|
MixMasterMalaria posted:Dropped a t3i with the 50mm 1.4 attached and now it wont focus closer than 1.5M! The camera itself is fine, but the lens has the same problem in auto and manual modes. Anything worth trying on the home repair front before I send it in? Manually focus beyond that, you'll find that it won't AF at short distances. I fixed mine for the most part by simply rotating the focus ring several times through it's full rotation. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 18:51 on May 12, 2013 |
#
¿
May 12, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
geeves posted:I agree with this. I have a clear B+W 72mm MRC Nano Clear for my 35L and 50L and currently a heliopan 77mm filter. I have a B+W 77mm UV filter too that I haven't used / needed yet. Neither interfere with my photos and if anything I'd rather have a fingerprint or dust on the filter than on the lens. Except in extreme environmental conditions, you're better off with hood only for protection. Desert, near the surf on the beach, shooting from moving vehicle in dusty conditions, rain (to complete the weather seal). The lens is not going to be hurt by dust or a fingerprint, and cleaning it is no harder than cleaning the filter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:I've owned both and agree. The pancake is far from a gimmick lens. It's one of the few great values in canon's current lineup.. It's incredibly sharp, good build, and compact. The 50 1.8 is soft, with horrible build quality. The 50 1.8 is not soft. And if stopped down to 2.8 I'd bet it's sharper than the 40 mm wide open.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Claw Massage posted:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3224578 Sure, the 50 was sharper in the center (for crop users in particular that would be meaningful) and the 40 better average (so apparently much sharper at the edges). They are both basically free, and I'd recommend the 40 to lots of users, but it's benefit isn't relative sharpitude.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
BeanTaco posted:What is wrong with you people why would you recommend the 50 over the 40. Easy. For some, the cost difference is not nothing, and for some the point of a prime is speed AND sharpness, and the 40 only does one of those.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 11:45
|
|
|
Thanks a whole lot, guys. Just ordered a 35/3.5 and adapter. Of course this is a test step to see if I like the focal length enough to get the sigma.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Are you the Dorkroom's resident dentist? Man the gear you pick up gives me gear lust so bad. No, that's me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:24 is pretty wide on full frame - more than 80 degrees angle of view. In any case you should have a 24-105 just because. This. It's a very versatile lens, wide enough, sharp enough, good enough IS.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Aquila posted:Comparing the 17-40L and the 24-105L is the latter that much better to go with it? I'm currently using a 50f1.8 on my 5Dc and need something wider. Same 24-105. Unless you need an ultra wide, there's no comparison of the two, the 24-105 is so much more useful.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Borrowed the XT from work and brought it home to fiddle with it because I'm thinking about a used XTi. Take a bunch of pictures, plug it into the PC and it needs a driver. Whatever. Download it and run it and it says it doesn't work at all. Use a card reader.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
bolind posted:If I'm jonesing for a 70-200, which one do I buy? Is IS very necessary or can I live without it. My intention is to use it for portraits as well as event photography where I want some distance to the subject. I don't see myself shooting sports or wildlife. I'm selling my non is 2.8 in the sale thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
deaders posted:Ahh man I could now get a used 5d Mk ii with some accessories for $1100... it's only money right? If it's not rent money, go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:I'm looking for an intervalometer and possibly a remote shutter release, preferably wireless unless there's an overwhelming reason to avoid going wireless, for my 5D2. Suggestions? I just got one wireless from amazon. Satechi.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:Going to take the a train trip from Portland to Glacier National Park, and then to Chicago. I've wanted to add a telephoto to my kit for a bit more reach, but I can't decide between the 70-200 F4L IS and the 70-300 F4-5.6L IS. I have a 6D, 24-105, and a 100L macro. With the 6D I'd break ranks and go with the 70-300, as 200 just isn't that long.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2013 11:48
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:Does the 100-400L hold up to the other two in terms of quality? I understand it to be an older lens and I am unsure about the push/pull. I really liked mine. Sure, best if stopped down a bit, but the IS was surprisingly good for it's generation. Push/pull is actually easy to get used to.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
dakana posted:Three years ago I might've agreed with him with maybe one or two caveats. Now, there are a whole lot more caveats. In some situations (especially the telephoto and supertelephoto arenas) Canon's going to rule the roost, but the lines are blurring substantially in other lengths. Actually, Sigma's 120-300 f 2.8 kicks Canon's rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
dakana posted:In what way? Go read the digital picture's review of the latest version. The 300 prime doesn't beat it for IQ, or speed, or IS, but is less versatile. Comparing a 200mm zoom to a 300mm zoom ignores the 50% greater reach.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
dakana posted:According to that review (and also their test chart photos), the 70-200 2.8 II and the 300 2.8 I and II all beat the 120-300 in IQ. The reviewer also calls it simply "capable" and adds that its (lack of) speed "keep this lens out of the best-available category". So, you take one quote, "keep this lens out of the best-available category," leave out this, "With well over 1,000 shots of galloping horses evaluated, I would not hesitate to use this lens for professional needs. Focus accuracy is very good." And, on IQ, this: "I've been comparing the Sigma 120-300 OS with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens and the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens most directly throughout this review. These are Canon's most-similar models from a feature perspective. The two Canons cover much of the Sigma's overall focal length range – the pair leave a 201-299mm gap and pick up the 70-119mm range. They also share the f/2.8 max aperture and have image stabilization. The Sigma has the focal length range convenience advantage. The Canon 300 L II has the image quality advantage, though this is not huge. If forced to pick, I'd take the Canon AF systems." I think saying it doesn't measure up for professional photographers is simply Canon snobbery.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Gothmog1065 posted:Never saw a reply, figured I'd try again. I browse on mobile and don't follow links that much, so a description would get you more answers. After looking, I didn't see a brand, so I have no knowledge of this company. Sorry. Edit: do they give the capacity anywhere? If not, stay away.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 12:25
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Is the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L any good or are you better off getting a fixed length lens? I kayak fish and can get pretty close to a lot of birds/animals and it seems like having a range of zooms to chose from would be kind of nice. Slight IQ benefit to the prime, offset entirely by it's lack of IS, which the Zoom has.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Thanks everyone. That Sigma 50 f1.4 is definitely on my list of lenses to buy. I like the 17-40 a lot, but I know I'll be shooting stuff where f4 just isn't going to cut it and I'd miss the shallow depth of field ability. The Canon 24mm f1.4 is a fantastic lens that I wish I could justify. I rented it once and loved it. I'd check out the Samyang version but I really need autofocus for concerts. The Sigma 24 f1.8 is a nice lense. Not as fast on focus, but not usually an issue. Plenty sharp, and not that expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
maxe posted:hey canon bros can i get some input on a new lens? Sigma 120-300 2.8. The last two versions are really good. Avoid version one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
dakana posted:That is incredible. It's also $84,000 in just lenses. C'mon, I'm sure they rent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Somebody nearby is selling a 5Dc on CG for...$120?? Buy it. You have two good kidneys, just in case, right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Those sites always seem to be geared towards the obsessive pixel-peeping crowd, I generally buy lenses based on word of mouth reputation and it hasn't burned me yet. The digital picture is no pixel peeper. His in depth reviews are very useful.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
astr0man posted:I've heard real good things about the sigma 18-35 f1.8, but I've never personally tried it. Do this and let us know.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Cool, thanks for sharing. Look at the sigma 120-300 f2.8. It's sharp, good AF performance, and good IS. The second version is very good, and not too expensive used. the third version is fantastic, but costs what it's worth.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:It also weighs as much as a 500/4 MKII. Makes you feel safe walking at night if you need to kill a man Well, it is a 300mm 2.8
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Wow. Seriously, wow. Buckets? I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Cross post from automotive photography thread: The nifty fifty isn't incredible at 1.8, but it's hardly a blurry mess. But stopped down to 2.8 it's still faster than the 18-270.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:I'm trying to decide what lens I want to get for use on the wide end of things. I currently have a Sigma 35 1.4 Art, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 100L Macro, and a 70-200 F/2.8L IS II. I previously owned a 24-70 2.8L and 17-40L at different times. The 35, 50, and 70-200 are my most used lenses. Looking through my LR catalog, Ive' shot about 8% of my photos at or under 24mm, so I'm considering the following three lenses: Consider the 24-105 over the 24-70. Lighter, sharp, and the f/4 is a non-factor for wide, really.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:The 24-70 F/4L IS is lighter than the 24-105 F/4L IS. Sorry, I was just referring to your reverential desire for the 24-70 f/2.8II. As for the 24-70 f/4, unless the IQ is much better, I'd still go for the extra reach of the 24-105.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I just got my first (D)SLR ever, a used 20D. I have probably forgotten everything I learned as a kid about photography, but right now I'm just trying to come to grips with even turning the thing on. Wikipedia says something about a max CF card size of 8GB, is this true? My other question is whether such a thing as an SD -> CF card adapter exists, and if so, whether this is recommended at all. I understand if this is a bad idea, but this is the first CF-only device I've owned in over a decade. It would be nice if I didn't have to go out and buy a bunch of new flash cards. 8GB is huge for a 20D. And I haven't googlized it, but I suspect it is a hard limit. Do not get an adapter. SD is slower than CF, and I can't imagine that would be better with an adapter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Maybe they're doing some combo upload to twitter/instagram/fb that does really dumb compression? I try to do 100% or 50% jpg. Rokinon 14mm.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Verman posted:Sigma 30 1.4 is a great little lens of you can find one, they usually run around 200-300 used. The one I have is tack sharp and great for crop bodies. Go look in the used gear thread, too. My 24mm i'm selling isnt a great fit, but always consider used. Keh.com, adorama, lots of resources for used gear.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Seconding the 17-40 unless she really wants something smaller/prime. I liked it a lot. Skies with a bit of cloud are amazing with that thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I think I'm doing it wrong Hell, even 5.6 is gonna give all the cow in focus.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:I'm a cheap rear end in a top hat and just use a 40mm pancake and extension tubes. Manual focus is pretty much required anyway. Extension tubes cost 0 photography dollars, too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Fuji's is a $700 lens though. How much are Canon and Nikon's? $100? Not really, it's $300 as a kit lens. And definitely worth the difference.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
Soulex posted:I was super close to trading mine for a sigma 120-300 but I’m glad I thought better. Not a newer one. I have no idea how well that thing does It's freaking great....and huge. I had the second generation (3d is better still). It was sharp, reasonably fast focus and accurate. Plus, at 300 2.8, great portrait lens.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2018 04:31
|
|