I have one of those but I tried it on my old 50D and it just blew the dust around.....
The Official Camera Equipment Megathread
- Thread starter demon
- Start date
- Status
I have one of those but I tried it on my old 50D and it just blew the dust around.....
yeah.. SAR is reporting Zeiss leaked A7RII with that.
+1 I have that exact one.
So, i was in the market for a Nikon 70-200 2.8. Went to the mexican version of ebay snd found a seller with great rep selling one for $1k usd basically, i was like wtf this has to be a scam, i said fuck it and bought it.
Contacted the seller and asked why he was selling it so cheap, he said he likes to move stuff quick.
Long story short, i got it today and it's basically new, everything works and it's beautiful.
I'm excited.
Contacted the seller and asked why he was selling it so cheap, he said he likes to move stuff quick.
Long story short, i got it today and it's basically new, everything works and it's beautiful.
I'm excited.
Hi, I'm looking for a new camera. In the 400 range. It needs to be transportable (I want to have it with me at all times), if it could shoot some nice videos as well would be a nice bonus. My previous one was a Panasonic FZ 18 and I was quite happy with it except under low lights. I don't know if I should take a bridge, a reflex or a compact. The Canon PowerShot G7 is a compact right? Do you have a lot of control with it? Thanks!
Art Teitlebaum
Member
If you want to take it with you very often, a compact size cam will make the most fun. There are quite a lot of good compact cameras for <400.
Snapsort is a comparison site for an overview of digicams where you can tick the features that are most important for you:
Snapsort List of small cameras up too 400
It's always recommended to try some different cameras by yourself in real life to see if you like the operation and handling of the thing. I'd say that there aren't any bad cameras out there, but everyone has a different taste and values different features.
StopMakingSense
Member
Thats a super great deal, especially with how expensive all that stuff is new in MX.
Thanks! I'm going to take a look. So many choices!
Squirrel Killer
Member
The point isn't, "Hey, go ahead and sandpaper the hell out of your lens," the point is "front element imperfections are a small enough detail that you shouldn't listen to the high pressure sales monkey upsell you on a hunk of glass that's more likely to degrade IQ than the likely imperfections it protects against."Hmm let me smash all my front elements out with a hammer. Totally useless!
I feel like the 1st guy kinda cheated, yeah you are not going to see many imperfections with a fast wide prime focused at infinity. It's totally situational. I was at the beach one time trying to take sunset pics and the salt spray was covering the lens. Probably not great for the camera body either. Try sticking bubblegum on your macro lens stopped down and close focused. I'll bet you see some shit. 2nd link seems to be smoking more crack... Tons of diffraction on the text and ghost city on the tree.
Think I will stick to the plan of trying not to scratch the front of my lenses all up.
I mean if you really don't care you could just make a pinhole camera from a tissue box.
There is no hard and fast rule that protective filters = useless. Think about what you are doing and decide if you need one.
Ok. I'm just saying I take pics sometimes of off road motorcycles throwing rooster tails of dirt rocks sand and mud and you would be insane to not protect your $1000+ 70-200 with a simple filter in that situation. If I am in the studio doing product shots... Yeah waste of time and making it worse. If it's a $50 kit lens who gives a crap. Cheaper to get a used one on eBay if it gets trashed.
And of course dont buy them at local retail... Hell I don't even buy lenses at local retail unless it's new and MSRP everywhere. Or I need it like right now for a paid job.
Buy 1000 dollar lens, put 25 dollar piece of plastic on the front, changing the optics to "protect" it.
Waste of time and money imo. If you're that concerned perhaps you shouldn't buy expensive lenses.
Nevermind that in modern lens design the front element is the protective lens. Put a hood on it and call it a day.
Waste of time and money imo. If you're that concerned perhaps you shouldn't buy expensive lenses.
Nevermind that in modern lens design the front element is the protective lens. Put a hood on it and call it a day.
Exactly, if you can't take care of expensive gear, don't buy expensive gear, or buy insurance.
a nice B&W clear filter is not going to change the optics.
So you're going to buy a ~$100+(give or take for filter size) B&W filter to protect your lens? I'm sorry, but the logic just isn't there. I paid 259 bucks for my Nikon 35mm, at the prices B&W charges your halfway to another lens if you wanted. Also, it is in fact charging the optics. Anytime you put any other piece of glass or plastic in front of your lens, you have by definition changed the optics. Sometimes this is acceptable, in the case of polarizers or GND filters.
