|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:A buddy of mine recently sent his 50D into Adorama to see how much they would give him for it, and they weren't gonna give him much at all so he decided not to sell and they sent it back to him. But when he got it back from them, it had a Tamron 70-300 on it, a lens that he never owned and didn't send in with the camera originally Nice! I've found the best thing to do is to sell the camera second hand to someone on Craigslist or something. I tried to send my t4i to BH and they essentially said they'd give me 100 dollars in credit. Screw that.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:But the quality of a $15 filter is poor so it would be better to put another $250 uv on top, then protect that with the $15 one. Just send me $125 and the lens and you saved $390 at once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
99% of the time I'm shooting fashion & portraits outside. I've been using my cheapo 50mm 1.8 and it's usually fine, but I wouldn't mind an upgrade. Anyone have any recommendations around $500 or less?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:99% of the time I'm shooting fashion & portraits outside. I've been using my cheapo 50mm 1.8 and it's usually fine, but I wouldn't mind an upgrade. Anyone have any recommendations around $500 or less? On what camera? Preemptive suggestion of 85mm f/1.8!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
dorkanoid posted:On what camera? Sorry, knew I forgot something! I'm on a 5D classic, so full frame. Edit: Wouldn't the 85mm require a fair bit of space to get a full body portrait even on a full frame? Or would you not use it for that situation. triplexpac fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Sorry, knew I forgot something! Well, you'd have to back up a few more steps than with the 50mm; I guess in a pinch the 40mm f/2.8 could be used - but otherwise for that price you're looking at the 50mm f/1.4s from Canon/Sigma.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
A longer lense will give you smoother bokeh in the background, which is why people like using 135+ for head shots occasionally, if you've got the space of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
For a wide-ish angle lens on a FF, would you guys recommend the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM or maybe ditch those and use the sigma 35mm 1.4 for wider shots KinkyJohn fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Canon 35/2 or sig 35/1.4 Art if you want the added DoF control and don't mind the weight. Sig 18-35 is for APS-C only iirc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted: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. Fair enough! Thanks for the tips, I'll keep an eye out for a good deal on the 85. Is the Canon 85 the one to go with, or is this one of those cases where Sigma or Tamron have a better one for the same price / cheaper?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Fair enough! Thanks for the tips, I'll keep an eye out for a good deal on the 85. It actually seems to be the opposite - the canon 85mm is cheaper than the sigma one. As online reviews go, they seem to be pretty equal in quality, with the canon slightly faster when autofocusing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Is the Canon 85 the one to go with, or is this one of those cases where Sigma or Tamron have a better one for the same price / cheaper?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Yeah, I've never heard anyone suggest another 85 than the canon one. It's actually touted as one of the must-have lenses. I know I love mine to death and will go out of my way to shoot if I have the space to maneuver.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:For a wide-ish angle lens on a FF, would you guys recommend the
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:For what? Landscapes? Walk-around? I adore my TS-E 24mm for landscapes but you won't want it on the camera all the time. For weddings mostly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:For weddings mostly. Sigma 35 1.4. You'll need the aperture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Unless he has one of the newer FF bodies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Speaking of weddings, I just rented a sigma 50-150 2.8 on my 50D and I liked it a lot. I'm missing a telephoto from my kit and was interesting in picking one up. I was tossing between the Sig 50-150 2.8 (discontinued), Sig 70-200 2.8, or possibly the Canon 70-200 2.8L (non IS) or 70-200 4L with IS. I'm not looking to go FF any time soon but it wouldn't hurt if the lens could move with me if that ever happens and I think the 50-150 is the only lens that cant go FF. I used the 70-200 2.8L IS on a wedding prior and enjoyed that lens though I never actually used the IS. I'm trying to determine if it would be better to lose a few stops and go with the f4 with IS versus the 2.8 without, or just go Sigma and get both for the same price. Any thoughts would be helpful
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Verman posted:Speaking of weddings, I just rented a sigma 50-150 2.8 on my 50D and I liked it a lot. I'm missing a telephoto from my kit and was interesting in picking one up. I was tossing between the Sig 50-150 2.8 (discontinued), Sig 70-200 2.8, or possibly the Canon 70-200 2.8L (non IS) or 70-200 4L with IS. Personally, I'd go with one of the 70-200's, as I never understood the point of the 50-150. I get that it's supposed to be the APS equivalent of the 70-200's, but it's just as big and heavy, so I don't see why anyone would prefer it. The F4 is significantly smaller, but if you want to use it in light starved situations a lot, the 2.8's are the way to go. If you want a smaller/cheaper telezoom to pair it with for situations where you can deal with f/slow, the new STM 55-250 is great and can be had for < 300$.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Yeah, I've never heard anyone suggest another 85 than the canon one. It's actually touted as one of the must-have lenses. I know I love mine to death and will go out of my way to shoot if I have the space to maneuver. Really? I've heard its ok for the money but the samples I've seen have a ton of CA and fringing and it doesn't seem all that sharp wide open. The Sigma 85 1.4 is supposed to be much better and more comparable to the Canon 85 1.2 from what I've seen/read on the internet - like this for example
