|
Yet another edition of the All Purpose Gear Chat thread. Previous was getting close to 12.6k clicks and 3 years. Old Threads (for those with archives) v1 ⁃ v2 ⁃ v3.25 ⁃ v4 ⁃ v5 ⁃ v6 v7L VR USM DG AF-s Other gear threads
Some links to get you started on finding photo gear
General advice
Prime lenses are fast, they suck in light and gives you silky smooth bokehs. You definitely want one. If you're reading this you probably have a crop-sensor camera. That means a lens around 30mm to 35mm focal length will be a "normal" lens for you: Give about the same angle of view as your eyes. Historically, 50mm f/1.8 has been a very popular, cheap option across brands, but it does have the disadvantage that 50mm is rather long on a crop-sensor camera. However they make good portrait lenses. Take a day using your kit lens stuck on 50mm zoom, then the next day keep it on 35mm zoom, see which you prefer. For Nikon shooters, get the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX lens. It's slightly costlier than their 50mm offerings, but will likely make you more happy. Canon users should look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, or Canon's own 35mm f/2. Pentax has a large collection of primes, e.g. the SMC-FA-35mm f/2. See also this post by ExecuDork. (Can anyone fill in for other camera brands?) Why no UV Filters? The short version:  uvfilter-kitlens.jpgThe long version: Invariably, about once a week the discussion comes up about UV filters. Someone comes in who was just told by a 'friend' or (worse) a sales clerk at Wolf/Best Buy/Wal-Mart that they should get a UV filter to protect their 'investment.' Now this is not quite outright bullshit, but in the context that anyone who is receiving this advice would get it, it most certainly is. The above image shows the effect of cheap UV filters. UV filters do have a purpose and are not completely a waste. If your lens is $1000, and you are willing to spend about $100 on UV filter, then it may be a good idea to use one if the conditions are messy. Some Canon lenses with weather sealing need a filter to complete the seal. Obviously anything that's going to harm your lens will harm your filter. So putting your filter on in a sand storm will save your lens but destroy your filter, and that's the goal at the high end. These situations though DO NOT apply to anyone who needs to have this explained to them. Your 17-55 4-5.6 IS/VR Kit Lens is worth about $50 in mint condition used. You can buy a new one for $150. It doesn't make sens to spend $100 on a filter to 'protect' it when you degrade the image quality by doing so. You can always use a hood to protect your lens if you're worried about it. Why a card reader? Your camera might connect straight to your computer and let you pull out pictures, but you may have noticed: It's slow. Any card reader you can find today will outperform (just about) any camera in raw transfer speed when it comes to reading pictures off a memory card. Save yourself the frustration of eternally slow imports and get one. The consensus seems to be that there is very little difference between readers, and just about any cheap one will do. Understanding crop factor Most digital SLR cameras sold today have "crop sensors", i.e. image sensors that are smaller than a 35mm film frame. The main reason for this is cost of production; it's much, much cheaper to produce even slightly smaller sensors, and the image quality doesn't really suffer. When you read about camera lenses you may see the term "35mm equivalent focal length", or similar, pop up. For example, you may see someone claim than a 50mm lens is 35mm-equivalent to 75mm. So wait is it a 50mm lens or a 75mm lens or what is it?? The focal length is a physical property of the construction of a lens, it never changes (unless it's a zoom lens!) The optics in the lens projects an image onto the image plane, which is where the sensor sits. How much of that projected image gets recorded then depends on how large the sensor is, a larger sensor records more of the image, and thus gets more of the edges of the image. Effectively, the angle of view of a given focal length is greater, the larger the sensor is. For this discussion, angle of view is the real key word: How large an angle in front of the camera that will get captured on the final photo. So when someone tells you that a lens is "35mm-equivalent to 75mm" what they actually mean is that the 50mm lens gives you the same angle of view on your crop sensor camera, as a 75mm lens would give on a full-frame (or 35mm film) camera. If all of this confuses you, just get your own personal feel for what kind of pictures a given focal length gives on your camera. Polarizers (thanks to GWBBQ) When light is reflected off of a nonmetallic surface, such as glass, a car's paint, water, or the air and water vapor in the atmosphere, the reflected light is polarized - the reflected waves of light are oriented in the same direction. This light can be blocked partially or entirely by using a polarizing filter. There are two types of polarizing filters that are used in photography, linear and circular. The difference is linear and circular polarization is shown in this Youtube video. The most important difference is that Linear polarizers