|
What size filters do you use with a TS-E 24? I'm going to wait until I've played around with the lens for a while before buying a filter set, but it'd be nice to know how much more I have to empty my bank account.
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
Yup. Glad I don't already own filters, it would suck to ditch a smaller size. What's the advantage of using drop-in square filters, is that mostly for grad ND?
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Welcome to the club! You'll never want to take that damned thing off, its such a great lens. What body are you using it with? I wasn't even planning on using it, but it happened to be on my 5d3 when my friends dragged me outside today. Holy poo poo, I wasn't expecting it to be so much fun. It's definitely easy to overdo the tilt effect, but it's kind of mind blowing to have control over the direction of the focal plane.  I missed focus on the girl's face here, but this was close to being an awesome picture (that's her teacher in the foreground).  This thing is gonna replace my 35/1.4 as a walkabout lens. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 21:40 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Yeah, that's how it should work when your subjects aren't moving and you can zoom in on live view. It's really tough to interpret what you're seeing in a dynamic scene with the viewfinder, I should have both stopped down and used less tilt to give myself margin. I haven't had the lens for long enough to get a feel for that yet.
Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 03:11 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
I like the 135/2 for portraits. The 85/1.8 is good too, but the CA is pretty bad when it's wide open. I'd kill for an 85/1.2.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Some people don't like the idea of a prime being their walk around lens, but personally my default is my sigma 35A. If I know I need the range then I'll bring the 24-105L. Same here with the Sigma, but I toss in a 135/2 in my bag too because it's really compact for a medium-long lens. Quantum of Phallus posted:85 1.8 should be one of those lenses all Canon owners look into, the quality is amazing for the price. The quality is also amazing for how tiny it is!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
I like how after Ken Rockwell bought a 1D X (why??), the first shot in his review is a photo of his ugly-rear end kid taken with a nifty fifty. Then he begs for money at the bottom.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Guys, guys... can't we all slap on some manual focus lenses and get along?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Nope, but don't underestimate just how small and light the 40 is. I have both, there's really no reason not to toss the 40 in my bag if I'm carrying a bunch of other gear and I don't want to pack the Sigma.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Just got a 70-300L, why doesn't it come with a tripod ring, and why the hell does the ring itself cost like $200?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
It's surprising how little of a difference there is from 200-300mm, but I guess field of view as a function of focal length goes as an arc tangent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Someone talk me out of buying the EF 135mm f/2L refurbished for $750 + tax. It's smaller, lighter, and faster than the 70-200. You know you want it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Ahahaha, these are all amazing. Thanks for sharing!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:since this is just a hobby spending $1000 on a lens is a bit steep. Yeah, don't go down that rabbit hole if you can avoid it. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I still use my 40 after getting a full frame camera and a bunch of expensive lenses, while my 50 just collects dust.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
You'll be happy with the lens. You do have to be careful and store it with the lens retracted, especially if you're going to travel with it on a bike. When it's on the camera and powered on, switch it to manual focus and turn the ring until the lens is pulled in all the way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Isn't that what lens caps are for?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Yeah, or just warm it up gradually. I used to baby my 60D when I took it out in the snow, but I stopped caring and it gets tons of condensation when I bring it inside. I just let it dry for a day or so before I turn it on.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Now that the title of the gear thread says to hail Satan instead of not to buy a UV filter, look what happens.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
You should take a 100-400 and pump it a bunch of times like a Super Soaker.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
SpunkyRedKnight posted:I'm pretty excited. Managed to snag a refurbished TS-E 24mm during the recent sale for $1500. Just got it and it's in mint condition, no signs of use. Beats paying $2200 for a new one. That's a great price for a ridiculously fun lens.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Wouldn't the 85mm require a fair bit of space to get a full body portrait even on a full frame? Yeah, but the results are worth it. A lot of people do portraits at 135 or 200mm. I like 85 for full body and 135 for headshots.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:For weddings mostly. Sigma 35 1.4. You'll need the aperture.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Eh, I'd still rather have the extra stop for those weddings that are lit darker than a mammoth's rectum.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The sigma is the obvious upgrade if you hate money. Never buy the 1.2. Actually never buy 1.2 anything. I dunno this looks ok to me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Sigma 12-24
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Having never used one, the 400 DO always seemed like an odd duck. It's small for a 400mm lens, but I'd still rather have a 300/2.8 plus a 1.4 TC for the versatility. Maybe the new version is a lot better?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Later on I found out that a f/4 on a FF sensor is the same as 2.8 on a crop. I don't get it. Isn't f/4 still an f/4 whatever it's projecting onto?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Haggins posted:24mm isn't wide at all on a crop. Sure you get more on the long end, however, I don't think the long end is as important as the wide end. With the long end you can fake it by zooming with your feet and getting closer to your subject. With wide angle, there isn't much you can do other than get a wider lens. You could move back from your subject but it's just not the same. Also, f/4 would suck on a crop for DoF. This is good general advice, but for landscapes in Iceland I found myself using much longer focal lengths than usual. "Zoom with your feet" doesn't really work if you're photographing a glacier near the horizon or a mountain peak across the valley.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
The Canon 100mm non-IS macro is basically the same optics as the L lens without stabilization and like 1/3 of the price. Since you can take your time with your shots and probably use a tripod for product photography, you don't need IS.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Canon refurb store is restocked on 1.4x and 2.0x extenders, they're like $40 cheaper than the going rate on eBay.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Even if you end up with a decent deal through Abe's, I'd avoid them on principle: http://www.canonpricewatch.com/blog/2014/05/warning-avoid-abes-of-maine-and-other-bait-switch-retailers/ I haven't been following 6D prices, but it looks like you could have gotten a better deal elsewhere without having to deal with a bait-and-switch. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
bolind posted:Any good instructional videos I should watch? Any other tips for getting the most out of my new setup? What exactly are you trying to do? Everything works pretty much the same, though you'll probably be pleasantly surprised at how much you can push the ISO now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Are you in a country with a crappy exchange rate? Canon refurb 70-200s have been going for about $1800 lately. I've never tried it, but if you stick a 1.4x TC on the 135/2, you end up with a 189/2.8. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
bolind posted:Just take photos, I'm not much into video although I'm thinking I should. Keep using center point, the AF system on the 6D is actually a downgrade from the 7D because Canon hates you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
You're in luck, Canon is unwilling or unable to improve their sensor technology, so the 50D is still a perfectly good camera in their lineup. Newer gen cameras mostly have minor ergonomic changes and better video.
Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Pubes under the dial switch.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
ScooterMcTiny posted:If they are female pubes do I add a couple hundo? Just want to make sure I'm clear on that. Only if they're not grey or white.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Isn't that what a 40mm pancake is for?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
dakana posted:With the caveat that I've never actually used one, honestly the 100-400 has really never appealed to me, and it's entirely because of the aperture. I realize you really can't make a faster zoom in that range without the price being just stupid, but the thought of starting at 4.5 and just getting worse always turned me off of that lens. I felt the same way until I got a 70-300/4-5.6 specifically for a vacation. I got some really sweet shots at 300mm, and I've been on the tele bandwagon ever since. You're basically always outside whenever you need these focal lengths, and even f/4 or so seems really fast under those conditions. Edit: Looking through my LR catalog, my strongest (5 star) shots were taken at f/8, f/14, and f/5.6. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 02:35
|
|