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Really? I've heard its ok for the money but the samples I've seen have a ton of CA and fringing and it doesn't seem all that sharp wide open. The Sigma 85 1.4 is supposed to be much better and more comparable to the Canon 85 1.2 from what I've seen/read on the internet - like this for example Per that example, they're pretty equal by 2.8 in center, 4 in mid and 8 in the corners, and the Canon is a quarter the price (browsing eBay completed auctions). So yeah, it's a lens people claim to love the colors on, is sharp stopped down a touch, and is a great value since they've been making them for over 20 years. It's a good answer to, "what's the best affordable portrait lens" in the system. Not saying you're not 100 percent right on the Sigma being better on all points aside from price, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
The sigma is the obvious upgrade if you hate money. Never buy the 1.2. Actually never buy 1.2 anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
I wonder what percentage of DSLR owners buy a second lens past the kit? I'd guess 50 percent. I wonder what percentage of DSLR owners ever buy a lens that costs >$500. I bet it's like, 0.5 percent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Huxley posted:So yeah, it's a lens people claim to love the colors on, is sharp stopped down a touch, and is a great value since they've been making them for over 20 years. It's a good answer to, "what's the best affordable portrait lens" in the system. Sure, that's true enough. Hard to beat that price on a decent standard prime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Sorry, knew I forgot something! Shooting lots of fashion on full frame I find myself using a 50mm lens most of the time. When I want to minimize backgrounds or don't have to shoot full body, I jump right to 100mm but only because my 85mm is manual focus and mostly reserved for still life cause I don't have a focus confirm chip on that thing. So the 85mm would likely be a good choice for you, unless you wanted to take a strong departure from your shooting style - I am assuming large spanning backgrounds aren't very important to your portraits and fashion images.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
I was looking for faster ways to switch out primes on the go, and came across this kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1022605159/quikdraw-an-innovative-lens-holster looks promising edit: oh it's already been funded in 2012. KinkyJohn fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
Don't worry, he hasn't delivered yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
CanonRumors just posted this list of specs for the 7DII that they are "90% confident" about :"CanonRumors posted:Kit lenses: 18-135 IS STM and 15-85 IS STM (This would be a new lens) If true, its not super exciting imo. The sensor seems like its maybe a slightly tuned up 70D sensor so nothing to really write home about there and the rest just seems like a list of Things That Should Be In A Camera. The best part is the 65pt all cross AF system and I guess the built in radio flash trigger is cool even though that's something that should just exist in this day and age. Also, no wifi or touch screen? In the YOOL 2014? Madness. I guess I'd been hoping the 7DII would be more of an APS-C 1D mark V than a suped-up 70D but, heh, Canon. If this thing comes in at >$2k I'm gonna poo poo myself laughing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Anyone who was expecting anything different than a 70D+ haven't been paying attention to Canon lately. I mean the AF is really nice if you're a sports/birder and need it, but if you expected anything else revolutionary then you deserve to be disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
"Fine detail sensor", if true, might mean a full RGB sensor. There were rumors of a multilayer sensor before. Then again, it might just mean that there's no AA filter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
No AA sounds right. Also that AF module sounds neat, so does 10fps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
65 AF points 10 fps 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:No AA sounds right. Also that AF module sounds neat, so does 10fps. Yeah I guess that would be cool if Sony hadn't already dropped a crop camera with a 79pt AF module, 12fps burst mode and a better sensor for under $1700 earlier this year. This spec list is basically the bare minimum Canon needs to do as the market share leader to update a 5 year old camera. I mean, I'm sure it'll sell like crazy because Canon but its a pretty lackluster offering. I guess it really just depends on what it gets priced at. $1500? Totally awesome deal, great camera. $2300? Hahaha no. Might as well get a 1DIV with a bigger APS-H sensor, better shutter, integrated grip, and pro weather sealing/build. Combat Pretzel posted:"Fine detail sensor", if true, might mean a full RGB sensor. There were rumors of a multilayer sensor before. The rumor guys are saying its not the multilayer sensor and that they don't know what they mean by "fine detail"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
I think they missed the boat on the wireless flash trigger built in too. I would have loved that years ago but now I can get a set of yongnuo ettl radio triggers for $80 that work with my non $550 flashes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
I don't see why they'd get rid of the articulating touch screen. I love that thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 21:26
|
|
