|
I took the 10-22(UWA du jour,) and the 17-55 f2.8 Seemed pretty workable arrangement for europe, though now my kit for walk around is the 10-22 and a 50 f1.4, on a 7d. Never did I feel that I needed 50 more mm to take a picture of something. EDIT:However I'm extremely glad I took the UWA. Ferris Bueller fucked around with this message at 22:43 on May 23, 2013 |
#
¿
May 23, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I'm on vacation in Europe right now, and only brought one lens with me, my 24-70. Since I got here it had difficulty getting focus confirm when zoomed out past 35mm. I was able to work around it, but now it's suddenly very sticky when moving the focus ring. I have to put in a whole lot of force to get it to move at all. Still focuses and takes pictures, but the more I turn it, the harder it becomes to move. I would say chances are you would break it more with about zero chance of whatever is screwed up in the lens realigning itself by forcing it. Maybe a stop gap nifty fifty?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
timeandtide posted:What does everyone recommend in terms of a super wide for a T3i? I finally have enough to money saved to spend $0-900 on a wide lens, so I am looking for a non-fisheye that goes quite wide (maybe 10mm) or a super wide pancake lens (again, somewhere around 10mm would be great but I could go lower.) I think I've heard good things about the Sigma 10mm, but what else is there? First off why do you need f.3.5 or lower on the lens you are looking for? You really don't need more then f4 really with an ultra wide as you can handhold at really low shutter speeds, stupid low if you just brace yourself on something. With the way ultra wides work there isn't much opportunity to get great separation from background/other creative aspects with a low aperture with their really big dof at all apertures. The pancake thing is doable if you switch systems but I don't think Canon has one in its system that I can recall. I have a canon 10-22 and I think it's low aperture is 3.5 and 4.5 on the wide end. It's a work horse and was basically attached to my 7d while in Rome, and I had a 40 STM for a bit of reach. I really liked that combo. Sigma has an awesome 8-16 but it's at f4.5 at its widest. That said I would have used that instead of my 10-22 in a heartbeat. Tonkia has a f2.8 ultra wide that's held in good regard but I don't recall if many people around here have used that one. Here's a picture shot at a low shutter speed with a railing for a brace with my 10-22 7d combo  _MG_6736.jpg by Flying Ferris, on Flickr Ferris Bueller fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
As funny as it sounds I really don't like my ultra wide for landscapes. I think part of that is the fact I haven't used it that much for that purpose, but on my recent trip I found that the 40mm STM was being pulled out for landscapes, either single shot or stitching multiples. The ULW did get used a majority of the time, so there is that. As for the dimly lit cathedral hand hold thing. You really don't need f2.8 to make a hand held shot feasible. These are all natural light(with dim artificial lights as well,) and the one of St Peters was at dusk hence the 1600 ISO.  _MG_6446.jpg by Flying Ferris, on Flickr  IMG_1633.jpg by Flying Ferris, on Flickr  IMG_1769.jpg by Flying Ferris, on Flickr  IMG_1816-Edit.jpg by Flying Ferris, on Flickr That said I have heard the Tonika is a excellent lens and wouldn't try to sway someone from buying one as forum members here have really liked their copies. Just a difference of opinion or comfort level on where photographers want to draw the line on not being able to handhold with a particular lens. if 1/10 or in the neighborhood sounds to low to you then by all means grab the f2.8 lens. Ferris Bueller fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
I don't find my sigma 50 misses too often but I generally don't use it wide open for portraits and have micro adjust on my 7d.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
I have always wondered about that limitation. Obviously with a little light it would be hard for the auto focus systems to function but is the fail rate so high that they just decided to switch off the autofocus to prevent that, or will it actually harm the camera some how? I ask the harm question because I have read that you can tape off contacts to force a body to attempt to autofocus above its f stop cutoff, but the camps seem pretty polar opposite in the don't so camera death insures vs the doesn't bother a thing just expect poor results.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:Where do you live that they have 13 or more months in a year? I'm guessing they mean tax return. The phenomenon where people let the US government hold onto to their money for a year then treat it like they're getting a bonus.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Company bonus, every year we get another month worth of pay. Of course, it's taxed to boot, but still. We also do have a 14th, if that blows your mind, but it's "just" 40 hours of pay. That's cool with the bonus. I get sick of it over here when supposedly intelligent people talk of their tax return like its pennies from heaven, or in this case Uncle Sam, hence the slightly snarky reply.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC may only be a couple hundred bucks more than the 24-105 and therefore pretty attractive if you buy body only but don't forget about that 82mm filter size. I think for me if I were making the 25-105 24-70 decision that would be a killer for me. Everything I have uses 77mm or smaller, and it would be a pain in the rear end/expensive finding new filters for a do all lens.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
What about that full frame a to e mount adapter? That would get you close to those focal lengths dunno about the 14-24 but their is a sony 16-35 f 2.8. An option at least, though I haven't researched the drawbacks at all so it might(probably) has some serious drawbacks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Anyone using Magic Lantern on their 7d? If so which build are you using and what are your impressions thus far? I want to try out the dual ISO maybe AETTR features, plus the usual cool ML stuff like the Zebra stripes and what not for still images.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
I have a 17-55 f2.8 and the 40 f2.8 is sharper then that thing and will have tons more contrast than the 50 1.8 which needs to be stepped down anyways to get any decent sharpness out of it anyways. I would look at flickr river and see what looks you prefer between the 2.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
I didn't find the 40 tight at all on a recent trip to Rome with my 7d. All I carried for that trip was the 10-22 and the 40 and didn't notice or get bothered by that focal range gap. What sold me on this lens over the nifty 50( other then the fact that I have a Sigma 50 f1.4(non art,))was the quality of construction on the 40mm vs the nifty 50. I just didn't want a lens with a noted glass jaw on a trip where if the lens went down I would have a big focal length hole.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
I have the sigma 50mm f1.4(not art but still hefty,) and the 40mm f2.8. I love the 40mm f2.8 for touristing around and couple it with my 10-22 on a canon 7d. As others have said its great when bulk and weight is a concern. I feel the quality of the 40mm is every bit as good as the 50mm, if not better, especially considering the weight and space savings the 40mm gives you. I guess the question other than do you want the weight savings, is do you think losing the 2 stops will matter to you and how comfortable you are bumping the ISO on your particular rig?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
IPvSH6T posted:Canon crop has a pretty old sensor at this point, correct? Fixed it for you. Yeah the 7d has basically the 50d's sensor so it was the last time Canon actually bothered to improve their crop frame sensor. Though don't let me stop you from the 7d2 just go realistically into what you're buying when you're buying into canon crop.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:https://www.pbase.com/image/55071041 I love that the lens is all camoed out and she's rocking red sweat pants and a hot pink sweater. So overt, it's covert.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 12:19
|
|