|
FormerFatty posted:I have a quick and possibly stupid question. Either. Your options are: M42 lens <-> M42 to K mount adapter <-> K mount TC <-> Camera or M42 lens <-> M42 TC <-> M42 to K mount adapter <-> Camera Note that if you go for the M42 TC make sure to research it first as a lot of cheap crap was offered in M42... And don't buy a 2X one!!! Martytoof posted:It's v12 on brands that matter Oh yeah, Sony.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:And don't buy a 2X one!!! Please elaborate
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
FormerFatty posted:Please elaborate Well, they give up so much optically that in almost all cases (excepting super high end combos like a Canon 300/2.8 and 2X III) you get a better result using a 1.4x and cropping. "Affordable" setups with a 2X generally end in (mushy) tears.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 08:23
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Well, they give up so much optically that in almost all cases (excepting super high end combos like a Canon 300/2.8 and 2X III) you get a better result using a 1.4x and cropping. "Affordable" setups with a 2X generally end in (mushy) tears. Would this degradation be as pronounced on a relatively wide aperture, good quality telezoom, say a 500mm f4.5 Asahi-Pentax? FormerFatty fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
Looks like a fancy body cap: Quick and dirty test shot (adjusted WB and sized down, otherwise untouched):  And a quick video of how "quiet" this new STM stacks up against the tired old USM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjDMNeIDScg
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
FormerFatty posted:Would this degradation be as pronounced on a relatively wide aperture, good quality telezoom, say a 500mm f4.5 Asahi-Pentax? If you get a really good TC maybe you will be OK, but realistically you are better off with the 1.4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 09:21
|
|
|
Another question, were old East German Zeiss (Jena) M42 lenses ever any good? They seem to fetch a decent price on Ebay, similar to Japanese M42 lenses of the same era. I had been under the impression that the Soviet Bloc never built anything of quality besides weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
Duckjob posted:Looks like a fancy body cap: Jesus, that sounds like a lovely printer from 1995. I honestly think I'd rather hear the AF clicks on the USM. Then again, I won't ever have to*, but just between the two... that's an improvement? and I had my hopes up  *during video Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
That's 'silent' is it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
FormerFatty posted:Would this degradation be as pronounced on a relatively wide aperture, good quality telezoom, say a 500mm f4.5 Asahi-Pentax? 2x teleconverters really do need to have glass that's not just good but bordering on spectacular. Even a lens that's really excellent normally might wind up not so good with a 2x.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
powderific posted:2x teleconverters really do need to have glass that's not just good but bordering on spectacular. Even a lens that's really excellent normally might wind up not so good with a 2x. Not to mention f/4.5 with a 2X would result in f/9, and you will likely need to stop down a bit for better results, meaning you will be shooting at something like ISO 800 or 1600 in the middle of the day... Try a 1.4x of good quality, the Pentax lens should work nicely with that. I have what is arguably spectacular glass (500L) and I am not going past 1.4x on that either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
FormerFatty posted:Another question, were old East German Zeiss (Jena) M42 lenses ever any good? They seem to fetch a decent price on Ebay, similar to Japanese M42 lenses of the same era. I had been under the impression that the Soviet Bloc never built anything of quality besides weapons. Yes, many CZJ lenses were very good. The reason that CZJ stuff is better than the rest of the Soviet stuff is that Zeiss-Jena was literally a german Zeiss facility that the soviets took after the war, along with the people who ran it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
Is this a decent lens for someone just getting started? http://www.ebay.com/itm/280906447587?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649#ht_752wt_95
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Is this a decent lens for someone just getting started? It's the standard kit lens for Rebels, and yeah -- it's fine for starting out. It's not going to get you good low light performance, but optically it's far from terrible and as long as you're shooting in decent light you'll have a decent lens that will help you decide what focal lengths you prefer to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
FormerFatty posted:Would this degradation be as pronounced on a relatively wide aperture, good quality telezoom, say a 500mm f4.5 Asahi-Pentax? You mean this thing?  500mm f-4.5 (1 of 2) by Execudork, on Flickr The teleconverter most often recommended when this particular lens is discussed (or its optically-identical K-mount version) is this 1.4x design specifically meant for gigantic super-telephoto lenses with long spaces between the rear element and the camera body. The 2x version is much more rare, though well-regarded by those who have it. Pedantry: "Zoom" means the focal length of the lens can be changed while the image remains in-focus (some old lenses, like from the 1960's, are technically "variable-focus", not true zooms, because the image goes out of focus as the focal length changes). The term has nothing to do with high magnification. A 10-20mm ultra-wide is just as much a zoom lens as a 50-500mm "Bigma". "Telephoto" is the term for a particular optical design associated with lenses of focal lengths higher than about 50mm, commonly 85, 100, 135, 200, 300mm, etc. They can also be zooms, such as the Bigma or the ever-popular 70-200mm. EDIT: Just to clarify, I have that lens (Asahi Pentax 500mm f/4.5 in M42 mount, plus m42-to-K adaptor) and I love it, but I do not own a teleconverter. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jun 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:It's the standard kit lens for Rebels, and yeah -- it's fine for starting out. It's not going to get you good low light performance, but optically it's far from terrible and as long as you're shooting in decent light you'll have a decent lens that will help you decide what focal lengths you prefer to shoot. Thanks. And its a wide angle lens right? (Being that its 18-55mm)? Sorry I just want to be 100% sure so I don't get screwed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Thanks. And its a wide angle lens right? (Being that its 18-55mm)? You should explain the situation which you're buying this for, it sounds like you're buying it for a friend or SO and chances are if they have any sort of "beginner" body they already have this lens e: to answer your question it's moderately wide on a crop body, 18mm is like 27mm ish on crop
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
Well I mean 18mm is on the wide end of things, but it's not going to be ultrawide or anything. It's a good focal length, going from moderately wide 18mm to a normal 35mm to a portrait-ish 50mm. Keep in mind that when I say that I'm also factoring in the crop factor. On a rebel this lens will actually be something like a 28-80mm lens after you factor in crop. But without getting too technical, yes it's wide-ish, but it's also important to check your expectations. Try something like this for a rough idea of what you can expect: http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
As far as I know, it will cost you a lot ($400-800) to get an af lens that's much wider than 18mm, so the kit 18-55 definitely what to get if you are just starting out and on a really tight budget. but yeah, most entry cameras will come with something like this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:As far as I know, it will cost you a lot ($400-800) to get an af lens that's much wider than 18mm, so the kit 18-55 definitely what to get if you are just starting out and on a really tight budget. Thanks. And yeah I just brought it. I only got it because I am on a tight budget. But after a month of working I'll likely upgrade to something more serious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
Super Pedantry: a "Telephoto" is any lens with a focal length longer than the lens body. That new canon 40mm is technically a telephoto. This is a telephoto:  this isn't (well, almost not):  It's kinda weird that pancakes are actually telephoto lenses. That's what you get when you build lenses with high refractive glass (and one day, meta-materials) 
Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Jun 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 10:21
|
|
|
Most lenses sold as zooms (parfocals) actually aren't, either; they're "just" varifocals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
What company makes those good/cheap replacement batteries? Yes I know a lot of companies do but there is one that keeps popping up in threads. Thanks very much VVVVVVVVVVVVVV Legdiian fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Jun 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 14:26
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:What company makes those good/cheap replacement batteries? Yes I know a lot of companies do but there is one that keeps popping up in threads. Sterlingtek. and order from amazon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
Been very happy with Lenmar myself. Their batteries fit as well as OEM ones (unlike most others) on the 1Ds II.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
This is a massive long shot but has anyone here used a Hasselblad to Pentax K-Mount adaptor before? Were there any problems? EDIT: There are some real bargains on Ebay, look at this baby, $100 with no bids yet. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hasselbald-...=item19d240ce4b I am aware that posting this here might drive up the price but there are plenty of other good deals out there. FormerFatty fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jun 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
FormerFatty posted:This is a massive long shot but has anyone here used a Hasselblad to Pentax K-Mount adaptor before? Were there any problems? That won't sell for anything near $100, there are three days left in the auction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:That won't sell for anything near $100, there are three days left in the auction. I looked at the finished auctions, another identical lens failed to sell for $200
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
FormerFatty posted:I looked at the finished auctions, another identical lens failed to sell for $200 Oh it's not a T* lens, yeah those generally go for between 2 and 3 hundred.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
I wouldn't flatly shoot down superzooms for someone just starting out and for whom adjusting to a DSLR around their neck will already be an change, and for which a DSLR + bag of lenses will be even more so. I decided to try a Nikon 18-200 with my first DSLR because Amazon had a $250 instant rebate at the time and I figured I could easily sell and make my money back if it's IQ was really bugging me. I must say, I was pleasantly surprised. Would I still recommend making at least one cheap prime your next purchase shortly thereafter for low light? Yes (I did). It's a compromise, but for daytime recreational activities where photography is not the main attraction, it's nice to carry just one lens on your camera, and not have to be worrying about swapping. Obviously for pros/aspiring pros, and for times when photography is the whole reason you left the house that day, this is not a compromise you'd be as apt to make. But for amateurs not yet ready for a bag of primes and/or high-$ f2.8 zooms, the convenience factor can't be ignored. Changing topics, while it's not what most people think of when they hear "Gear", I'd say buying LightRoom with or soon after a DSLR purchase is not a bad recommendation for the OP. I got by with ViewNX for a couple months after getting my camera, but LR3 was such an improvement, I wish I'd gotten it from the start. AlienApeBoy fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jun 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
AlienApeBoy posted:It's a compromise, but for daytime recreational activities where photography is not the main attraction, it's nice to carry just one lens on your camera, and not have to be worrying about swapping. Obviously for pros/aspiring pros, and for times when photography is the whole reason you left the house that day, this is not a compromise you'd be as apt to make. But for amateurs not yet ready for a bag of primes and/or high-$ f2.8 zooms, the convenience factor can't be ignored. Oh no, you'll have to switch a lens when you want to go to more than 80mm equivalent focal length  If you're broke and just starting out, the 18-55mm IS/VRs are great but slow, but there's no real reason to drop a bunch of money on a slow superzoom when the 17-50s are so cheap nowadays. That covers the focal lengths a beginner will use 95% of the time and you will really, really appreciate a lens usable at f/2.8. As for longer stuff, don't forget you can adapt a manual-focus 105/135mm prime to use for portraits for dirt cheap. Every system has piles of 135mm f/3.5s that usually go for $25 or so, plus an adapter. The 70-300s aren't sexy but are usually much better than superzooms, I'd take a 17-50 + 70-300 over a 28-200 any day (both setups roughly $500). Or you could keep the kit and buy a 70-200 f/4 if you sometimes shoot sports or something (also roughly $500). e: The number for the 28-200 is probably high since it looks like the lens I was comparing against has been discontinued. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jun 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
And if you're just starting out, don't underestimate the value in being forced to use one focal length. Zooms make people lazy and encourage you to turn the dial rather than considering perspective distortion as a composition element. Shooting with a normal lens or a normal+wide prime kit is something I encourage everyone to try for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Super Pedantry: a "Telephoto" is any lens with a focal length longer than the lens body. That new canon 40mm is technically a telephoto. Super Super Pedantry: a "telephoto" is a lens which includes a telephoto optical group, i.e. a negative optical group behind a positive optical group. This reduces the back focal length of the lens. This 300mm lens is not a telephoto despite being significantly less than 300mm long  
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Super Super Pedantry: a "telephoto" is a lens which includes a telephoto optical group, i.e. a negative optical group behind a positive optical group. This reduces the back focal length of the lens. But I believe its optical centre will be 300mm from the projected image plane when it's focused at infinity. Something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
nielsm posted:But I believe its optical centre will be 300mm from the projected image plane when it's focused at infinity. Something like that. Yes, that's the point. Despite it being a "lens with a focal length longer than the lens body," it's not a telephoto. As I said, the back focal length of the lens will be shorter on a telephoto. Here's a Nikkor-T 270mm, which is actually a telephoto lens. It's physically just as long as the non-telephoto 300mm! But, of course, the back focal length is significantly less than 270mm. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Recommendation please: What you are looking to buy: New camera to use while hiking/traveling to capture panoramic, long exposure, landscapey shots. I know very little about photography, I just really like those types of pictures and I want to learn to make them myself. Budget: After 300US it starts to get iffy Your photo gear you already have: Casio Exilim EX-Z77 What you plan on using your purchase for: Learning, traveling, hiking, and taking Landscape/Cityscape/Skyscape environmental shots What you find limiting about what you have now: It is incredibly old and requires a proprietary cable, no image stabilization or anything friendly about it other than a "Best Shot" newbie mode I used to love before I wanted to know anything about photography. Does a Canon S100 do this well
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Recommendation please: Am I the only one here who thinks a Go Pro might be a nifty choice here? The Go Pro HD Motorsports Hero II fits right in that budget, has mounts specifically for what you mentioned, and its pretty indestructible. Sure it's not conventional but they are a ton of fun. Edit: But yea, you can't go wrong with an S95/S100 rcman50166 fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Jun 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
I don't know where the best place to post this would be, but I am looking for old crappy digital point and shoots that you might have forgotten you own. I want to collect quite a few of them to possibly give to people in a workshop type environment, among other things. So, I'm looking for first/second generation digicams, the sort of thing that advertises the fact that it's a WHOLE MEGAPIXEL, and that you might be willing to part with for the cost of shipping or a minimal price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I don't know where the best place to post this would be, but I am looking for old crappy digital point and shoots that you might have forgotten you own. I want to collect quite a few of them to possibly give to people in a workshop type environment, among other things. So, I'm looking for first/second generation digicams, the sort of thing that advertises the fact that it's a WHOLE MEGAPIXEL, and that you might be willing to part with for the cost of shipping or a minimal price. I actually may have one for you, I remember getting a really, really old digital camera from my advisor before finishing college. Give me a day or two to search through all the old poo poo I have, I'll send you a PM if I find it. Also I'm looking for a relatively inexpensive intervalometer for my Nikon d7000, are there any decent options in the $50 price range? I don't really need wireless or anything like that, but I haven't really used too many of them so I'm kinda unfamiliar with all the terminology. All I really need is the ability to control my shutter speed longer than 30sec. \/ Edit: Sure thing. It captures fine and takes AA batteries (actually it loving eats them) and if I remember correctly it uses SD cards. thevoiceofdog fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
thevoiceofdog posted:I actually may have one for you, I remember getting a really, really old digital camera from my advisor before finishing college. Give me a day or two to search through all the old poo poo I have, I'll send you a PM if I find it. I don't have plat, so no PMs, but you can email me: barrelbreak@gmail.com
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 03:54
|
|