interfere with phase detection autofocus and through-the-lens metering. Unless you're manually focusing and manually setting exposure, you want a circular polarizer. Polarizing filters can be adjusted to pass, partially pass, or block polarized light. This allows you to take pictures of reflective surfaces like cars or bodies of water and cut most or all of the reflection so you can see the car's real paint color and see through the windows, see what's under the surface of the water. The other common effect is to darken the sky. Light from the sky is maximally polarized 90° from the sun. One thing to remember about a polarizing filter is that it's one of few effects that can not be replicated in post-processing. A good polarizer is an important piece of your kit if you're ever going to take pictures of anything reflective. The best bang for your buck when it comes to circular polarizers is the Marumi Super DHG CPL. Get it to fit your biggest lens (probably 67mm unless you have a Canon or Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8, in which case it's 77mm) and a set of step-down rings to fit it on the rest of your lenses. Neutral Density Filters (thanks to GWBBQ) ND Filters reduce the amount of light that passes through them. A good ND filter does this evenly for all wavelengths, meaning it just makes your image darker without imparting any sort of color cast. Why is this important? Say you're shooting in broad daylight. The good old sunny 16 rule says that at ISO 100, you'll get a proper exposure at 1/100 and f/16. Let's say you wanted to shoot a portrait wide open at f/2.0. That's 6 stops faster, so you'd have to increase shutter speed to around 1/4000. What if your camera doesn't go that high? Or, let's say you want to shoot a long exposure of water flowing to get that smooth, silky look everyone knows, let's say 1/2 second. that's also 6 stops more light and unless you're shooting large format, your lens probably doesn't stop down that far. The solution is the Neutral Density Filter. The light reducing property of an ND Filter goes by powers of two, with each power being another stop of light reduction. 2x is one stop, 4x is two stops, 8x is three stops, and so on. Generally, you can't go wrong with B+W filters, but the quality is reflected in the price. I don't know if there are any cheaper ones that are good but still worth the price. Same goes for ND Filters as polarizers, get one to fit your biggest lens and step down rings to adapt to others. Depth of Field and "bokeh" The long version: Dren wrote a nice post in the Nikon thread The shorter version: Large apertures (low f-number) gives shorter depth of field. Longer focal lengths give shorter depth of field. Closer focus gives shorter depth of field. The quality of bokeh depends on the shape of the aperture blades in the lens, as well as the general optical construction. But seriously, read that post above. Recommendations We are more than happy to help you pick your new gear, but if you are here for a recommendation on what Lens, SLR (not your first dSLR, go to the newbie thread for that), Camera Bag, Tripod, Point & Shoot, Printer, Desk Chair or Tuna Net to buy, be sure to give us an idea of your purpose for wanting such things, current equipment that it would be replacing if any, and your rough budget. "Hey guys what camera and lens should I buy" is not going to do anyone any good. Please give us as much of the following information as possible:
"I'm looking to move to full frame from a 40D. I have $2000 to spend and shoot mainly street photography." Reading If you haven't yet, check out Understanding Exposure from the local library, Amazon.com or just go sit in a Borders and read it. It will help you... understand exposure. nielsm fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jun 25, 2013 |
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
Corrections and suggestions for more FAQ stuff welcome. (Maybe something about ND and POL filters?) Also some recommendations for beginner's prime lenses for other brands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
fremiranda is a pretty good place for used gear, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Just a quick review for the new thread - I just bought a Nikon DX AF-S 50-200mm f/4-5.6 G ED VR, and I adore it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
Understanding Exposure is fairly cheap, so if you have the extra $16 to pick up your own copy then do it. It's a great guide that illustrates how the three main aspects of photography interact to create an exposure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Understanding Exposure is fairly cheap, so if you have the extra $16 to pick up your own copy then do it. It's a great guide that illustrates how the three main aspects of photography interact to create an exposure. The new (third) edition also happens to be loving gorgeous in-person, loaded with full-page size prints and some pretty thorough explanations of how/why he made the decisions composing each shot. I know saying "but it's pretty" might not mean much , but I legitimately enjoy cracking open that book for any reason I can find. It's really just well-made across the board. And, you know, it actually taught me to pay some loving attention to my exposure.  On another note, can I ask why everyone still insists on the Tamron 17-50 as this end-all-be-all kit lens? I mean, yes, it's definitely sharper than a normal kit lens. Yes, it's definitely a constant 2.8 aperture. ...Barring that, it's pretty much just the same. Some folks might hate that the zoom ring moves in the opposite direction, but that's less of an issue. The real problem is the focusing ring: It is the tiniest little sliver and intolerably loose. If you're only going to be using AF, it's a bit noisy but fast -- but if you plan on focusing manually, this lens will do nothing but serve to infuriate you. I really only keep it on for a 24 or 35 perspective now, but I wish I had just bought a 35mm f/2 six months ago instead. It's a struggle to force myself to use this little bastard. I swear I got more use out of the 18-135 kit lens (and that's getting sold too). Honestly, just beware. It seems like the default "You want a lens? Buy this," option without much consideration beyond "well it's 17-50 and f/2.8 is faster than f/3.5". My strongest recommendation would be to RENT EVERYTHING FIRST, specifically from https://borrowlenses.com, before dishing out the cash for anything as costly as a lens. Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
For most people, a lens that's noticeably sharper and one to two stops faster is reason enough to upgrade. That said, I just checked Amazon, and apparently they've been $500 new for a while now, making them less of a good value new (i.e. buy used). Like it did for you, it's a good tool to figure out which focal lengths are most useful to you, and whether you need something even faster (i.e. a prime like the 35/2).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 10:59
|
|
|
rawrr posted:For most people, a lens that's noticeably sharper and one to two stops faster is reason enough to upgrade. That said, I just checked Amazon, and apparently they've been $500 new for a while now, making them less of a good value new (i.e. buy used). So aside from being 2/3 to 2 stops faster, what benefit does it offer over the kit? I mean, the kit has IS and the same focal range, so figuring out if you like 24 or 35 or whichever lengths more seems like an irrelevant issue -- both cover the same lengths. I'll admit f/3.5-5.6 might suck for trying to start out as ~*Mr. Super-Bokeh*~, but is that really worth the difference of buying another lens? The kit lens inevitably gets sold by everyone with one -- seems like buying the Tamron 17-50 to replace it is just prolonging the inevitable and saying "f/2.8 is worth $200 more than f/3.5". Again, I'd get used to which focal lengths you like on your own kit lens before you run out investing in a nearly-identical one. This thing is not that different from what already comes standard. Except the AF is louder. Like a mosquito with an airhorn. It just seems premature to emphasize "NO YOU NEED f/2.8"  Why isn't the first bit of advice just "BUY A MANFROTTO 190XPROB"? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:So aside from being 2/3 to 2 stops faster, what benefit does it offer over the kit? I mean, the kit has IS and the same focal range, so figuring out if you like 24 or 35 or whichever lengths more seems like an irrelevant issue -- both cover the same lengths. I personally feel that f5.6 is almost unusable for a walk around lens unless your photography is exclusively outdoors shots of slow-moving subjects. I'd also think $200 is worth it to go from f3.5 to f2.8 and definitely worth it from f5.6
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:13
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:Why isn't the first bit of advice just "BUY A MANFROTTO 190XPROB"? I wish that had been my first piece of advice. I have 3 tripods, and all of them sliiiiide down under the weight of my RB67 or 4x5. Even with my Nikons or Pentax 6x7 they're awkward to use and plasticy feeling. ...granted, they were all handmedowns, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:28
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:So aside from being 2/3 to 2 stops faster, what benefit does it offer over the kit? Aside from doing everything a lens does much better, what benefits does it have? I mean, I know it is significantly faster, significantly sharper, has significantly less CA and is significantly better built, but what have you done for me lately?!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:36
|
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:Aside from doing everything a lens does much better, what benefits does it have? I mean, I know it is significantly faster, significantly sharper, has significantly less CA and is significantly better built, but what have you done for me lately?! All of the things ^^^ here are true, and any one of them would be enough to inspire many photographers to buy a different lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
I'm just saying for a proof-is-in-the-pudding situation, a ton of the poo poo I've churned out between the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Canon EF-S 18-135 /f3.5-5.6 IS are painfully similar. I'm not looking for some magical lens at the price point of $450, but the performance is incredibly "oh, that's it?" looking at it as an upgrade from the kit. And admittedly, my advice was more towards the First-DSLR crowd and not focused on a serious gear debate over the merits of every little difference. It might've been the wrong thread to mention my perspective in, but I asked the question because I'm trying to see what the "goon-allure" to this lens is. Yes, I absolutely appreciate having an f/2.8 lens, but the ubiquitous GET A TAMRON 17-50 just seems overplayed and stupid to me. There's a reason Craigslist is absolutely flooded with them, and it's not because everyone wants to share their perfect lens with the world out of the goodness of their hearts. As for "significantly sharper" and "has significantly less CA", I wouldn't agree at all. If you're pixel peeping on every fine detail, maybe it's more apparent, but I swear I've gone out on days just to figure out why the hell I bought this lens. It's soft as poo poo at 2.8 and looks even softer at wider angles. I'm not saying "the kit is great" at all, I'm asking "why is this great compared to a kit"? And "significantly better built"? This thing whines like a loving kazoo over a PA system on AF, isn't THAT much faster than an entry-level lens, and has a focusing ring looser than a whore. If you're saying "it has a nicer rubber on the rings", maybe, but the build quality is strikingly similar to any other entry-level lenses to me. I'm not saying it's a piece of poo poo. I'm not saying don't buy it. I'm asking why the hell does everyone act like this is the lens to buy next? e: I know I'm an rear end in a top hat and contradicted myself on "sharper", so I should clarify -- Yes, there is a difference vs. a kit. It is not an "oh wow" by any means and can even get down to pixel-peeping. I guess I just don't understand why everyone seems so thrilled by this. I'm not trying to poo poo in the sandbox for everyone else 
Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:There's a reason Craigslist is absolutely flooded with them, and it's not because everyone wants to share their perfect lens with the world out of the goodness of their hearts. Where do you live that it's like this? I was checking for over a year on craigslist here in Philly and only 2 ever came up. It's never in stock on KEH (for Nikon, at least). I ended up going with the (optically identical) Promaster version because of this. Another plus is Tamron has a 6-year warranty. If your focus ring is loose, send it back to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
Chicago. I'm on Craigslist just hoping for an "I don't know how much this is worth" sale all the time and the Tamrons are just flooding the area, I guess. I didn't realize it was a local thing.  But seriously, a new one every day and $280 asking price? That's literally the same rate as the 18-135 kits here. And from what I've heard from other owners, this "looseness" is standard. It's been this way since it came out of the box for mine. Again, I didn't mean to come in angry and threadshit, I'm really just wondering what makes it ~special~ enough to be a default-buy for the forums. I like having an f/2.8 and I'd have undoubtedly gotten another, this just seems like a really small difference as opposed to picking up a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. And yes, I know the price reflects it -- I'm just saying this feels like looking for a car to replace your bike, then buying a motor-scooter. It'll get the job done, but it's no supermodel by any means. e: I'm not saying I could've afforded the 17-55 back then either. I'm saying it seems like it would've been wiser to just save in the long run than leap to buy a less-substantial upgrade. And if you're shooting video, you'll want a smooth focusing ring for manual pulling, not quiet AF. Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
I just picked up a 60D with the kit lens. 4-5 years ago I had a Digital Rebel (300D) so it's nice to be back. Got the 60D with the 18-135mm zoom, but now looking for something telephoto'ish. My choices so far are: 50-250 70-300 70-200 L The 70-200 L that I would get would be without IS for cost, so that's a ding against it. The 50-250 and 70-300 while built differently, but seems a lot of people recommend either or. For value, it seems the 50-250 is the one to go with? Edit: I would like to shoot some video as well, so I guess quiet AF might be needed. MrEnigma fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:Again, I didn't mean to come in angry and threadshit, I'm really just wondering what makes it ~special~ enough to be a default-buy for the forums. I like having an f/2.8 and I'd have undoubtedly gotten another, this just seems like a really small difference as opposed to picking up a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. And yes, I know the price reflects it -- I'm just saying this feels like looking for a car to replace your bike, then buying a motor-scooter. It'll get the job done, but it's no supermodel by any means. Some people can't afford a Lexus, let alone a Ferrari. That doesn't mean they can't afford to get a Honda instead of a Daewoo.  The focusing noise is also not an issue for most of us who don't care about video. You have different needs, so of course you are going to need a different solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:RENT EVERYTHING FIRST, specifically from https://borrowlenses.com, before dishing out the cash for anything as costly as a lens. To help out, use my employee referral code 'Albert5' for an extra 5% off. After working here for a while and man-handling nearly every piece of gear in our inventory, I highly suggest trying it out first before dropping big bucks on equipment. Hell, even bug your photo nerd friends if you can borrow their stuff for a shoot. You'll find out right away if it actually suits your needs or if you just experiencing gear boner that needed to be rubbed out. Duckjob fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
MrEnigma posted:I just picked up a 60D with the kit lens. 4-5 years ago I had a Digital Rebel (300D) so it's nice to be back. Got the 60D with the 18-135mm zoom, but now looking for something telephoto'ish. I used to have a 50-250 and then upgraded to the 70-200L f/4 without IS. The difference in quality between my 50-250 and 70-200 is AMAZING. If you can pay the extra, do it. I haven't missed the IS so far, I mostly shoot birds and wildlife with the lens, and so it's usually daylight and bright enough that I can get well over 1/200 shutter speed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:The focusing noise is also not an issue for most of us who don't care about video. You have different needs, so of course you are going to need a different solution. This is virtually a non-issue for video purposes. It's that it's loving annoying to hear it screeching in your ear and it can definitely ruin a "moment", especially in a quiet place. Mine was echoing off the walls during a graduation; the shutter sound wasn't even noticeable. If the manual focus didn't suck as well, it wouldn't be a pain to switch during times like that. The AF on the new 40mm pancake is the only usable-AF during video shooting on a Canon, and it only works in realtime on the T4i. You're never going to be using AF during a take. And while I do shoot video for school, it's certainly not the only consideration I'm taking. Photo became a completely different obsession after I started using DSLRs. I wouldn't compare a Gitzo to a Sachtler, nor an EF-lens to a PL-mount one -- I'm not disagreeing on separate needs, but that doesn't mean "everything you say is irrelevant to photo". It's way more sensible to have an L-lens on a 60D than a 50mm f/1.8 II on a 1DX. It's not a "pro" body by title, but it benefits from quality glass all the same. v v v Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I used to have a 50-250 and then upgraded to the 70-200L f/4 without IS. Ok, that's good advice, thank you. I wasn't thinking that with a telephoto you're probably going to be outside most of the time. The only other thing I feel bad about, is having an L lens on a 60D body...although I had a Digital Rebel with a 17-40L on it (although not white just the red ring so harder to tell).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
MrEnigma posted:
You're joking, right? (serious answer- get a battery grip, because the balance is likely to be a little funny with a big L telephoto. I have a 60D and 70-300L, and it's much easier to hold with the grip).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:You're joking, right? (serious answer- get a battery grip, because the balance is likely to be a little funny with a big L telephoto. I have a 60D and 70-300L, and it's much easier to hold with the grip). Was slightly joking. Had a battery grip for my digital rebel back in the day. I really liked it, but it made it huge, so I'm not sure if I'll do it or not this time. Probably will 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Battery grips are the #1 things that make your camera feel "pro"  Also a godsend for taking portrait orientation shots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
Kazy posted:Battery grips are the #1 things that make your camera feel "pro" God if this isn't the truth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
Kazy posted:Battery grips are the #1 things that make you camera feel "pro"
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
Anybody ever wonder what kind of detail you can get with a 200mp Hasselblad? http://hasselbladusa.com/promotions/barry-makariou---bo-image.aspx http://hasselbladusa.com/promotions/jonathan-beer---necklace-image.aspx (this one is even better) TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
Yeah, for stuff that doesn't move in a rock-solid studio, multishot backs are amazing. They used to have a nice side-by-side comparison for one of their older backs that compared a single-shot and multishot image directly. Those links are still impressive, but it's even more impressive when you can see all the missing detail the Bayer array's eating up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I used to have a 50-250 and then upgraded to the 70-200L f/4 without IS. 70-300 owner reporting in. I sold my 55-250 to get it and I will tell you there is a noticeable upgrade in image quality. However...the 70-300 is practically unusable at 300 wide open. You must stop it down to f/8 to get shots that don't blur out. That said, the extra little bit of reach is nice as well as the fact that the lens WILL NOT vignette on any crop sensor body at ANY aperture/focal length setting. Note sure you can do better for ~$350. Call me a cheapskate*, but the price doubling between the 70-200 f/4L IS and non IS models and the TRIPLING between the 70-300L and non L are real dollars I could be using for something else. Like rent. And food. *I do own a 24-105L as I cannot stand EF-S lenses
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:70-300 owner reporting in. I sold my 55-250 to get it and I will tell you there is a noticeable upgrade in image quality. However...the 70-300 is practically unusable at 300 wide open. You must stop it down to f/8 to get shots that don't blur out. That said, the extra little bit of reach is nice as well as the fact that the lens WILL NOT vignette on any crop sensor body at ANY aperture/focal length setting. Note sure you can do better for ~$350. Call me a cheapskate*, but the price doubling between the 70-200 f/4L IS and non IS models and the TRIPLING between the 70-300L and non L are real dollars I could be using for something else. Like rent. And food. The F/4 70-200 non-IS is on the refurb store for $579 with 20% off, if it ever comes back in stock. So that puts it really close to the 70-300. Granted the 70-300 is $519 with 20% off (and it's in stock). Edit: I almost got a 50 F/1.8 and the 430ex flash this morning, but both went out of stock before I could check out
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
So the new EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pancake is in stock at B&H now. Time to sell some poo poo and grab one for testing  e: Even though it's not as fast, I'd say it offers an awesome new unreal-cheap-prime entry between the 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 in terms of price and focal length. Plus, the STM is a major bonus. $200 is perfect impulse-buy territory, it feels like it's too cheap not to give a whirl. Odds are I'll end up waiting and rent it anyway and I still want to see what it looks like on a crop anyway Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
I want one, but it doesn't seem like a very useful length for my crop body.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:Plus, the STM is a major bonus. How does STM Work, just holds focus for the camera? Like I could hold the af button when in video mode? Edit: Apparently on the Rebel T4i can do it? MrEnigma fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
The Full-Time AF on video only works with the attached T4i body, but Canon seems to be bragging about the new STM focusing drive all the same. It's supposedly faster/more silent than the USM motors, I'm just interested to see how it performs at $200. e: and I'm instantly rebutted by this article http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/camera-lenses/canon-ef-40mm-f-2-8-stm-1083886/review I guess it's just to be less "jerky" during AF? I still want to see what the gently caress is up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
I ordered one just for giggles, will report back once it's here and I mess with it. I bought it because the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 are nonfocusing crap in low light conditions and I'm fantasizing that this lens will focus worth a drat in low light. if not, at least it's a great (imo) focal length on full frame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
I put magic lantern on my 60D, and it makes focusing easier. I can also hit the AF-ON button and it will refocus (badly usually) during video. The best part about magic lantern is the focus peaking, showing red lines on what is in focus, so it's a lot easier to follow with...
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
Wyeth posted:
Gotta say that I am interested in this lens too. Pancakes are cool, and the price is quite affordable. 40mm on crop makes not so much sense to me, but on FF it is a really nice focal length. Used to be a strict 50mm guy, but in the past year I suddenly became enamoured with the 35-40mm range for some reason. It seems like most shooters eventually end up there for "general purpose" type shooting; I kept trying it over the years and never really liked it (too wide) but sometime last year it just clicked for me and started working. Now I don't shoot 50mm at all anymore (and will sell the ZE 50/1.4), and am happy with a 35/85 or so combo (20 and 45 on micro 43 right now). Also would like to throw in a vote for thread title: Camera Gear v8 (is really v12.8 on crop)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Also would like to throw in a vote for thread title: Camera Gear v8 (is really v12.8 on crop)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
It's v12 on brands that matter  (and also Pentax)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
I have a quick and possibly stupid question. I have never used a teleconverter before and I have no idea how they're mounted. If I have a M42 mount lens fitted with an adaptor to fit my K-Mount Pentax K-5, do I need a M42 mount teleconverter or a K-Mount teleconverter?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 07:31
|
|