Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
timrenzi574
Sep 11, 2001

torgeaux posted:

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.

It also weighs as much as a 500/4 MKII. Makes you feel safe walking at night if you need to kill a man

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

torgeaux
Dec 31, 2004
I serve...

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

timrenzi574
Sep 11, 2001

torgeaux posted:

Well, it is a 300mm 2.8

The 300/2.8 MK II weighs 40 ounces less than the sigma zoom. It is a lot less versatile of course

dorkanoid
Dec 21, 2004

SMERSH Mouth posted:

Cool, thanks for sharing.

Those don't look bad at all in terms of detail reproduction. They do look a little washed-out though, as you say. Good to know about the AF. Right now on my 5D2 the 400mm's performance is barely tolerable as it is (which is down to the body, not the lens) so maybe I'll just go for the 70-200 f/4 instead, and not worry about teleconvertibility.

Yeah, I think they'd been better if I'd underexposed them slightly. That combo takes awesome pictures, but when I "shoot as if it were the 400" I get results like that, and miss my 400.

Personally I'm using the 6D, so AF is fast as hell.

SMERSH Mouth
Jun 25, 2005

torgeaux posted:

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.

Thanks for pointing that out. Sigma has had so many drat telephoto zooms in it's lineup, all with slightly varying focal lengths and appended feature abbreviations, that it's hard to keep tack of what's out there. Doesn't help that they vary so wildly in quality, either. I had a Sigma 170-500mm for a short time, and boy was it a turd of a lens. On the other hand, a lot of Sigmas in that range are pretty well-regarded, especially the newer stuff.

red19fire
May 26, 2010

Am I insane to want to jump ship from Nikon to Canon? I use a pair of DF's, 24-70, 70-200 for work, and I think I could work a straight horse trade to get a pair of 5d3's and the same lenses. I find myself preferring the color of my colleagues who shoot 5d3's even though I'm sure I can replicate it in post processing, and they come up far more often when I work as an assistant.

Not loving the bullshit shutter either, it appears to be made out of balsa wood.

alkanphel
Mar 24, 2004

red19fire posted:

Am I insane to want to jump ship from Nikon to Canon?

Nope, I've always found Canon cameras to be fantastic workhorse cameras. That said both brands are good, it's really a matter of which camera fits your hands and workflow better.

timrenzi574
Sep 11, 2001

red19fire posted:

Am I insane to want to jump ship from Nikon to Canon? I use a pair of DF's, 24-70, 70-200 for work, and I think I could work a straight horse trade to get a pair of 5d3's and the same lenses. I find myself preferring the color of my colleagues who shoot 5d3's even though I'm sure I can replicate it in post processing, and they come up far more often when I work as an assistant.

Not loving the bullshit shutter either, it appears to be made out of balsa wood.

If you like the results out of the 5d3's , and it results in less work for you to get them, then it doesn't sound insane at all.

Pablo Bluth
Sep 7, 2007

I've made a huge mistake.

red19fire posted:

Am I insane to want to jump ship from Nikon to Canon? I use a pair of DF's, 24-70, 70-200 for work, and I think I could work a straight horse trade to get a pair of 5d3's and the same lenses. I find myself preferring the color of my colleagues who shoot 5d3's even though I'm sure I can replicate it in post processing, and they come up far more often when I work as an assistant.

Not loving the bullshit shutter either, it appears to be made out of balsa wood.
<insert derisory comment about their sensors>.

Canons regularly outnumber the rest in competitions, be it World Press Photos, Landscape of the Year or Wildlife Photographer of the Year, and on the touchline at any major sport event. If owning a Canon is insanity, there's an epidemic in the upper echelons of photography. The sensor issues over dynamic range and low ISO noise are seriously overblown on the net, in all other regards their bodies are as good or better than anyone's and their lens designers are on a serious roll at the moment.

0toShifty
Aug 21, 2005
0 to Stiffy?
I come from a family of photographers. The whole family was shooting Nikon. I went out and got babby's first DSLR - a T3i Canon. After that I started converting them all like some kind of religion. Only two Nikon holdouts left.

Bubbacub
Apr 17, 2001

Anyone else keep trying to reach for a nonexistent nipple lever whenever you switch to a body that's not a 7D2? Seems weird that Canon didn't include it on the 5DS/R.

Mukulu
Jul 14, 2006

Stop. Drop. Shut 'em down open up shop.
Edit: I'm an idiot.

Mukulu fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Oct 7, 2015

Anubis
Oct 9, 2003

It's hard to keep sand out of ears this big.
Fun Shoe

0toShifty posted:

I come from a family of photographers. The whole family was shooting Nikon. I went out and got babby's first DSLR - a T3i Canon. After that I started converting them all like some kind of religion. Only two Nikon holdouts left.

If the last one standing gets all the glass and equipment that's been shed by everyone else that's gotta be a great deal.

Wife and I's first wedding shoot this weekend. Just an informal jeans wedding, they weren't even going to have a photographer until someone complained about family pictures. She's shooting the 5DS with the 70D as backup and I rented a 5Diii and enough extra glass that we don't have to fight over the good stuff. I'll have a day to play with it before the wedding but any weird quirks worth mentioning on the 5diii? I'm used to shooting on either a 70D and the wife's 5DS.

Fingers crossed that we don't get picketed!

dorkasaurus_rex
Jun 10, 2005

gawrsh do you think any women will be there

Is a 5D MK4 ever coming out? And can someone recommend a good, cheap, solid telephoto? I mean like maybe 500 ish?

TheAngryDrunk
Jan 31, 2003

"I don't know why I know that; I took four years of Spanish."

dorkasaurus_rex posted:

Is a 5D MK4 ever coming out? And can someone recommend a good, cheap, solid telephoto? I mean like maybe 500 ish?

How cheap? Tamron 150-600 is $1k.

Edit: Ah, I thought 500ish referred to the focal length. 00

Bubbacub
Apr 17, 2001

dorkasaurus_rex posted:

Is a 5D MK4 ever coming out? And can someone recommend a good, cheap, solid telephoto? I mean like maybe 500 ish?

No.

And telephoto to do what? Good, cheap, and solid usually tend to be mutually exclusive, and $500 is pretty far from the sweet spot for telephotos. You might be able to find a used 70-200/4 for that much. If you stretch a little more, the old version of the 100-400 should be pretty cheap now that the mk 2 is out.

800peepee51doodoo
Mar 1, 2001

Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune
I'm seeing a few Canon 300 f4L non-IS 's on ebay for ~$600 or so. I think that might be the longest, best quality lens you're liable to get at around your price range. If you need longer and can save up a bit more, the 400 5.6L is relatively cheap (esp. used) for its quality and reach.

Seamonster
Apr 30, 2007

IMMER SIEGREICH
Tamzookas are closer to $800-850 if you're willing to risk fleabaying from glorious nippon.

I'm still angry Nikons have that 200-500 5.6 VR. And at a not exorbitant price too. I guess that would explain the flood of Nikon tamzookas on ebay.

800peepee51doodoo
Mar 1, 2001

Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune
If it makes you feel better Nikon issued a recall for some of those 200-500's for AF issues

TheAngryDrunk
Jan 31, 2003

"I don't know why I know that; I took four years of Spanish."

800peepee51doodoo posted:

If it makes you feel better Nikon issued a recall for some of those 200-500's for AF issues

Oh Nikon. Should have seen that coming.

NeuralSpark
Apr 16, 2004

TheAngryDrunk posted:

Oh Nikon. Should have seen that coming.

They tried, but it was all blurry and they couldn't really make it out.

Pablo Bluth
Sep 7, 2007

I've made a huge mistake.

Seamonster posted:

I'm still angry Nikons have that 200-500 5.6 VR. And at a not exorbitant price too. I guess that would explain the flood of Nikon tamzookas on ebay.
I'd find the 200-500 a more interesting proposition if wasn't targeted even below Nikon's own 80-400, thus indicating a higher level of compromise in the name of price.

Anubis
Oct 9, 2003

It's hard to keep sand out of ears this big.
Fun Shoe

TheAngryDrunk posted:

How cheap? Tamron 150-600 is $1k.

Edit: Ah, I thought 500ish referred to the focal length. 00

I bet he can find the now older Sigma 150-500 somewhere for near $550-650. It's not the best picture quality but it's been more than usable for me in the "I need a ton of range at a cheap price" category.

Really, what are you shooting at what approx distance (and are you using crop) because telephoto means anything from 24-70 to the 200-400s that were previously mentioned.

Anubis fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Oct 8, 2015

SMERSH Mouth
Jun 25, 2005

I've had good luck with the 55-250 STM on APS-C and the 400 L on FF and APS-C. Those are as cheap as you can get a usable super-tele (250mm is equivalent to 400mm on FF) and still have a max aperture bigger than f/6.3.

400 L on APS-C is equivalent to 640mm and if like me you're looking to shoot birds that's just barely long enough.

I haven't used any of the newer Tamron or Sigma super-tele's but if you want something that goes past 400mm they are pretty much your only options under $2000.

I wanted to photograph birds so I needed long reach, but I also didn't want to spend over a grand on a lens. I messed around with an older Sigma but hated the bad IQ. Eventually I just had to accept that forking over the cash was the only answer for me. Even then I went with pretty much the cheapest L-series super-tele. It works fine.

suck my woke dick
Oct 10, 2012

:siren:I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!:siren:

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!
EF 600 f/4 L IS USM II + 2xTC superiority :colbert:

I'm sure you could spend $500 on it. That is, yearly, as insurance, after buying the thing.

Seamonster
Apr 30, 2007

IMMER SIEGREICH
It may have the reach but good luck with AF and sky high ISOs on that lovely f/8 aperture. 400mm f/2.8 + 2x TC FOR LYFE*.






*the lyfe I don't have.

EDIT: Would actually prefer a 300 2.8 with a complement of TCs. Probably much more versatile as a stand alone lens and saving 3.5 lbs is no joke either.

Seamonster fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Oct 8, 2015

Alpenglow
Mar 12, 2007

If anyone is curious about durability, and whether a 6D and 24-70/4 can survive a fall... out of a semi truck...

:crossarms:

Aside from a little zoom stiffness in the mid-range, it actually seems alright. Plus cool gouged metal in the back!

Laserface
Dec 24, 2004

SO i have had my Tamron 18-270 repaired twice for lovely focusing on non-centre focus points and even after sending my camera to Tamron with the lens and having it calibrated specifically to my camera it still focuses like garbage unless you're using centre focus.

Is this just a thing with non-canon lenses or what?

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

Laserface posted:

SO i have had my Tamron 18-270 repaired twice for lovely focusing on non-centre focus points and even after sending my camera to Tamron with the lens and having it calibrated specifically to my camera it still focuses like garbage unless you're using centre focus.

Is this just a thing with non-canon lenses or what?

It's a thing with cheap lenses.

Laserface
Dec 24, 2004

yeah, it wasnt cheap.

SMERSH Mouth
Jun 25, 2005

Most zooms are difficult to calibrate correctly with AF micro adjustment. I'd think that the larger the zoom range, the more imprecise the focus will be. I'd be glad if the center alone was accurate throughout every focal length on a lens like that, never mind the peripheral points.

astr0man
Feb 21, 2007

hollyeo deuroga

Laserface posted:

yeah, it wasnt cheap.

$450 is cheap when it comes to camera lenses.

timrenzi574
Sep 11, 2001

Laserface posted:

yeah, it wasnt cheap.

Cheap is relative. Canon wants 2500$ for a nice superzoom lens. 400$ superzoom lenses are cheap.

SMERSH Mouth
Jun 25, 2005

Is there really such thing as an actual optically good superzoom lens? I assume I'd be an L-series, but which one?

... I'd be interested in something that could allow me to take a single camera and lens along on hiking & camping trips, that could handle landscape and bird/wildlife duty without needing to change lenses. It's just that I end up becoming very critical of final image quality and peep pixels a lot on my own stuff.

INTJ Mastermind
Dec 30, 2004

It's a radial!
For that money you could just pay a local boy to follow you with a tripod, backpack full of lenses and spare body, and food and water for your group.

timrenzi574
Sep 11, 2001

SMERSH Mouth posted:

Is there really such thing as an actual optically good superzoom lens? I assume I'd be an L-series, but which one?

... I'd be interested in something that could allow me to take a single camera and lens along on hiking & camping trips, that could handle landscape and bird/wildlife duty without needing to change lenses. It's just that I end up becoming very critical of final image quality and peep pixels a lot on my own stuff.

Good is also relative here. The 28-300L is better than other superzooms, but it's still not as good as a lens that tries to do less. But it's 2500$ and a bit bigger and heavier than the 100-400MK2 even.

Bubbacub
Apr 17, 2001

timrenzi574 posted:

Good is also relative here. The 28-300L is better than other superzooms, but it's still not as good as a lens that tries to do less. But it's 2500$ and a bit bigger and heavier than the 100-400MK2 even.

Yeah, if I wanted to do landscapes + large wildlife on a hiking trip, I'd take a 24-70/4 and the 70-300L. Both lenses are really compact. Trying to cram the entire focal length range into a single lens forces way too many compromises.

Maybe in 50 years we'll have superzooms with diffractive and liquid elements.

Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Oct 14, 2015

MrBlandAverage
Jul 2, 2003

GNNAAAARRRR

Laserface posted:

yeah, it wasnt cheap.

So how many weeks have you been interested in photography? :kiddo:

windex
Aug 2, 2006

One thing living in Japan does is cement the fact that ignoring the opinions of others is a perfectly valid life strategy.

Laserface posted:

SO i have had my Tamron 18-270 repaired twice for lovely focusing on non-centre focus points ...

My buddy is teaching himself how to photog on a old EOS 50D and this superzoom he got from someone else.

First to teach him framing I had to instruct him to leave that poo poo at 50mm and NOT TOUCH that dial until he gets it down and reminded him his exif data would tattle.

Second because of this AF headache he now manually focuses the lens.

Not just you. But at least he's getting an education.

Also, $400 doesn't even buy a half decent prime that isn't a nifty fifty.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Popelmon
Jan 24, 2010

wow
so spin

windex posted:

Also, $400 doesn't even buy a half decent prime that isn't a nifty fifty.

Don't diss the 85/1.8 :mad:.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply