|
Without a doubt, they'll have similar MTFs, be 1/2 to 1/4 of the price of similar first-party lenses, and have fully-manual aperture and focusing.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
Huxley posted:Beginner question, but I thought the point of having a 1.4 over a 1.8 was the 1.4 would be faster at 4 (or whatever) than the 1.8 at 4. Is that not actually true? The other aspect of it is that your best sharpness is usually 2 stops down from the max. So theoretically a 1.4 gets you a sharper 2.8 than a 1.8 would. But you'll really only notice if you only shoot test charts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Nah, the best FF camera for beginners is a Pentax ME Super. I don't know about you, I can't afford to have quality film processing anymore. PS FM2n is where the money is. Claw Massage posted:Samyang announced five lenses for the new a7 : I believe they are basically E mount of their manual lens. They are actually not a good deal. If you get a F mount Samyang lens, you can use it on any FF body via adapters. With an E mount lens you are stuck with E mount body only. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Only buy Samyangs in F mount. They have auto aperture when mounted on Nikon, and can be mounted on Sony/Canon/NEX/MFT etc etc Pentax versions will auto aperture on Pentax but then you lose Canon FF (due to aperture lever interfering with mirror, crop is fine) and Nikon compatibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the dork room! The interesting thing about the X-E2 is that it has the split image manual focus option like the X100s. I'm not sure how well it works, but it seems like a more natural extension to a manual focus camera than focus peaking. If I had more lenses to adapt I'd be really curious to see how that works out. mes fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Oct 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
The x100 2.0 update owns. One issue, though, seems to be that the much improved autofocus doesn't seem to work as well when using the OVF. Is this "working as intended"? Something to do with parallax?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:No. Apertures are equivalent across lenses. F/8 is f/8 on an f/1.4 lens, a f/2 lens, a short lens, a long lens. That's the whole point of f-stop numbering, to come up with some kind of metric that can be used to measure light output regardless of what the lens is. At the risk of giving DXO validation for their pixel peeping: DXO report that an EF 70-200 f/2.0 has a t-stop of 3.4, while a EF 14L f/2.8 is 3.1. If my maths is correct*, that's a 20% difference. (* my brain is fried and I need sleep)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Claw Massage posted:Samyang announced five lenses for the new a7 : Oh look, a prime lineup that's actually useful! evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:'Roughly equivalent'. Other factors affect the efficient of a lens at transmitting light. So if you want absolute equivalence, you need to match t-stops (transmission). Of course, only professional cinematographers (and DXO) seem to care about that level of detail. Yeah, this is a good point to note that pretty much all measurements of anything photographic are subject to approximation and marketing. F/4 is theoretically equivalent to any other f/4 but some lenses are actually faster than their spec and some are slower, or suffer from falloff, etc. Their focal lengths are also sometimes not quite what it says on the box. ISO settings are usually a touch optimistic as well. The days when you could market a lens with a weird aperture like f/2.2 without people laughing at you are pretty much past. That would just get clipped to f/2 probably. I doubt you'd see any more precision than a half stop from the standard aperture scale nowadays. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Oh look, a prime lineup that's actually useful! Those are all MF, though, right? Or have I misread about them today?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Those are all MF, though, right? Or have I misread about them today? They're MF and are going to be the same size as the DSLR versions that exist already, all that's changing is the mount (which you could adapt yourself with a cheap eBay converter). It's not really anything to get particularly excited about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
A7 AF speed test with the 55mm 1.8 lens: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-answers-readers-question-a7-with-55mm-af-speed-test/ Seems pretty fast I guess? I haven't had a camera in a while so I can't really compare to the newer cams today. Paul MaudDib posted:Zeiss themselves literally just put out a 55/1.4 that costs $4,000. I was just looking at the flikr set for this. Man there are some good shots there: http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/sets/72157635236491881/ keyframe fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Those are all MF, though, right? Or have I misread about them today?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Focus peaking means that's not the end of the world. Between that, the selection, and the price point, this is a good lineup. Whoever said to buy them for F-mount no matter what you're using them on is a correct person. You lose nothing (well, other than a $20 adapter), and if you ever decide you don't want them, you can sell them for a shitload more money (or use them on your Nikon).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
Hmm I am kinda getting cold feet on the A7 since the Fuji XE-2 announcement. I can get that and the 35 f1.4 lens for about what I would pay for A7 body only and not have to spend 1000$ on top of that. Anybody here use XE-1 with the 35 1.4? edit: It seems they fixed my biggest gripe with XE-1 the slow as poo poo EVF refresh speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meVvIb62J2M keyframe fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
keyframe posted:Hmm I am kinda getting cold feet on the A7 since the Fuji XE-2 announcement. I can get that and the 35 f1.4 lens for about what I would pay for A7 body only and not have to spend 1000$ on top of that. The 35 1.4 is a no-brainer purchase for any X system and is worth more than what they ask for it. Was there something specific about the pairing with the X-E1 you needed to know?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Those are all MF, though, right? Or have I misread about them today?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
keyframe posted:Anybody here use XE-1 with the 35 1.4? I do, its' all I have currently and I seldom feel like I'm missing out by not having anything more. I don't even find the AF to be that slow, although I mainly shoot in MF mode with the AF button for quick assist. You have to love the x-trans and what it does, despite the quirks with handling RAW files, otherwise it will not make you happy, but if you do love it, you will constantly be reminded how awesomely the camera handles light. I've got a bunch of x-series stuff mixed in with my flickr feed, but I'll warn you I'm a constant system swapper so not everything is from the Fuji (most of the stuff from the last 3 months are, though). http://www.flickr.com/photos/trip_sixes/
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Im going to shamelessly sell my new xpro for the xe2 because i loving want that xtrans2 and pdaf 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
keyframe posted:Joke aside we need a new OP/thread already because the OP is pretty outdated don't you guys think? I am still perfectly happy with my X100 so I haven't kept super up to date on what models are the new hotness. I'll work on an OP update but if people would like to contribute stuff for the OP it would happen a lot faster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
I have the X-E1, the 35mm, and the 18mm. Where can I go from here? I really want to mess around with manual lenses. Which ones are easy to adapt? Price should be fairly low.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 11:53
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:I have the X-E1, the 35mm, and the 18mm. Where can I go from here? Most are easy to adapt. Try old 1960s/1970s Minolta or Pentax glass. There are some decent lenses anywhere between $20-$100. My personal fav is the 55 f1.8 Takumar (I have 6 of them). Depends on what you want to shoot though. Get the cheap Chinese knockoff adapters for $20 instead of the $200 ones unless you really need infinity to stop at infinity and you're afraid of shimming. Also, adapter talk should go in the new OP since it seems to come up every few pages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:I have the X-E1, the 35mm, and the 18mm. Where can I go from here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:I have the X-E1, the 35mm, and the 18mm. Where can I go from here? I love my collection of Konica Hexanon AR glass. Super cheap and amazing for the price
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
An early test of the A7 with legacy glass. Maybe it's not going to be the Leica killer after all: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ronscheffler/sets/72157636762872786/with/10385284683/ Basically, various amounts of vignetting, corner smearing and edge CA, especially with wider lenses. The A7r could perform better without the AA filter but there is talk that the smaller pixels will actually make matters worse. For me it wouldn't matter much, I honestly don't care if the edges are sharp on most photos because the viewer shouldn't be looking there anyway. Pixel peepers and landscape photographers may want to wait for native wide lenses or adapt SLR glass, which will probably perform better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Most are easy to adapt. Try old 1960s/1970s Minolta or Pentax glass. There are some decent lenses anywhere between $20-$100. My personal fav is the 55 f1.8 Takumar (I have 6 of them). Depends on what you want to shoot though. Get the cheap Chinese knockoff adapters for $20 instead of the $200 ones unless you really need infinity to stop at infinity and you're afraid of shimming. Wait I thought Minolta lenses couldn't be used on anything else?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
change my name posted:Wait I thought Minolta lenses couldn't be used on anything else? All mirrorless systems (E, XF, m43, EOS M) can use all older manual lens, the lens they can't use are modern mounts that use electric aperture control (that includes other mirrorless mounts, Canon EF, EFS, nikon AF-S, etc)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:All mirrorless systems (E, XF, m43, EOS M) can use all older manual lens, the lens they can't use are modern mounts that use electric aperture control (that includes other mirrorless mounts, Canon EF, EFS, nikon AF-S, etc) That seems kind of counterintuitive, but at least I know all of my old Minolta lenses don't have to keep sitting in the closet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:All mirrorless systems (E, XF, m43, EOS M) can use all older manual lens, the lens they can't use are modern mounts that use electric aperture control (that includes other mirrorless mounts, Canon EF, EFS, nikon AF-S, etc) Note that some F-mount adapters let you (crudely) set the aperture on AF-S lenses (well "wide open" and "stopped all the way down" are easy, anything in between is guesswork). While it's a super spergy edge-case, I think the only F-mount lens that has a fully electronic aperture is one of the T/S ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
AF-S is actually fine because although they're missing an aperture ring, the aperture is still controlled with a mechanical lever. So there are adapters that let you adjust that lever and estimate aperture. Edit: some lenses are focus-by-wire I think, and those would not work. Not sure which ones though. Mightaswell fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
change my name posted:That seems kind of counterintuitive, but at least I know all of my old Minolta lenses don't have to keep sitting in the closet. The reason lenses like Konica and Minolta cannot be adapted to something like Nikon is what's called register distance. Basically the flange of the lens mount is designed to be a certain distance from the film plane (to accommodate the mirror, shutter, etc). Nikon F is designed to be 46.5mm, Canon EOS is designed to be 44mm, and Konica AR is designed to be 40.5mm. You can always artificially lengthen the register distance - you could stick a spacer ring in there that adds 2.5mm to the EOS flange distance, and Nikon lenses would be at their proper register distance. This is exactly what simple adapter rings do, they just have a different mount on each side and add the proper spacing. The obvious problem is what if you want to put a Canon lens on a Nikon? You need to get the lens 2.5mm closer to the film, which means the rear of the lens would have to be inside the mirror box. Obviously not possible. Now, adding register distance is basically what focusing does in simple lenses - the helicoid moves the lens farther away from the film, and the lens focuses closer. So it will physically mount - but you won't be able to focus farther than some distance. Sometimes you can modify lenses and shave a couple mm off the back - it's expensive and usually not worth it for anything short of top-tier lenses, and some lenses don't have any space to cut off. The other thing is you can add an optical adapter. These are basically a little teleconverter which lengthens the focal length and extends the flange distance. Obviously this crops your image, which sucks, and they're usually cheap trash with cheap lovely lenses (maybe even plastic). Autofocus is a totally separate problem. Lens mounts are patented, and nowadays so are the autofocus protocols. You can physically mount an EOS lens on a NEX with an adapter but the NEX has no idea how to talk to Canon's autofocus system. As mentioned some modern lenses are focus-by-wire, where when you turn the focus ring the lens talks to the camera, and the camera adjusts the focus as you turn. In the specific case of EOS, a company called Metabones actually reverse engineered their protocol and does make an adapter that can autofocus these and some other EOS lenses. A related problem is electronic apertures. With something like a Nikon G-series or EOS lens, there's physically not an aperture ring, and there's no direct connection to the camera's electronics, so it has no idea when or how far it should stop down. For these lenses, they do make "aperture control" adapters. These have an aperture ring that lets you control the lens. Some of them talk to the lens, others add an extra iris and leave the lens alone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
rio posted:The x100 2.0 update owns. One issue, though, seems to be that the much improved autofocus doesn't seem to work as well when using the OVF. Is this "working as intended"? Something to do with parallax? New firmware is legitimately badass. I can focus on poo poo in the dark (using the OVF, which barely worked before), I can focus on poo poo within twenty feet without macro mode, and manual focus now loving works. I cant describe how happy it made me when I turned the focus ring and focus actually changed without me dying of old age. Focus peaking kind of sux. And it's annoying to have to go and set up all your preferences again, because Fuji thinks it's 1992 and that poo poo is acceptable. But whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
I have nothing to add to your comments but for the record, your username owns. m4/3 peoples, 60mm f/2.8 macro or go the whole hog and get the 75mm f/1.8?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
DJExile posted:m4/3 peoples, 60mm f/2.8 macro or go the whole hog and get the 75mm f/1.8? This is like deciding between the Canon 135/2 and the 100/2.8 macro. You can do portraiture with either one, but with the 60/2.8 you can also do macro - which is why I got it over the 75/1.8.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:This is like deciding between the Canon 135/2 and the 100/2.8 macro. You can do portraiture with either one, but with the 60/2.8 you can also do macro - which is why I got it over the 75/1.8. How fast are both focuses? I have the 45mm f/1.8 and it's stupid fast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
DJExile posted:How fast are both focuses? I have the 45mm f/1.8 and it's stupid fast. The 75/1.8 is pretty fast, but you need to set the focus limiter on the 60/2.8 if you want it to be decent for non-macro usage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:The 75/1.8 is pretty fast, but you need to set the focus limiter on the 60/2.8 if you want it to be decent for non-macro usage. Argh this is tough. I always like reach but macro is awesome, especially when I'm travelling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Argh this is tough. I always like reach but macro is awesome, especially when I'm travelling. If you want flexibility for travelling, just go with the 12-35/2.8 & 35-100/2.8 zoom pair, then you get both close-up and reach. And if you don't intend to use them again, maybe consider just renting them for your trip.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:If you want flexibility for travelling, just go with the 12-35/2.8 & 35-100/2.8 zoom pair, then you get both close-up and reach. And if you don't intend to use them again, maybe consider just renting them for your trip. I've got the 20mm and the body cap lens right now along with the 45mm. I've been looking at the 35-100 and some of the other long-reach zooms. This system spoils you for choices, jesus. I really really want that 12-40mm that's coming out soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
krackmonkey posted:You have to love the x-trans and what it does What do people mean when they say this? I have seen this mentioned elsewhere as well. I shot thousands of shots with the x100 and never noticed anything out of the ordinary (other than loving amazing ISO performance).
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 03:03
|
|