• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Official Camera Equipment Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Guys,

I'm going to get a 1.6 crop sensor camera, what is the best walk-around lens? Is the lens kit worth it? I'm interested in the Sigma 30mm 1.4 but the AF sound is putting me off. Is it pointless in getting the Canon 50mm 1.8 with the Sigma?

I want to do street photography as well as portraits (low light)
 

Fireye

Member
Guys,

I'm going to get a 1.6 crop sensor camera, what is the best walk-around lens? Is the lens kit worth it? I'm interested in the Sigma 30mm 1.4 but the AF sound is putting me off. Is it pointless in getting the Canon 50mm 1.8 with the Sigma?

I want to do street photography as well as portraits (low light)

For a crop body, I'd imagine the creme de la creme of walkarounds would be something like the 24mm f1.4 L II, which works out to 38.4mm after crop-age. You could also pick up the 35mm f1.4 L.

If the AF sound puts you off, I'm not sure any 3rd party lenses are for you, though maybe some with HSM would be ok.

There's also the 24/28mm F2.8 IS lenses that are due out eventually... sorta slow though.
 
For a crop body, I'd imagine the creme de la creme of walkarounds would be something like the 24mm f1.4 L II, which works out to 38.4mm after crop-age. You could also pick up the 35mm f1.4 L.

If the AF sound puts you off, I'm not sure any 3rd party lenses are for you, though maybe some with HSM would be ok.

There's also the 24/28mm F2.8 IS lenses that are due out eventually... sorta slow though.

Why are these lenses so expensive? Not only just the ones you mentioned, but reading reviews I notice you'll see references to issues that may be a huge factor e.g. AF speed, AF sound, weight, lack of sharp edges.
 

MRORANGE

Member
Why are these lenses so expensive? Not only just the ones you mentioned, but reading reviews I notice you'll see references to issues that may be a huge factor e.g. AF speed, AF sound, weight, lack of sharp edges.

that 24mm/35mm f1.4 is a full frame lens, it's gonna cost a lot more.

what about a 50mm f1.8 ? there dirt cheap. (usually under a £100 for a canon/nikon)

Edit: forgot you had a canon.


the kit lens will cater for most occasions, many people just use this without the need to replace it. I still recommend a f1.8 of some sort to get the most out of your camera.
 
I liked the 50mm 1.8. I just wanted something with a wider angle. But I can upgrade to that at a later point.

My budget is no more than 400 for a lens.
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
Why are these lenses so expensive? Not only just the ones you mentioned, but reading reviews I notice you'll see references to issues that may be a huge factor e.g. AF speed, AF sound, weight, lack of sharp edges.

Canon L lenses are the top of the line, so they command a very large price.


The midrange Canon primes like the 28/2.8 or 35/2.8 are just as good as the kit zoom (if not better) and are small. Problem is the light gathering abilities of these lenses is equal to higher end zoom lenses. So unless you need the difference in size its best to get prime lenses that are f/2 and faster.

On your question regarding a general prime lens, I'd get a 35mm lens or wider. Most people get a 50mm lens first (as I did) but this focal length really lends itself to portraiture and picking out detail due to the tighter Area of View on a 1.6x crop body.

Here's a good link to checkout...

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/

Near the bottom you'll see links to all of Canons lenses that'll bring you to user uploaded photos taken with those lenses. I'd checkout the 28/1.8 and 35/2.
 

tino

Banned
I liked the 50mm 1.8. I just wanted something with a wider angle. But I can upgrade to that at a later point.

My budget is no more than 400 for a lens.

I would go with whatever 17-50 16-50 f/2.8 third party lens you can afford. Shallow DoF doesn't show in wide angle lens anyway. So a sharp one is more important than a fast one.
 
Canon L lenses are the top of the line, so they command a very large price.


The midrange Canon primes like the 28/2.8 or 35/2.8 are just as good as the kit zoom (if not better) and are small. Problem is the light gathering abilities of these lenses is equal to higher end zoom lenses. So unless you need the difference in size its best to get prime lenses that are f/2 and faster.

On your question regarding a general prime lens, I'd get a 35mm lens or wider. Most people get a 50mm lens first (as I did) but this focal length really lends itself to portraiture and picking out detail due to the tighter Area of View on a 1.6x crop body.

Here's a good link to checkout...

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/

Near the bottom you'll see links to all of Canons lenses that'll bring you to user uploaded photos taken with those lenses. I'd checkout the 28/1.8 and 35/2.

Thanks. These are the type of shots I'm interested in.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/martiniko23/
 

giga

Member
Cool specs, but I'm not into video but maybe some of you guys are.

NAB 2012
Canon will be introducing two new cameras for NAB. I’ve been reading a lot of the tips coming in and trying to make sense of it, thankfully someone else has received some of the same information and has.

