on my 35mm. Probably, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Probably, yes. I just found this video and now I am thinking that it is way to loud. Maybe I should just keep saving up for something higher end. I feel like I wouldn't regret better glass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:Is the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro worth getting for my D5100. I have a Nikon 55-200 but want something with more reach that can also focus closer up so I can switch to shooting plants without putting on my 35mm. I had this lens before I got the tamron 70-300 VC, and I have to say I wish I had just saved up for the VC from the get go, it's just not very good. Save up for the 70-300 VC. You lose a little macro ability, but to be honest I don't think the macro on the cheaper one is that great anyways, and you only gain ~2 feet of focus distance (basically the cheap one gets you 1:2 magnification, the VC gets you 1:4). The macro mode is not worth the difference in performance at 300mm is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
And extension rings are so cheap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:And extension rings are so cheap. I have extension rings as of yesterday. Now to get a flash to go with them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
So imagine my surprise when I open up my new camera box, and instead of the 18-55mm lens I'm expecting it has the 18-135mm lens. Thanks Best Buy! Time to learn how to use this thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
fknlo posted:So imagine my surprise when I open up my new camera box, and instead of the 18-55mm lens I'm expecting it has the 18-135mm lens. Thanks Best Buy! Time to learn how to use this thing. Sell it, buy the 18-55, it's a better lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Sell it, buy the 18-55 VR, it's a better lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Sell it, buy the 17-50 f/2.8, it's a better lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Son, if you know someone who'd give me a 17-50 2.8 for an 18-135, by all means let me know. Then get them back on their meds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Son, if you know someone who'd give me a 17-50 2.8 for an 18-135, by all means let me know. Then get them back on their meds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:Is the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro worth getting for my D5100. I have a Nikon 55-200 but want something with more reach that can also focus closer up so I can switch to shooting plants without putting on my 35mm. Save up for the VC version. Miles better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Cheap extension tubes, an old lens from my grandpas camera, and a desk lamp are my favorite photography equipment right now. I am going to stay up way to late playing with these tubes. Ruler by atticus_1354, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
I'm not sure this is exactly the right place for this, but who knows maybe it is. I need to buy a camera for use in our microbiology lab. There are going to be two distinct uses for it. One will be for taking macro-type shots of tiny things or relatively tiny things. We have a nice Canon point and shoot now that works...terribly for this. Autofocus never focuses on the right thing. The other is taking pictures of various things on top of variably white/blue/UV transilluminators using filters to image the fluorescence. Ideally I would be able to see a preview and operate the camera (including zoom and focus) from a computer via USB/Firewire. My only experience with DSLRs was a Pentax that did absolutely nothing like this. Am I right in thinking I want a DSLR? Does anyone know which cameras are best for being operated remotely like that? I'm not even necessarily stuck on a new camera, I don't need anything fancier than those requirements, but most cameras are cheap compared to the Rolera EM-CCD camera we just bought to stick on our microscope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
You won't be able to remotely operate a zoom lens without an overly complicated contraption.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You won't be able to remotely operate a zoom lens without an overly complicated contraption. Okay, so no automatic zoom is possible, that is fine, I can make people zoom manually. Also I just thought of this. Are DSLR RAW images actually raw linear response to number of photons data without any gamma encoding at all? I had kind of dismissed that as a possibility and wasn't worried about it until just now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You won't be able to remotely operate a zoom lens without an overly complicated contraption.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
OnceIWasAnOstrich posted:I'm not sure this is exactly the right place for this, but who knows maybe it is. I need to buy a camera for use in our microbiology lab. There are going to be two distinct uses for it. One will be for taking macro-type shots of tiny things or relatively tiny things. We have a nice Canon point and shoot now that works...terribly for this. Autofocus never focuses on the right thing. The other is taking pictures of various things on top of variably white/blue/UV transilluminators using filters to image the fluorescence. Ideally I would be able to see a preview and operate the camera (including zoom and focus) from a computer via USB/Firewire. My only experience with DSLRs was a Pentax that did absolutely nothing like this. Am I right in thinking I want a DSLR? Does anyone know which cameras are best for being operated remotely like that? I'm not even necessarily stuck on a new camera, I don't need anything fancier than those requirements, but most cameras are cheap compared to the Rolera EM-CCD camera we just bought to stick on our microscope. Might want to check with the guys in this thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3531746
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Can't you just stick a motorized follow focus on the zoom ring?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
OnceIWasAnOstrich posted:I'm not sure this is exactly the right place for this, but who knows maybe it is. I need to buy a camera for use in our microbiology lab. There are going to be two distinct uses for it. One will be for taking macro-type shots of tiny things or relatively tiny things. We have a nice Canon point and shoot now that works...terribly for this. Autofocus never focuses on the right thing. The other is taking pictures of various things on top of variably white/blue/UV transilluminators using filters to image the fluorescence. Ideally I would be able to see a preview and operate the camera (including zoom and focus) from a computer via USB/Firewire. My only experience with DSLRs was a Pentax that did absolutely nothing like this. Am I right in thinking I want a DSLR? Does anyone know which cameras are best for being operated remotely like that? I'm not even necessarily stuck on a new camera, I don't need anything fancier than those requirements, but most cameras are cheap compared to the Rolera EM-CCD camera we just bought to stick on our microscope. We have a d7000 that we use (mostly to stick on top of a microscope  ), and we tether it to a computer using some software called ControlMyNikon. It works pretty good, the live preview works pretty well, you can control all the important settings from the computer, and control focus with it. Most lenses have a manual zoom, so there's no way to do that from a computer without building some thing extra. Pretty sure canon dslr's have similar functionality, so either of those brands will work well, so long as whatever body you get is new enough that it has live view (as a quick rule of thumb).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
OnceIWasAnOstrich posted:I'm not sure this is exactly the right place for this, but who knows maybe it is. I need to buy a camera for use in our microbiology lab. There are going to be two distinct uses for it. One will be for taking macro-type shots of tiny things or relatively tiny things. We have a nice Canon point and shoot now that works...terribly for this. Autofocus never focuses on the right thing. The other is taking pictures of various things on top of variably white/blue/UV transilluminators using filters to image the fluorescence. Ideally I would be able to see a preview and operate the camera (including zoom and focus) from a computer via USB/Firewire. My only experience with DSLRs was a Pentax that did absolutely nothing like this. Am I right in thinking I want a DSLR? Does anyone know which cameras are best for being operated remotely like that? I'm not even necessarily stuck on a new camera, I don't need anything fancier than those requirements, but most cameras are cheap compared to the Rolera EM-CCD camera we just bought to stick on our microscope. Is there a reason you can't just get a gel dock from a company like BioRad? They're set up for this kind taking pictures of gels. Our lab uses one to take pictures for UV/white transillumination. They're not ideal for taking pictures of small objects. They may be out of your price range though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
I'm in Tacoma on business and I was thinking about shooting the American Museum of Cars tomorrow. I don't even like cars, particularly, but I thought it might be fun to shoot. Basics on shooting cars without coming away with only touristy shots? Is there a sort of art to it such that I can pick up a few quick tips before I go to create better photographs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 10:51
|
|
|
DSLR newbie here, I've been thinking of getting a CPL, since I shoot a lot through windows, at aquairums, etc, and am looking for a way to cut down on glare and thought a polarized lens. I was googling a bit - is it true it's impossible to get a CPL for a camera with autofocus? I have a Canon T3i with an 18-55mm kit lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 13:56
|
|
|
CPL's work fine with AF. Linears can cause metering/AF issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
Just got a Sigma 30 1.4 in for my T3i, wow is that a step up from the 50 1.8. Better focal length for what I need on a crop, but even without that, just not even a comparison quality wise. Haven't taken a close look at the quality between the two but it appears better, and with the focus alone it's no comparison. This is also my first lens with a focus meter, is the infinity focus the setting you want for shooting at f/16 for long DOF shots(would prefer 22, but this lens only goes to 16). Any other uses for the focus meter and infinity focus?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:CPL's work fine with AF. Linears can cause metering/AF issues. Is there a good brand / model of CPL to look for?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
GregNorc posted:Is there a good brand / model of CPL to look for?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
While I posted this question in the Canon thread, I feel like this thread may be a better (but not perfect) target for the query, so here it goes. Are there any recommendations for what to consider when buying a used camera body? It will be my first foray into Canon equipment (so it's kind of thread related) and my first try at used gear and I really don't want to end up with an $800 brick. I could go into more detail about specific concerns but I dont want to poo poo up this request with concerns that may not be valid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
CrushedWill posted:While I posted this question in the Canon thread, I feel like this thread may be a better (but not perfect) target for the query, so here it goes. Get a refurb from Canon. You get either a barely used body or it's pretty much new but the box was damaged and was sent back. Basically new and a 90 day warranty. There's a refurb sale going on now with 20% off: http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/subCategory_10051_10051_-1_22751
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:Get a refurb from Canon. You get either a barely used body or it's pretty much new but the box was damaged and was sent back. Basically new and a 90 day warranty. There's a refurb sale going on now with 20% off: http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/subCategory_10051_10051_-1_22751 That was going to be on the list of my follow up questions, i.e. what kind of reputation does the Canon refurbs have? Sounds like they are a good bet  E: Also, anybody familiar with how often Canon runs the 20% sale on refurbs? Is it a couple of times a year? CrushedWill fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Feb 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
If you have or can acquire an old canon camera to send in, the Canon Loyalty Program offers 20% off all the time. It's how I got my 450D and 60D.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:This is also my first lens with a focus meter, is the infinity focus the setting you want for shooting at f/16 for long DOF shots(would prefer 22, but this lens only goes to 16). Any other uses for the focus meter and infinity focus? Don’t use f/22 even if you can. Diffraction will make the image look terrible. Use f/16 if you must, but f/11 will be sharper if you don’t absolutely need the extra depth of field. As for where to focus, you want to focus at what’s called the hyperfocal distance. This distance depends on the aperture. Most lenses with distance scales have marks for what’s in focus at different apertures. If you had one of those, you’d line up the mark for the aperture you were using with the infinity mark.  Your lens does not have such marks, so you’ll have to look up the hyperfocal distance if you wish to use it. At f/11, hyperfocal distance is 4–6 m, depending on how strict you are about what constitutes “in focus”. Your lens scale, like most autofocus lens scales, isn’t marked finely enough to have a mark for that. Just back it off a bit from the infinity mark or autofocus on an object you estimate to be 4–6 m from you. As for the infinity mark, since this is your first lens with a scale: the vertical line is infinity focus under normal conditions. The horizontal part past that is so you can still focus at infinity under extreme temperatures or if the tolerances on the lens or your camera are bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
I had the chance to handle somebody's fancy prosumer Nikon the other day and was amazed at how bright the viewfinder was. I'm using a Canon 450D and it feels all murky and poo poo now. Do newer models in that line have brighter viewfinders or would I want something like a 60D?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 07:14
|
|