If something hits the front of your lens that hard to break the filter, what makes you think its not going to break the front element anyway? You also risk the damaged pieces of the UV filter scratching and denting the front element as well. Put a hood on it and its a lot harder for objects to get into the area with the front element.
What do you guys do with lenses like the 14-24? Thing is a huge bulbous lens, you can't attach any traditional filters to it as there are no threads. Same thing with very large telephotos and super telephotos. Arguably the type of lenses one would actually want to protect, given their steep prices.
Photography equipment are tools. They are built like it too. I once had the unfortunate event of having my Olympus E30 (1k camera) attached to the Olympus 300f2.8 (which is a 6k lens) get caught be the wind and fall from full tripod height(6feet) to concrete. Both camera and lens worked perfectly. There was some cosmetic damage but everything worked fine.
My 70-200mm 2.8 IS USM II cost $2500. I'm definitely putting a clear piece of good glass in front of it to protect it if I accidentally bump it on a brick wall or something on my hip. Optics don't focus close enough to be affected by something that close, which is why even chips in glass don't always affect shots. You can focus out fences completely that are right in front of you for instance. You protect it for resale value.
Dropped my 7D on the concrete.
Seems to have broken off something internally in the lens... any experience dealing with canon lens repair?
remembered this post for 2012! the filter absorbed some impact and the lens was repairable instead of a total loss.
Debate is getting silly...
If front element nicks and prints are not enough to effect you IQ how on earth is a good quality filter enough? At least be consistent... in your logic. Its no big deal or the end of the world lol.
dude a 52mm B&W is $25... assuming the used AF-D version because that is the only one in that price range.
Yes, but the "invisible" fence is still there, its light rays are just spread out, lowering contrast and sharpness of the entire image. So to say "scratches don't effect the image" is just wrong. They do, you either don't notice or its so minor it can be corrected.
I wasn't going to continue but... since you obligdged.
Here you go, ghosting and flare, that's how UV filters affect image quality. One of the articles even covers your dropped lens, the impact would not likely have damaged your front element with or without a UV filter.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/34409525
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-filter-flare-factor/
http://photo.stackexchange.com/ques...s-flare-at-bright-lights-when-using-uv-filter
http://www.brendandaveyphotography.com/?p=646
Kirk tuck also had a great post on UV filters but he appears to have moved it or deleted it and I can't find it.
Also my point about my 35mm was, if I'm buying 50-100 dollar filters for EVERY lens, I could buy one or two more lenses on what i've spent on UV filters, instead of buying the UV filters.
Did you forget the DX 35mm?
Also 52mm.
And funny enough captive I just mentioned ghosting issues with the 35mm dx with a filter to another poster.
My stance is - it's situational.
Always filter on is just as silly as never use a filter. They come on and off for a reason. You don't need to buy one for every single lens... If you have pro grade lenses they are all usually 77mm. You get step-up rings for your oddball sizes. Put them on in dangerous environments and take them off when in the studio.
TerryLee81
Member
Just came back from Rome, but haven't have time yet to look at the pictures I took.
This is what I took with me: D600, 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8
I took maybe 20 shots with the 24mm and 50 shots with the 85mm, the rest with the 50mm. Not sure if it was even worth it to take the other lenses with me. I don't have 35mm yet, but I think that would be the right focal lens for me.
What I noticed is how many (mainly asian) tourists there are with Sony a7 and a7 II, they have to sell quite well.
This is what I took with me: D600, 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8
I took maybe 20 shots with the 24mm and 50 shots with the 85mm, the rest with the 50mm. Not sure if it was even worth it to take the other lenses with me. I don't have 35mm yet, but I think that would be the right focal lens for me.
What I noticed is how many (mainly asian) tourists there are with Sony a7 and a7 II, they have to sell quite well.
Yup. The only reason to ever use a UV filter is when film would do wacky things because it couldn't filter UV light.
At the end of the day do what you want. But my stance is wholly and completely that it is a waste of time and money. I would rather not have something on the front of the lens that I then have to take off, for when I want to attach a worthwhile filter.
If you guys are that concerned about your equipment, you should consider camera insurance.
Its not a big deal to me, I've been shooting standing in salt water with a Phase One IQ180 (also like hell I'm putting a UV filter in front of that monster), also been shooting standing in 3 feet of water with super telephotos, would a UV filter help in either situation if the camera got dumped? No. So a little bit of salt water or sand will just clean right off. If its that windy that sand is going to risk the lens, its probably not worth shooting anyway, nor risking your own eyes.
Anyway, I said a few months ago I was going to sell my 14-24 and 300mm. So here they are. Prices negotiable, going to put them here before I list them on Luminous landscape and others. Both are very clean. The 14-24 is like new, I bought it last year from Amazon refurbished, and I've barely used it.
Asking 650 for the 300mm and 1750 for the 14-24.
BUNTING1243
Banned
The UV filter hate make me very happy. Never liked UV filters and always felt like I was missing something
nhlducks35
Member
Just got the Sigma 18-35 and its super sharp (paired with my D7000)
Forsete
Member
I use filters on most of my "premium" lenses.
Why? Easier to wipe off than the lens element which can be curved with corners that are hard to reach.
I think the impact of the image quality only can be measured in a lab with lasers and xray railgun scanning machines, aka. you don't notice it at all. #YOLO
Why? Easier to wipe off than the lens element which can be curved with corners that are hard to reach.
I think the impact of the image quality only can be measured in a lab with lasers and xray railgun scanning machines, aka. you don't notice it at all. #YOLO
The image degradation is far worse on consumer level lenses than premium lenses. It's no different from using tele-converter. You put it on a high quality lens, the degradation isn't so bad. You put it on a consumer level lens it's night and day difference. I cringe every time I see someone putting a UV/clear filter on a kit lens for "protection".
ShadowKingpin
Member
Hey GAF! I am selling my near-mint condition Canon 6D camera. PM me if interested. Here is some info:
Approximate age of Body: 6 Months. This is a USA model purchased at B+H in November of 2014.
Body Condition: 9.5/10 (Very minor scuffs on the bottom near the tripod mount due to previous shoots. Barely noticeable.)
Number of Shutter actuations: 2,127
Sale Includes: Canon 6D body, manuals, original box (In excellent condition), original CD's, original cords, mint camera strap, proof of warranty, Wescott 20" Reflector, original charger, original battery, Canon 85 mm 1.8 (8.5/10. Slight smudge on the front glass from cleaning it the first time, but in no way affects image quality. Near-perfect -- except for what is already mentioned. It was treated very, very well and in a very clean environment. This was purchased in beginning of January 2015.) and the official 85mm lens hood from Canon.
Price: $1,275 altogether or $1,050 for the 6D and $225 for the 85mm lens.
Payments Accepted: PayPal. I will cover the fees and shipping myself.
Here are some photos (Sorry for the cellphone quality):
Approximate age of Body: 6 Months. This is a USA model purchased at B+H in November of 2014.
Body Condition: 9.5/10 (Very minor scuffs on the bottom near the tripod mount due to previous shoots. Barely noticeable.)
Number of Shutter actuations: 2,127
Sale Includes: Canon 6D body, manuals, original box (In excellent condition), original CD's, original cords, mint camera strap, proof of warranty, Wescott 20" Reflector, original charger, original battery, Canon 85 mm 1.8 (8.5/10. Slight smudge on the front glass from cleaning it the first time, but in no way affects image quality. Near-perfect -- except for what is already mentioned. It was treated very, very well and in a very clean environment. This was purchased in beginning of January 2015.) and the official 85mm lens hood from Canon.
Price: $1,275 altogether or $1,050 for the 6D and $225 for the 85mm lens.
Payments Accepted: PayPal. I will cover the fees and shipping myself.
Here are some photos (Sorry for the cellphone quality):
hmm I would buy both but I know you don't use protective filters...
edit: Actually you know the 300 f/4 has a filter in the middle of it that is necessary for the optics. Do you have the filter in there?
hmm I would buy both but I know you don't use protective filters...
I'd like to see a UV filter on 14-24.
I'd like to see a UV filter on 14-24.
Impossible, which is why pros sell them on used after they get scratched up.
enhance:
look at all those boogers.
Seriously though I might want your 300mm. Don't have a use for ultra wide. I have the 16-35 f/4 and 20mm f/1.8 already.
Yes, because its part of the optical design, as it is with almost all super telephoto lenses.hmm I would buy both but I know you don't use protective filters...
edit: Actually you know the 300 f/4 has a filter in the middle of it that is necessary for the optics. Do you have the filter in there?
I like to think that lens designers know more about lens design than I do.
TerryLee81
Member
Didn't know camera equipment is so expensive in the US. The 14-24 costs $1540 brand new, tax included, with 3 years of warranty where I live (Switzerland).
That's almost worth the trip *cough* vacation *cough* to Switzerland to pick one up.
But yea, the prices fluctuate based on the value of the Dollar vs the Yen. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as the Yen decreases in value to the dollar camera equipment prices go up.
