Camera Gear v8 "Buy A Pentax ME" (Don't buy UV filters, do hail satan)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Camera Gear v8 "Buy A Pentax ME" (Don't buy UV filters, do hail satan)

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

fremiranda is a pretty good place for used gear, too.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2012 02:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:06

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

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: Jul 28, 2007

Stochastic posted:

I'm looking to purchase another lens for my Canon T1i. So far I have the 18-55 kit lens, the Canon 55-250 IS f/4-5.6, and the Canon 50 1.8. After playing around with this setup for a couple of years, I landed my first paid gig taking photos for adult sports leagues (kickball, flag football). It's a casual deal and doesn't pay a whole lot, but it should enable me to upgrade my equipment a bit.

I'd like to get a lens that will produce sharper photos than the 250 zoom that I already have, in a similar range. This lens would be used for the sports photography I mentioned above, as well as wildlife photography. I'd like to keep it in the $500 range, which I know will limit my options. So far, I have my eye on the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD as my best option.

Can anyone speak to the increase in image quality a lens like this would provide over my current 250mm zoom? Are there any other options that I should consider in this price range? A really killer lens that can be had for just a bit more money?

The tamron above has a rebate that expires tomorrow.. it's making me want to pull the trigger now before I've done my research!

It's time for your first L - get the 70-200/4L for about $500 used and don't look back. It'll be perfectly adequate for outdoor sports.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2012 08:29

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

MrEnigma posted:

Local seller has a canon mount Tamron 17-50 for $350. I know there is a VC and non-VC of this lens, any other things I should watch for? Seems like a pretty good price.

Check to see if it has front/rear focus problems (where it will focus slightly in front or behind of the target). The ring in the front has also been known to come loose after a while, although I've never really encountered that myself.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2012 09:40

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

The 24-70/2.8L is one of those lenses that even if (though?) third party equivalents perform better on test charts, have more features (like VC/IS), and are way cheaper, I'm still irrationally tempted to buy the Canon.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2012 11:26

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

Shmoogy posted:

Hm, $200 isn't a bad price. I might buy into my first kick starter. I have a feeling that waiting for the second gen, or more wifi memory cards to come out might be worthwhile though.

I don't really understand why they need a big ugly plasticky unit to literally do the same thing as the eyefi, at like 4 times the price.

Is it maybe faster than the eye-fi? That'd be the only redeeming feature, especially now that pro level cameras are starting to get SD card slots.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2012 05:00

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

Why not the sigma 8-16?

# ¿ Oct 6, 2012 19:07

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

Dalax posted:

I don't know! That's why I asked really. I had a feeling I would be recommended a lens I didn't list though. Thank you both and 1st AD for the advice.

lensrentals.com has a good summary of the various ultra wides:

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/sigma-8-16mm-f4.5-5.6-dc-hsm-for-canon posted:

Comparing the ultra-wide, crop sensor camera lenses is an extremely difficult task, so I�ll put the summary first: they all deliver excellent image quality and you can�t go wrong with any of them. To my �just taking pictures� assessment they are all excellent. There are some differences though, so I�ll try to point those out so you have a better chance at choosing the one that�s best for you.

The Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 is the widest (and remember, 8mm is 20% wider than 10mm, so it�s a very real difference). Not quite as sharp in the corners as the others, and lower maximum aperture, but it�s really pretty good, especially considering it�s the widest of the wide.

The Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 has low distortion and is arguably the most flare resistant, the smallest and lightest when that�s important. It�s also the most expensive and vignettes a bit. I like it a lot, though, and I often find myself preferring it because of its small size.

The Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 has a bit more distortion than the others but delivers very nice images and is also built much better than the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. It does everything well.

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 gives you the widest aperture if you�ll be working in low light (with ultra wides, depth of field is rarely an important point), but it�s a bit soft at f/2.8, so the aperture advantage isn�t huge (I usually shoot it at f/3.5 if I can to get it sharper). It has very little vignetting and distortion, probably the least of the group. Unfortunately, it does show quite a bit of chromatic aberration at times. Overall it may be the best image quality of the group.

The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 PRO DX II is built like a sturdy tank (and therefore a bit heavier). It does tend to give low contrast images when shot into the sun but is quite sharp otherwise. This is the one I�d take if conditions were rough: I pity the rock this bad boy falls on. Poor rock.

# ¿ Oct 9, 2012 09:05

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

Yep, there are only two Tamron 17-50s - one with vibration compensation (which is more expensive with poorer image quality), and one without, which is this one (and the one you want).

# ¿ Oct 24, 2012 12:27

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

Skizzzer posted:

I'm going to China in Sept and am looking to buy a camera as I won't be able to take my D200 with me. My budget is ~$300 and these are my priorities:

Low light capability (I like landscapes, nature, and will probably be out and about in the evenings mostly)

Image quality

Small (not so important, but I'll be walking around a lot and I don't want something conspicuous hanging around my neck)

I'm looking at a Fujifilm X20 on craigslist that's selling for $325. I'm also considering a Pentax MX-1. Also on craigslist is a Nikon D5000 for $400. I could get that and put my 35mm lens on it. The D5000 could also be my camera in the future because my D200 is actually my dad's work camera and I might have to return it someday.

Is there anything else I should be considering? How does the D5000 compare to the D200?

If you don't care too much about size (seeing that you're considering DSLRs), then the Fujifilm X-E1 with the 18-55/2.8-4 kit lens sounds perfect. I was blown away by how good photos looked at 6400iso, the image quality is awesome, and it's relatively compact. The kit lens is sharp and fast and is more comparable with the Tamron 17-50 than first party kit lenses from other manufacturers. You shouldn't have a hard time finding the combo for around $600 used.

If you care about size without sacrificing too much image quality, the Lumix LX7 has a fast Leica 1.4-2.3 lens and reasonably wide and useful 24-70mm focal length for around $250 used. The Olympus XZ-2 is a bit slower at f/1.8, and is less wide at 28mm, and zooms to 105mm or something. Costs around the same used as the LX7.

nielsm posted:

You can probably get more camera for the same money if you buy in China instead of at home.

If it's mainland China (ie not HK), fancy cameras will generally be more expensive than the US, because of import duties/taxes, distributor markups etc. You definitely won't beat used pricing.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2014 05:58

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

I got something similar 2-3 years ago and its great. Mine actually has a plate that offsets the strap attachment hole so the camera hangs better, and you can still screw a tripod adapter plate onto it.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2014 03:42

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

quote:

its annual production volume was approximately two lenses.[3] The lens also took more than a year to construct, due to the time required to grow its massive fluorite crystals.[6]
Few of these lenses exist; Canon has never released production figures, but it is almost certain that fewer than 100 were made, and it has been rumored that the actual number is closer to 20. A list of owners has also never been made public, but reported owners include Sports Illustrated magazine (two); Canon Professional Services (two); James Jannard, the billionaire founder of Oakley and RED Digital Cinema (two); and the National Geographic Society (at least one for its magazine). It is also widely believed that several intelligence and law enforcement agencies own this lens.

Makes me wonder how many of the more expensive super telephotos are sold per year.

# ¿ Aug 16, 2014 07:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:06

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

EF-S is a Canon lens mount standard for their smaller digital sensor size ("crop sensors" like on the 70D, or the Rebel line).
EF is a Canon lens mount standard for 35mm film and full frame sensors (5d, 6d).

EF lenses will work on digital cameras with crop sensors, whereas while EF-S lenses will often mount on film/full frame cameras, but because it's designed for a smaller sensor, there will be some vignetting and possibly a mirror strike risk.

On a related note, you may want to look into purchasing used, older generation cameras like the 40D or 50D if you don't really intend to do film - they're much cheaper and should be more than sufficient. That way you can have more money to spend on lenses. For example, you can put together a 40D + Tamron 17-50/2.8mm combo for around $550 ish, and that will outperform any of the bundles you have listed unless you plan on doing super large prints.

edit:

8th-snype posted:

I'm pretty sure this guy is saying "film" when he means "motion" not like actual film.

gently caress, so much for my effort post

rawrr fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Aug 28, 2014

# ¿ Aug 28, 2014 07:15

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Camera Gear v8 "Buy A Pentax ME" (Don't buy UV filters, do hail satan)