We should see an official announcement on Thursday.

Canon Cinema EOS 1D

Full Frame
Higher Megapixel than 1D X
ALL-I, IPB and MJPEG 4K.
Log Profiles
Super35 Crop Mode
Compatible with cinema lenses
Priced around $10,000

Canon EOS C500

To compete with RED Epic
4K at 120fps EOS RAW via 3G HD-SDI
At 60 fps EOS RAW from the C500 is 12 bit.
Priced around $35,000
New Cinema Lenses
15.5-47mm T2.2
30-105mm T2.2
I’ve seen a range in pricing between $12,000 and $20,000 for the above lenses.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/cinema-eos-1d-eos-c500-for-nab/
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
Thanks. These are the type of shots I'm interested in.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/martiniko23/

I've only used Flickr for this. You could run a search for the lens with a specific camera body. Something like...


"Canon 28mm f/2.8" "Canon 550D"

Just pay attention to the tags on te page and other items to see if the user is using the combination. I've used this sort search to see photos taken with more obscure combinations.
 

Ember128

Member
Thanks for the recommendation. We're seriously considering this package of stuff. Does anyone else have any other recommendations or thoughts on this specific camera, good, bad, or otherwise?
I've owned the Rebel XS, T1i, and I'm currently on the 7D.

The T1i is when Canon started introducing Gapless Microlenses onto their sensors for the Rebels. This meant that light gathered for the sensor was gaathered in a far better way.

In plain English this means this is when they started to be a lot better for noise (grain from higher speed film) when the camera increases it's light sensitivity to compensate for either less light, or if you need to speed up the shutter for an action shot.

The sensor on the T2i is somewhat better, it'll be another $115 or so. But it's not the same leap that was made going to the T1i.

Between the XS T1i, the T2i, and the T3i, the important changes go something like this.

XS Is 10MP and alright. Liveview for photos but no video. 3.0 FPS Stills

T1i is when the introduced that really rad gapless microlens stuff for better light gathering and a 15MP sensor. Video in 720P. 3.4 FPS Stills.

T2i Got a somewhat better sensor than the T1i and 1080P video. 3.7 FPS Stills.

T3i Got a flip out screen and is able to make flashes that are not on the camera (like the 430EX II or 580EX II) fire. Not worth it.

The T3i is probably not worth the upgrade as you'll never really need two of those features. The T2i can be a nice upgrade, if you want, but that'll probably put you over the $800 mark.

Most importantly, always, always, always, always remember this.

It is the glass in front of the camera, not the camera body that will make the difference for photos. One of the best bald eagle shots I've ever seen was shot with a Rebel XT, which was before the XS. But that's because that person used a $1,600~ lens. Later down the road, (almost) always get a new lens before a new body.
 

Fireye

Member
You might want to consider a refurbished or used 28mm F/1.8.

The 28mm F1.8, at least Canon's version, isn't very impressive. Not very good clarity as you get closer to the edges, but if your aim is more street photog, then that might not be such an issue. photozone.de did a review recently, on both Crop and FullFrame:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/725-canon28f18apsc
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/726-canon28f18eos5d (with sample pictures at the end)

I _loved_ my Sigma 24mm f1.8 before it got stolen, but it was not a quick focuser. Used a normal micromotor, so it's noise was pretty audible. Made some really pretty pictures though.
 
What image viewing software do you guys like to use?

Is there a reason why programs should show images differently? My photos look different between Windows Photo Viewer and ACDSee. They look better in the latter for some reason.
 

giga

Member
What image viewing software do you guys like to use?

Is there a reason why programs should show images differently? My photos look different between Windows Photo Viewer and ACDSee. They look better in the latter for some reason.
Color profile support. Your images are probably Adobe RGB, which Windows has laughable support for in general. IE9 only recently got on board with supporting embedded profiles.

I use Lightroom.

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/graphics/colorprofiles/default.html

Edit: Actually, IE9 still doesn't have full color management. It converts non-sRGB images to sRGB. For fucks sake Microsoft.

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Fo...l/thread/12d8a384-e051-4b8a-8f01-fefbe73c33bd
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
EF-S55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II at 235mm on crop body? Dude is like a spy.

Yeah, it works wonders for this sort of thing. I've spent several happy hours going round and round Cardiff with one of these on an open-topped double-decker bus - the IS helps a good deal when you're sitting 10 ft above ground on top of a chuddering Diesel engine.
 

Hieberrr

Member
Any recommendation of polarizer filters for the NEX C3? I don't want to spend more money than I have to, so the cheaper the better.

I checked ebay, and they have a bunch for like $5 a pop, but I wanted to get some recommendations before I pull the trigger.
 

Pachimari

Member
Hmmm... Now I have tried many times and I keep having a problem with it. How do I capture something really close? Let's say I have a figure and it got scratches, so I wanna take a picture of that. But my Canon 60D won't focus on it and thus I can't capture it. I think I tried all the modes, I tried going real close with the camera and I tried staying further away and zooming in with the lens but it doesn't work.
 

MRORANGE

Member
Hmmm... Now I have tried many times and I keep having a problem with it. How do I capture something really close? Let's say I have a figure and it got scratches, so I wanna take a picture of that. But my Canon 60D won't focus on it and thus I can't capture it. I think I tried all the modes, I tried going real close with the camera and I tried staying further away and zooming in with the lens but it doesn't work.

you probably need a macro lens, if you using the kit lens the closest you can probably go is one foot.




In other news:

rHwcR.png


love the 45mm f2.8p it's like I'm just carrying the body around my neck, the lens is actaully more smaller than in the pic as it had the cap,hood ring and lens filter on.
 
Hmmm... Now I have tried many times and I keep having a problem with it. How do I capture something really close? Let's say I have a figure and it got scratches, so I wanna take a picture of that. But my Canon 60D won't focus on it and thus I can't capture it. I think I tried all the modes, I tried going real close with the camera and I tried staying further away and zooming in with the lens but it doesn't work.

Canon 100mm 2.8 macro is very good at this. Awesome lens. And i'm not even speaking of the expensive new 100m L2.8. The older one is great as well. Fast, great bokeh, sharp and a great portrait lens.
Highly recommended!!
Canon_EF_100mm_macro_2.8.jpg
 
DSC00934_gallery_post.jpg


took this yesterday. kaz looked straight down the barrel of my sony NEX-7 and i could feel the connection, man.

on an equipment-related note, it feels pretty awesome to use a NEX-7 in a photographer's pit full of guys tripping over their D4s with foot-long lenses. so much more convenient! and i really appreciate being able to use the viewfinder to preview the effect of crazy lighting.
 

tino

Banned
took this yesterday. kaz looked straight down the barrel of my sony NEX-7 and i could feel the connection, man.

on an equipment-related note, it feels pretty awesome to use a NEX-7 in a photographer's pit full of guys tripping over their D4s with foot-long lenses. so much more convenient! and i really appreciate being able to use the viewfinder to preview the effect of crazy lighting.

He gestured to you how many NEX lens he will release this year.
 
I just pulled the trigger on a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L to replace my old 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS as my walkaround lens on my 7D. I really hardly used the 17-85 since I got the 35mm f/1.4L and the 85mm f/1.2L. I still have my 10-22 EF-S to cover the low end.

Incidentally, I ordered from B&H Photo and they offered $50 off of Lightroom 4, for a price of $95, so I figured, what the hell, it's time replace my old Photoshop 6 so I ordered that as well.
 

giga

Member
On instagram: http://fr.anc.is/2012/04/13/instagram-for-non-believers/

Just like the iPad was not for the techie crowd, Instagram was never meant for traditional shutterbugs. You know the kind: carrying the latest model Nikon SLR, a bag full of lenses & a strobe or two. Instead, it was made for lomo-afficionados. Remember that craze from the 90's? Lomography was about taking a crappy soviet camera, sticking the cheapest analog film you could find in it & reveling in the weird off-color distorted prints that'd come back a few days later from the lab.

Sounds familiar? Yep, Instagram brought a lomo-like approach to photography to the iphone & to the masses. Focus on the process, not the result. Take your camera everywhere you go. Use it any time. Don't worry about any rules. Don't think. It's ok to use cheap tricks to make pics more interesting. Just create. Damn the quality. Damn the cheap lenses & film. Translated to the digital age: damn the heavy compression, damn the crappy filters, 600px is just fine!

If picking crappy filters is what it takes to turn on the creative bit in people's brains & make them share slightly more interesting pics, that's fine with me! For non-believers: Instagram made the process of taking pictures fun again so people ended up sharing more pics.

This piece makes a lot of sense, but makes me sad at the thought of so many photos being compressed and scaled down to a square 600px. Instagram gets photo sharing and how to let people have fun with their shots, but forcing a square aspect ratio and shitty resolution pains me. Imagine looking at these shots on a high DPI device like the 3rd gen iPad or future retina Macs.

Maybe some photographers at Facebook (like Mike Matas) can force some changes.
 
instagram is completely not for lomography fans. in fact, they're the last people in the world it's for, at least right now!

i guess he's talking about people into lomography in the 90s, which makes sense because there was no issue of convenience back then, but if you're into lomography in 2012 you're into it because it's film, not despite it. what he says makes sense in terms of its casual nature, but lomography's way bigger now than it was back then.

Sadly the leaked roadmap that showed that more lenses than anticipated were on the way for this year, also showed that all of the good lenses that people were hoping for are being pushed to 2013.

i think this year has a couple of zooms and what sounds suspiciously like a 35 1.8, the latter of which is all i really want right now given the awesome a-mount version. the 50 1.8 is great, and the zeiss gives me something to work towards at least.
 

giga

Member
instagram is completely not for lomography fans. in fact, they're the last people in the world it's for, at least right now!

i guess he's talking about people into lomography in the 90s, which makes sense because there was no issue of convenience back then, but if you're into lomography in 2012 you're into it because it's film, not despite it. what he says makes sense in terms of its casual nature, but lomography's way bigger now than it was back then.



i think this year has a couple of zooms and a 35 1.8, the latter of which is all i really want right now. the 50 1.8 is great, and the zeiss gives me something to work towards at least.
Yeah, he's talking about the style of these photos that are like lomography and lo-fi photography.
 
i think this year has a couple of zooms and what sounds suspiciously like a 35 1.8, the latter of which is all i really want right now given the awesome a-mount version. the 50 1.8 is great, and the zeiss gives me something to work towards at least.

Yeah, a fast 35mm may be my most wanted lens at this point, but I was certainly bummed to see that new pancakes and the G zoom lens may be pushed back.
 

Blackhead

Redarse
On instagram: http://fr.anc.is/2012/04/13/instagram-for-non-believers/



This piece makes a lot of sense, but makes me sad at the thought of so many photos being compressed and scaled down to a square 600px. Instagram gets photo sharing and how to let people have fun with their shots, but forcing a square aspect ratio and shitty resolution pains me. Imagine looking at these shots on a high DPI device like the 3rd gen iPad or future retina Macs.

Maybe some photographers at Facebook (like Mike Matas) can force some changes.

I don't think the majority of people using instagram are at all interested in the process of photography. It's all about the results to them (looking cool and sharing to Facebook/twitter).
 
Yeah, he's talking about the style of these photos that are like lomography and lo-fi photography.

i think he's talking about the attitude, not the style. back when all cameras were film cameras lomography was about shooting old russian compacts with reckless abandon and not paying much thought to the results. now that 99% of cameras are film cameras, lomography is more about the culture and experience of shooting film, which has become kind of inherently rebellious (though the look plays a part). no-one who's bought a $300 lomo LC-A+ is going to give it up for an iphone app with lo-fi filters - if that were the case, they'd just have shot digital all along and done PP.

the medium is the message!
 

Antiwhippy

the holder of the trombone
What is the difference between the really expensive LC-A+ and something cheap like a diana or a holga though?

i think this year has a couple of zooms and what sounds suspiciously like a 35 1.8

Oh god I really hope this is a pancake.

This is all I'll need.
 
i think they'd need a lot more lenses for that to be worthwhile...

What is the difference between the really expensive LC-A+ and something cheap like a diana or a holga though?

quality and shooting experience-wise, a hell of a lot. my LC-A+ is one of my favourite cameras in so many ways - there's certainly no digital camera at the same size or price i'd rather use. though i was only using it as an extreme example — i don't think many people with holgas will give them up for instagram either. like i say, it's about how fun they are to use and the statement of shooting film just as much as the visual effect (which is still impossible to properly replicate with an iphone app anyway).

i use instagram and i shoot film cameras, but the two are completely unrelated in means and end.

and i really doubt that any NEX 35 1.8 would be a pancake, nor would i particularly want it to be!
 

snack

Member
I just got a Canon EOS 550D/EOS Rebel T2i with an 18-55mm lens. I'm quite new to the photography scene... any tips on starting out? Should I read some books to get started?
 

tino

Banned
I am getting a camera fatigue. I think I need to get a weird ass half frame/Diana camera to rebuild my passion.

This happened recently when my wife butchered the chance of getting a new NEX 16mm for $120 (in China). Now it's impossible to get a 16mm for under 200. On the one hand I am pretty pissed. On the other hand I don't want to be mad at my wife. All these mixed emotion some how killed my desire to pick up the camera. Sigh.
 
I just got into photography, bought Canon T3i about a months ago, I'd like to use it to shoot wildlife or landscape photography but I haven't got the chance to do that, so for the time being, I use it a lot for portrait and in door party event etc. now I've been reading guides and magazine a little bit here and there, I'm thinking that I really need a speedlite, the flash extension thing so that I can direct the flash not straight to my subject.

what are your opinion? also can you give me tips or link to guides about taking in door photograph of a party, wedding etc. any other crucial or necessary accessories that is recommended?
 
All this talk on lomography made me go check out some lomo cameras.

Oh god I really want this.

http://www.lomography.com.au/la-sardina-belle-starr/

the la sardina is actually a pretty great camera, especially with the flash. i keep meaning to pick one up.

i also recommend the similar superheadz wide and slim, which is so cheap i got it as a free gift from a magazine and produces really nice colours & vignetting through its 21mm lens. perfect sunny day camera.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom