|
Dumb question do the TS-E lenses have auto-aperture? A lot of T/S lenses don't, which might reduce its usability for non-technical photography.
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
doctor 7 posted:I used to work as tech support for HP. Buy a Brother laser printer and if you need prints go to Walmart or something. Laser printer supremacy 
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:What's good for 58mm polarizing filters? I've seen one in action and I think it might be worth having for some outdoors pictures. I see this that comes with a case, but I have no idea what brands are the best or worst Marumi Super DHG CPL.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:Anything (way) under $50? http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-Filter...58mm+marumi+cpl Non-Super DHG, which is slightly under the Super and some of the B+W and Heliopan stuff, but still better than most of what's out there. They didn't test the Hoya Gs, no idea how they stack up, but polarizers are one of the places where you get your money's worth buying something decent, I think. http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
Not being able to walk back a step is a good argument for the wider lens. A stop and a half isn't much and the wider perspective will open up a lot of shots he couldn't otherwise take. What Canon really needs is a cheap EF-S 30/1.8.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Yup, I've had this same exact conversation before "You're doing the conversion from RAW to JPG anyway, you're just letting a lovely little embedded CPU do the best it can in a tenth of a second instead of letting a real processor do higher quality algorithms (and potentially even better ones at a later date)". If that doesn't work they're probably a lost cause.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Some people don't like using computers, or want to know that their pictures will look exactly the same when they get home as they did on the back of the camera. No amount of explaining how a baby picture is formed will dissuade them... JPEG is better than RAW because they tried it once and couldn't figure it out once and it looked different. That's what RAW+JPG is for.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:ay-ess-ay Is please to be pronouncing it GOST, capitalist pig-dog 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
xzzy posted:You mean you don't lug a remote trigger and tripod with you everywhere you go? Never underestimate the effectiveness of preset cameras and remote triggers. It's like a $5 amazon purchase, there's no reason not to have one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:e. But seriously it's one of the sharpest 35mm's you can buy, can be found for very cheap (under 100 bucks), and the m42 version adapts to canon very easily, even on FF. If you aren't planning on shooting at 35mm a lot, or if you're not worried about needing to shoot at f/1.4, it's an amazing deal for the quality. The same exact lens design is used in the 75/4.5 medium format lens for the pentax 6x7 system, and for good reason! I think between 35mm and 6x7 I own like 5 copies of this lens (3 k-mount, S-M-C-T M42, SMC-T 6x7) . Seriously it's one of my all-time favorite lenses. Mr. Despair posted:I'm not sure it's as sharp as the newer canon, but I've dropped my k mount 50/1.4 (pretty sure it's the same glass) several times (even onto concrete!) and it still works perfectly. Probably has more CA issues than the newer canon lens though. The K-series 50/1.4 is the same as the SMC Takumar 50/1.4. The -M variant is very slightly different. Super coating is still pretty great, it's usually single coating but they were also experimenting with early versions of SMC as they went so some of the later ones have 3- or 5-layer coatings instead of the full 7 in SMC. Single coating gets you most of the transmission percentage gains. However, some of the Super lenses are reputed to be less sharp than the SMC versions, your mileage may vary. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jun 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
woot fatigue posted:What's the consensus on mounting Nikon lenses on Canon? I'm looking at a PC-Nikkor 35/2.8 that gives 8mm of shift... Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Jun 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Inf posted:An easier way to blow through your shutter life is shooting time lapse video. You apply LR develop settings to RAW files in batch, so you can edit 200-300 photos in like 5 minutes. Most time is spent exporting. This spring I took about 10,000 photos in two months creating this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6LkVmj8qYM. That's 1/10th of my 6D's rated shutter life. The same is true for astrophotography. It's probably not worth it over just getting your shutter rebuilt, but I think there are CCD imaging cameras designed for that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
My personal experience is that auto focus confirm is not accurate enough to shoot by. Like on a 50mm lens at portrait distance, I get maybe six inches of focus variability or something like that. It gets you in the ballpark but I didn't find the results as good as liveview focusing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
flummox posted:For the record, the 5d is still an excellent camera for the money. It doesn't have the ridiculous low-light capabilities of the later iterations, it doesn't do video and the AF is - shall we say - stately. But within its limits (below iso 800, stationary or slow-moving subjects) the image quality will pretty much destroy anything else your $500 can buy. Let's not go too far here. The 5D is a perfectly fine camera, but it's comparatively low resolution and the sensor has relatively high noise compared to modern iterations. I picked up a NEX-5N with 18-55 and the Sigma 30/2.8 for $425 and it would blow the 5D out of the water in all of the "image quality" metrics (resolution, high ISO performance, has video output, etc) for a body costing roughly half as much. Of course it's worse in other ways (contrast-detect AF only, depth of field, menus, babby's first camera mode, etc) but there are better bangs for your buck for pure IQ. The 5D is great outside or in studio lighting where its sensor isn't too strained and there's nothing wrong with having a "bright-light" camera (that's what I have MF/LF for), but it's pretty awesome to basically never have to use flash even indoors. Just realize that you are paying a bit of a premium to buy an older camera with a larger sensor. The real problem is that Canon doesn't give a poo poo about their crop sensor lineup. They need some fast cheap primes to cover the normal length and wider end. You can deal with that by jumping to full frame or by buying some of the more expensive zooms, but overall the cost of Canon gear has just been too high for me and I got out. Simple example, everyone else has a cheap normal prime around the $200 mark (Nikon 35/1.8, Pentax 35/2.4), and the Sigma 30/2.8 is only $100, while Canon forces you to either pay $300 for a 25-year-old full frame lens or deal with a longer-than-normal focal length (40/2.8) on Canon's smaller-than-normal APS-C sensor. In the NEX system there's even a Sigma wide lens and a Sony superwide prime lens for reasonable prices, have fun paying for an ultrawide with full-frame coverage so you can crop it back to superwide (or springing for a high end wide zoom). gently caress paying first-party prices for a lovely selection. Canon's crop sensor lineup is embarrassing, most of all that stupid crippled mirrorless they farted out to check the box on that market segment while avoiding cannibalizing their other lines. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:I guess to be fair about the 5DC, had I taken this image the other night with my Mk II or III, it probably would have been stunning. As it is, it's just OK. Something like the NEX-5N would have taken a much nicer picture in this situation, most likely. It probably would have looked about the same, honestly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the 5D is a bad camera and you shouldn't own/use it. It's a really nice camera that is overkill for probably 99% of most people's needs. It was a good camera when it came out and it hasn't gotten any worse except in comparison to the new high-ISO sensors, which do have an edge in technical image quality and are hitting the used market at comparable-to-lower prices than the 5D. For a lot of casual shooters, the ability to shoot available-light handheld anywhere is a really valuable feature, probably moreso than a bigger sensor. Shallower depth-of-field definitely has its place and it's totally fine to prefer it for your day-to-day camera, I just don't think it's really true to say that the 5D has superior image quality to new-gen crop-bodies anymore, is all.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Shellman posted:Awesome, good to hear! My roommate who got me into photography looks down on non-canon stuff, though from what I've read lurking here it seems like a lot of goons swear by it. I suspected he might be a little stubborn when I came home with one of these and he told me he bought a Canon so he could use Canon lenses, not Sigmas. There's nothing wrong with Nikon if you need a high-end system camera, or any of the smaller companies for most purposes. If you need something exotic, say a 200mm f/2 or a 300/400 f/2.8 or something you may be stuck with Canon/Nikon but for most purposes pretty much any camera system will do fine. From what people are saying it sounds like Canon is starting to seriously lag behind products using Sony sensors (i.e. Nikon). Sigma has been putting out absolutely rocking stuff lately. There's the 18-35 f/1.8 zoom, they're coming out with a f/2 full frame zoom too sometime, they've got a 35/1.4 that beats Canon/Nikon's L-series offerings, they've been aggressively revamping their line with the new Art series (which have user-adjustable micro-focus!), and they've been moving in on low end market with offerings like the 30/2.8 and 19/2.8 mirrorless lenses at $100 a pop. I've been singing an awful lot of praises for Sigma lately. They seem to be the ones innovating at the moment. Your friend is just probably just stuck up over his expensive red ring. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
They were pretty steeply priced for most users. I understand wanting to price it for the FF crowd, but they could have released a crop sensor version if they wanted something more downmarket. They hardly even seem to try with their crop lineup and I don't get it, since soccer moms aren't buying full frame. The NEX 35/1.8 is $450 and that's probably the competitor for a stabilized 35mm prime. You pay a bit more, but you get film/full frame and SLR-level autofocus. It's slightly but noticeably cheaper than the Sigma 35/1.4. I think it's probably priced about right. Until Sigma rolls out a new 35mm f/1.0 OS or something, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Soccer moms don't buy primes. I dunno. Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me, Canon doesn't offer jack poo poo in their consumer pricerange (nifty fifty, kit lens, and a couple slow zooms), so they don't sell any primes. I'm pretty sure Nikon sells those 35/1.8 DXs like hotcakes, including to soccer moms. You're really telling me no one ever wants to stop action or takes pictures of their kid playing music at church (where flash isn't appropriate), or whatever?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Don't all DSLR's have an AA filter? I think only the D800e and the D7100 ship without one. Also the Pentax K-5 IIs, and soon the Sony A7r mirrorless.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Anyone have any experience with the old 70-210 f/4 Macro lens? I'm thinking that one is an EOS lens and not an FD mount, but not sure either. Was just wondering how it would be if you were to use it as a manual focus lens, and if wide open it was decent Although, would the autofocus be any worse than a 55-250? While I don't have experience with the lens, there's both a FD and an EOS 70-210 f/4 macro, probably identical or similar (the EOS is a very early lens in that series). It's a geared autofocus lens, you'll need to push a switch to use it in MF mode. Basically it'll be like a nifty fifty with a ring that you can actually grab onto. The autofocus is the same type as the 55-250 (geared motor), theoretically they should be pretty similar in AF, the body is more of a factor there. The drawback is it's not built to the same mechanical/ergonomic/autofocus standard of an L-series lens and it's 25 years old. It's not USM, it's not IS, it's made of plastic, and if you break it it's probably not going to be economical to fix it. On the other hand they're a $100 lens, so just buy another. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
I should note that "it's a geared autofocus lens" presumes it's the EOS model. FD will not be compatible. The Tamron would be nicer if you wanted more reach. The Canon 70-210 would be nicer if you were satisfied with 210mm. The aperture on the Tamron varies continuously, so it'll only be like 1/3-1/2 stop slower tops for any given length between 75 and 300mm, and it does decent macro out of the box. I don't know about the mid-range bokeh on the Tamron, I didn't try it for portraits. I like to do my portraits on alt glass, but there's alternatives for that task. I thought it was pretty sharp at long ranges, and the bokeh was decent in macro. Both the Canon 55-250 and Canon 70-300 do have IS, that is a factor too. It won't do anything about motion blur from subject movement, but it will let you deal with your own shake better, which is probably a nice thing on old bodies where the unassisted handholding speed (1/35mm focal length equivalent, i.e. (1/(1.6 * FL)) for Canon)) is challenging for the sensor. If you're on a reasonably new body that can push the ISO I'd go with the 70-210 though. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I don't think there is a legitimate concern about buying 3rd party lenses. I've never heard of Canon trying to block lenses. There have been some incidents in which Canon deliberately shut off lens codes for obsolete Canon lenses that they knew Sigma was using, because Sigma reverse-engineers the protocol instead of paying licensing fees. Sometimes the lenses can be rechipped.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Every now and then Canon releases a batch of refurb lenses through their online store. I think the last time they did the 10-22 was around $450 but they vaporized instantly. KEH has EX-quality used units for $430 right now, it'll be basically indistinguishable from new (their grading is very conservative) and all their used gear comes with a 6-month warranty that I have used successfully in the past. Their site is making GBS threads a major brick today though, more than usual even. There's also a couple very well respected third-party wide-zooms, but I don't know enough to tell you which are good and which are bad. I think the 12-24 was one of the better ones, but I'm not really sure. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:Anyone know of a solar-powered way to charge my T3i's batteries? Anything I could charge a phone with would be nice as well. In terms of weight you're almost certainly better off bringing a couple extra batteries instead, I'd imagine. Battery life on DSLRs is thousands of shots per charge, while anything portable is definitely going to be on the "slow charge" side of things.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Huxley posted:My wife's boss gave me some OLD EF lenses this week, as in the last time she shot them were on a film EOS. One is a 35-80 that feels cheap as hell, and the other is a zoom she couldn't remember the numbers for, but I assume it's probably the 80-200 from the early 90s also (maybe?). The 80-200 is probably fine, those were always pretty decent for zooms. You're probably better off getting a 18-55 IS (model I or II) as that's designed to fit crop sensors, unlike that 35-80.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
The 50mm is usable at 1.8 it's just not great. f/2.8 affords you better corner sharpness and wider depth of field so it tends to work better in practice. The main draw is that it's a $100 lens. For the money you should also consider the 40/2.8, which was on sale for $130 over the holidays. The 40mm will be closer to a "normal" perspective and will be much more usable especially indoors. The reason the more expensive 50s get poo poo on here is they're a lot more expensive for not a lot of gain. Canon's 50/1.4 in particular is significantly less sharp than pretty much anyone else's near wide open and has a reputation for the AF motor crapping out. If you feel like waiting Sigma is putting out a 50/1.4 Art which should compete with the Zeiss Otus pretty well. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
The 17-50 is a great lens, but it kinda overlaps your 28-75. Along with the wide-zoom lenses, you might also consider the Samyang 14/2.8. It is manual focus and manual aperture on EOS, but it's sharp and cheap. Manual focus is not really a big problem with ultrawides.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
The old 35/2 was already overpriced for what it was (it mostly gets used as the Canon version of the Nikon 35/1.8 DX), and the IS edition tacks on another $250 on top of that. For the money you would be better off scraping up another $200 and buying the Sigma 18-35/1.8 or a Sigma 35/1.4. If you want something in the $400 range, get the Sigma 30/1.4. Or if you really can't do that, buy a 40/2.8. They were down to around $125 around Christmas. The lack of a cheap fast normal lens is one of the most glaring holes in the Canon lineup. The 40/2.8 is the closest thing to filling that hole, but it's on the slow side and it's still solidly on the long side of normal (particularly given Canon's smaller-than-APS-C sensor). There's really no good solution that doesn't involve dropping at least $400. There's a reason the thread title is "don't buy a NEX". Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:It's expensive but it seems that for abandoned buildings the excellent IS makes it the best choice. Just my (lovely) opinion. It's a nice feature to have in the abstract, but the entire lens is priced at a really awkward combination of features and pricing. It would be a nice feature to have on a lens $200 cheaper, but at $600 you're within spitting distance of pro zooms like the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or the Canon 24-105 IS. The value of IS on fast lenses has been severely eroded by the increases in high-ISO performance anyway, and if you were willing to drag a tripod it's always been nonexistent. Remember that 35mm is a 56mm equivalent on Canon - that's still the long side of normal, and you'll probably get more mileage out of a wide lens than a normal or long-normal lens doing urbex shooting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Yup, I'd go with the Tamron 17-50. The 85/1.8 is really popular for portraiture, but it might be a bit long for a studio. The 50/1.8 isn't classy at all but optically it's good, and it might be easier to work with indoors than an 85mm. I like Photozone for reviews, they're pretty methodical and transparent. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:What? Define "useful" FPS? Most modern cameras with SD cards have enough of a buffer to allow for 50+ shots in burst mode before the card will start to lag. Consumer-grade bodies don't. For example a D5200 has buffer for 8 shots RAW, 35 shots JPEG. Canon T4i, 6 shots RAW 19 shots JPEG. Basically cameras that are likely to not have a CF slot are also likely to not have much buffer. Also imaging-resource lists the 70D at 20 shots JPEG and 14 shots RAW, not 20 RAWs. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Which lens? My thoughts immediately leap to a problem with the image stabilizer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Oh, I bet it's the mirror actuator or something in the mirror box. The darkening is when the lens stops down, normally you wouldn't see it because the mirror flips up but that's not happening. The lens not focusing is probably caused by the camera locking out the focus system while the shot is taken (since the AF sensors are in the viewfinder and won't work during a normal shot). That's my guess at least. vvv Or you could be hitting the DoF preview, yeah
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:I'm thinking of getting THIS BUNDLE and although a majority of my friends (who are into cameras) say it looks like a good deal ONE friend pointed out it seemed a little too good to be true. It's missing a kit lens - the widest thing there is the 50mm, which is a long lens on a crop sensor. Of course if you were planning to buy a Tamron 17-50 anyway, that could be a plus. The 75-300 isn't a great lens, if you were assembling the kit from scratch I'd suggest buying a Sigma 70-300 Apo DG Macro or making the leap to a 70-200 f/4. Decent-quality stuff (especially used) holds value much better than the stuff they throw in all the kit deals. New bodies tend to drop especially hard in value, good glass holds its value forever. I don't keep track of Canon's pricing any more so I can't tell you if that's good or not. I do notice they've tacked on a bunch of filters and poo poo and you may be paying a high price for some crappy UV filters and lens converters. I think overall you can probably do better putting the pieces together yourself on KEH or something, and then it would come with a warranty. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Mar 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I don't want a 6D because the AF and flip screen of the 70D appeal to me, but then I do because the low-light capabilities of my 50D have frustrated me repeatedly and obviously going to a full-form sensor will improve that dramatically. I would go with the 6D personally. I don't think the AF performance will realistically cost you many shots, it would be a pretty useless camera if it was that bad. Meanwhile you always benefit from FF performance, and Canon's lens lineup is really built around full frame. I think the bigger question is staying with current models versus waiting for something new to come out. Another option would be to wait until a new one comes out and then buy the older one on a good deal - there's a pretty good price premium for having the latest model, and it's better to let some doctor pay that for you. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:What should replace my 17-50 for my walkaround lens? The Tamron f/2.8 28-75? The Tamron 28-75 isn't the best performer on full frame unless stopped down. I'd go with the Canon 24-105, they're the "kit" lens for a lot of FF bodies so they're cheaper used than the 24-70. If you can't afford that, maybe one of the older iterations of one of the pro zooms, for example the 28-70 f/2.8L or the 28-80 f/2.8-4L. You can pick up the 28-80 used for about the same price as the Tamron new, just double check you're getting the L version. And yeah, get a 40/2.8 or a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 if you don't already have one. I'd say the 40mm personally since I like wide-normals as walkaround lenses. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The Canon 40mm/2.8 pancake if you're cheap. The Sigma 35mm/1.4 if you like shallow DOF and/or low light. 35mm is a great walk-around FOV. If I am taking one lens, it's 35mm. If it's two, it's 28mm and 50mm. It's wide enough that you can do landscape or architecture type stuff, or work in spaces where you can't back up, or get perspective distortion up close. But it's not so wide that you get really elongated foregrounds or weird faces or that kind of stuff. If you're willing to give up autofocus and some speed, I'm a big big fan of the Pentax/Takumar 35/3.5. Very sharp right from wide open and they can be had for like <$60. I use mine on everything from film to mirrorless with adapters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Why give up speed at all? The Rokinon 35mm/1.4 is a great manual focus lens and may not be as cheap as the Takumar but still comes in at a third the cost of the Sigma Art and nearly a quarter of Canon's offering. Oh wait I've got one on sale right here: Great lens. That's not a half bad price either. Normally I do recommend buying either the Pentax or Nikon version though - the Canon version has a manual aperture anyway, so adapting doesn't lose you anything, plus you can throw it on a Pentax ME or a Nikon FM and shoot film. The Canon version gets you literally no advantage over adapting and costs you the option of using those great, cheap cameras. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I thought... oh, but that was the 28-75. Hmm, reading the review at photozone, it seems the barrel distortion is quite heavy, but I'm guessing I'm not going to really be able to get away with that without getting a prime lens. Or spending a LOT more money. Would this be correct? Yeah, you're probably going to need to go to primes to get away from distortion. It's not a big deal all the time - even if you have distortion, you often won't notice it if you avoid placing straight lines in places where they are the most warped. There are automatic profiles in Lightroom to correct for distortion nowadays. Having a lot of distortion isn't a problem if it's simple distortion like barrel or pincushion - in fact, some companies just accept it as a given and build automatic correction right into the camera's RAW->JPG converter (which is worse than keeping the RAW and letting a real CPU work at it, as always). And nowadays software can even take fisheye images and "correct" them all the way into a rectilinear mapping as if they were taken with a non-fisheye superwide. There's always some cost to resolution to do major corrections like that but it will be very minor just for correcting a little barrel/pincushion distortion. What is problematic is "complex distortion" like moustache distortion, where there's a complex pattern that makes correction more difficult than warping the image back into shape according to a few points. And my armchair-quarterback opinion here is that modern lenses tend to have somewhat less distortion, but it does tend to be more complex because of things like aspheric elements and more complex group interaction inside zooms. It's just anecdote but I used to see predictable "some barrel distortion at the wide end, some pincushion at the long end", nowadays I seem to see more "modest degree of moustache distortion" and that's what my thoughts jump to as a cause. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I'm guessing a zoom lens that covers something like 20-70 and has a big aperture would be way out of my budget? As mentioned, one stop is probably not make-or-break given how high you can turn up the ISO on modern bodies (particularly FF) and still get good results. The difference between 3200 and 6400 on a 6D is nothing. The IS will also help compensate somewhat - as long as your subjects are not moving. So it helps for low-light landscapes or whatever, but for sports or action-stopping you need aperture, not IS. Also if you bring a tripod you solve a bunch of these problems at a single blow, it's probably the cheapest thing that will improve your photos if you don't mind the weight. If you want a fast-aperture name-brand zoom don't forget about the earlier L-series variants of the 24-70. Canon is big into incremental updates, they come out with a new one like every 5 years. The 28-70 f/2.8L is the model before the 24-70 mark 1 and is basically as good, you just lose 4mm off the wide end. Those go for around $700 used. Or there's the 28-80 f/2.8-4L (not to be confused with the non-L f3.5-5.6 versions) - this is the original "24-70" type introduced at the start of the EOS line. It uses the older style of ring USM motor, so it can't do full-time manual focus. The 28-80 has a variable aperture, and you may have trouble getting such an old lens serviced if it develops issues, but it's slightly longer (and better at the long end), and it's an L-series fast zoom for $450. L-series lenses have always been great optically, and you may be willing to take risks with cheaper gear that help you get shots. Whatever you do, seriously consider buying used. If you aren't getting ripped off, and especially if you aren't buying the latest model (eg 24-70 Mark II) then good used glass really tends to hold value well. I've never bought new and I really don't think I've ever sold a lens at more than a 10% loss. In comparison bodies (in particular) depreciate like crazy. Four years and my 40D lost half its value, even buying used at a good deal. If you need a particular lens for a trip, sometimes it can be cheaper to buy used and sell later than to rent it for a few weeks. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 22:16
|
|