When I bought my Olympus 300 f2.8, it was 5.5k when I sold it over a year and a half later the lens new was over 6k. I sold it used for almost what I paid for it new.
Here is another good reason I like protective filters.
I like to let my kids play with my stuff.
They are getting better but he is 2 and doesn't really understand "don't touch the front element"
At the end of the day its your gear, do what you want. Thrash it or baby it, you paid for it.
Just get out and take some pics
I like to let my kids play with my stuff.
They are getting better but he is 2 and doesn't really understand "don't touch the front element"
At the end of the day its your gear, do what you want. Thrash it or baby it, you paid for it.
Just get out and take some pics
I have recently starting to get back into photography and was possibly looking to upgrade my DSLR. Right now I have a Nikon D60 and have been doing research. I was looking at the Nikon D5500 as a new camera to get. That one seems to be within my budget while to me it looks like a good all around camera.
I would like to do more landscape, astrophotography and wildlife photography, but still be able to do portraits and family photos as well. I also have a 18-55mm and 55-200 mm Nikon lens already. I might reach out and get a longer lens when I purchase a new camera.
I just wanted to get some opinions on a good camera that is a little better than just a starter DLSR.
I would like to do more landscape, astrophotography and wildlife photography, but still be able to do portraits and family photos as well. I also have a 18-55mm and 55-200 mm Nikon lens already. I might reach out and get a longer lens when I purchase a new camera.
I just wanted to get some opinions on a good camera that is a little better than just a starter DLSR.
Joel Was Right
Member
.
Astral/H3X
Member
I've got a Canon FD F4 70-210mm coming in the mail tomorrow. I found some pics on Flickr taken with it, and I'm pretty excited to see how it handles on my a6000. Needed something for the nature photos that I've been trying to do lately (damn birds being too far away). Should also hopefully be MUCH better than my Avigon 135mm optically. That lens is... Not so good. Goes to 1.8 though!
Pentax-K-50 - $389 w/ free 16GB USH-1 memory card
weather sealed body and kit lens
16 mp
100% pentaprism viewfinder
hd video (but not as good as Canon cameras)
in body shake reduction
camerasize.com
Good website for getting an idea of camera sizes and weights
Krauser Kat
Member
i need a wide angle lens of some video stuff i have to do soon.
Samyang 24mm 1.4 or a used Canon 24mm L USM 1.4
any one have experience with either lens.
Samyang 24mm 1.4 or a used Canon 24mm L USM 1.4
any one have experience with either lens.
Art Teitlebaum
Member
That's a fantastic price for such a fine camera. Very good recommendation! All the alternatives in this class that I'd suggest (Nikon D5200, Canon 700D (Rebel T5i) or Sony A65) are significantly more expensive, at least here in Europe.
Adorama has a refurbished D5200 (body only) for 420. The D5500's main advantages over the D5200 are WiFi, touch screen which is slightly bigger, longer battery life and no AA filter (sharp lenses will take slightly sharper pictures, but with the 18-55 and 55-200 it won't make much of a difference). Otherwise they're very similar.
One advantage the Nikons have is support for 14bit RAW. That can give you a bit more dynamic range if you edit RAWs while the Pentax K50 is locked to 12bit. The difference isn't huge though and has no effect in JPEGs.
I really don't get the looks. Out of all the great looking classic SLRs they make it look like a Zenit?man, that XT10 price..
Guys, I've found another good reason to use UV filters.
https://iso.500px.com/did-this-rugb...-lens-when-he-signed-it-with-permanent-marker
lol.
https://iso.500px.com/did-this-rugb...-lens-when-he-signed-it-with-permanent-marker
lol.
Peasants
How can a 96,000 lens be without it? Pentax's new 18-50mm kit lens has SP coating which I think is the same. Bigger front element, but still.
Freaking noobs, get a dry erase marker, come right off.
Astral/H3X
Member
So my GF seems to be getting into the idea of using her old Polaroid, problem is that the film is prohibitively expensive, particularly if she wants to use it a lot. ($25 for 8 sheets 
)
So here I am wondering, if maybe there's another alternative that she could move to? I'm seeing that Polaroid makes a 12MP digital camera with some much cheaper "Zink" pages, but I'm wondering if maybe there are better options that people know about?
)So here I am wondering, if maybe there's another alternative that she could move to? I'm seeing that Polaroid makes a 12MP digital camera with some much cheaper "Zink" pages, but I'm wondering if maybe there are better options that people know about?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked