http://slickdeals.net/f/5611250-Rokinon-35mm-F-1-4-Lens-369-Free-Shipping?
Rokinon 35mm F/1.4 Lens $369 + Free Shipping
Rokinon 35mm F/1.4 Lens $369 + Free Shipping
-
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
- Thread starter demon
- Start date
- Status
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Nothing, it's a wonderful camera. Get it, the 24mp will give you good flexibility to crop for portraits and such.
Well usually people who want to buy top model camera don't ask for advise, they just buy it. If you buy the NEX7 and you happen to dislike the ergonomic, you run the risk of growing out of the (NEX) system soon.
CrudeDiatribe
Member
I have one and love it. Third SLR body for me. I think it's a shit load of money for a beginner, but you're obviously in a different place than I was as a beginner. I also don't see the point of a mirrorless kit and an SLR (probably the only thing I will ever agree about with McLaren77).
As for the comment from the other poster that lenses were expensive, the only DX lens I got with my previous bodies was an 18-55 kit lens. Everything else was FX. I use prime lenses most of the time and there are a ton of great MF Nikkor primes to be had for cheap. You will spend more getting modern AF zooms for it compared to a DX Nikon or your NEX or whatever. Just be picky.
The out-of-box defaults will work well enough. Probably want to budget for a DAM and start shooting RAW as soon as you can, though. Fucking JPEGs*.
*I've been drinking, does it show?
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Has anyone here had any experience with the Luma Cinch strap?
Is the whole dust issue overblown?
Anyone have experience with the Canon 135/f2L?
As someone who loves sports (& sports photography), the weakness in my current gear is motion blur. (Note the baseball in the photo below.)
IMG_1201 by bjkrautk, on Flickr
I've looked at the 70-200L lenses as aspirational, but the idea of an f/2 lens (that costs a fraction of the 70-200/2.8L IS) seems intriguing. The lens is described as great for indoor / evening sports, and the reviews on Amazon are great.
My largest concern is the range I'll be shooting from; I can't really tell from the reviews if they are shooting at a high school gym or a massive stadium (like that shot from the upper deck at Miller Park, taken at 300 mm with a T3i). My two criteria for a lens are fast-enough AF to catch a play as it happens (my 70-300 IS can take a few seconds to focus; means I have to pick my moments to try for anything other than the plate / pitchers mound).
What say you GAF? Is this the lens I should lust after?
I owned a 135 F2L. It was _razor_ sharp and one of the fastest focusing lenses you can buy, period. It also has a much smoother bokeh than the 70-200 F2.8L IS II (which is what I own now.)
The downside to the 135 F2L is that it's an oddball focal length. I think it works pretty well on a full frame body but it's kind of goofy on a crop.
Yep. I grabbed it not long after it came out. Best strap I've ever used.
Yeah. the 135mm is easily the best canon "L" lens, and easily the most affordable.
It also is a bit useless due to its focal length. 135mm is super tight on cropped bodies, and even on a full frame body its too tight for indoor sports and portraits.
If you have room to stand far back (mainly outdoor sports or concerts), only then is it useful. Which is a pity since its canon's sharpest, and best lens.
My big Black Friday purchase has arrived from FedEx, which was a used Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II:
Sadly probably won't do much with it until January, though...
How much did you pay for it? fucking expensive lens. I wish it was at least a $1000 dollars cheaper!
NathanMcMahon
Banned
sweet, I've heard nothing but good things. They are sold out right now, I'm guessing the holidays, but I think I'll take the plunge.
Yeah, same, was pretty much set on getting the Tamron up until that week. Pulled the trigger when I saw it for about $1900.
I really like red rock micro follow focus stuff, but it is expensive.
I think so, I have around 7000 shutter actuations on mine and it seems to have settled down quite a bit. From what I have read/experienced there seems to be something wearing inside the camera as it "breaks in" that throws dust on the sensor. It "should" stop/slow down after a certain time.
It kind of depends on how anal about your gear you are. If you can deal with cleaning the sensor yourself (it is not hard, but kinda nerve racking!) it is no problem.
CrudeDiatribe
Member
It's not dust, but rather oil or other lubricant from the shutter. It apparently affects a large number of early D600 bodies, but Nikon has identified and fixed the problem in production and is servicing existing cameras to address it.
More information here.
I've got the previous Luma model, the Loop, and love it. Cinch looks even better.
I would've auctioned my kidneys if canon had just put IS in the 24-70 mkII.
Sadly I just cant justify paying so much for a lens which has a very important feature missing for my purposes (i shoot more video than stills). Tamron comes to the rescue.
I have both and the Cinch is indeed far better. Among other features I love, the neoprene shoulder strap greatly diminishes the effect of the camera's weight, it makes an enormous difference.
If you use a tripod with quick release head regularly (and the plate doesn't have a spot to loop the strap in it, like most Arca-Swiss style plates) then be sure to grab the Membrane Connector. I used it with my Manfrotto RC2 setup before switching to RRS heads and it is great; crazy strong too, you'll be amazed.
scar tissue
Banned
Can anyone recommend me a tripod for under $500?
How about a good review site? I only know Ken Rockwell, and he's basically a professional troll ("Who needs tripods?" :lol)
How about a good review site? I only know Ken Rockwell, and he's basically a professional troll ("Who needs tripods?" :lol)
Iacobellis
Junior Member
Ken Rockwell, the man who said professionals use Nikons and athletes shoot with Canons.
Gamecocks625
Member
Just got a Canon T3i. My first DSLR!
I had an old school film camera several years ago that I would use for the dark room but it got stolen in NYC. Looking forward to getting back into photography.
I had an old school film camera several years ago that I would use for the dark room but it got stolen in NYC. Looking forward to getting back into photography.
Ken Rockwell, always on the ball.
Ken Rockwell is the camera/lens critic equivalent of Roger Ebert. Occasionally relevant, but extremely out of touch.
scar tissue
Banned
Spot on.
I actually like some of his lens reviews, but a lot of small things show me that he is either a troll or not really knowledgeable.
Such as suggesting that the superzoom nikkor 28-300mm (cost: <1000$) makes all other lenses between those focal lengths obsolete.It's a good lens, but other reviews tell me that it has significant downsides compared to, say, a 300mm fixed focal length lens, that will bother a professional photographer. Yes, the 28-300 is probably good enough for 80% of the visitors of his site, but it's still BS.
Roger Ebert at least used to be funny.
Can anyone recommend a camera for a Mom that will deliver real nice portrait shots with good depth-of-field effects?
My sister-in-law loves the way pictures from my DSLR with prime lens come out but a DSLR I think is too steep of a learning curve for her. She's interested in the depth-of-field effects not really photography in general.
My sister-in-law loves the way pictures from my DSLR with prime lens come out but a DSLR I think is too steep of a learning curve for her. She's interested in the depth-of-field effects not really photography in general.
Iacobellis
Junior Member
My big Black Friday purchase has arrived from FedEx, which was a used Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II:
Sadly probably won't do much with it until January, though...
I've got the lens now too. Currently on loan, but have the option to buy it off my friend for a killer price later (work perk). Selling my version 1 to pay for it. I did do a comparison between the two and in all fairness, there's not a huge difference there. New lens has slightly different cropping, and the photo's are a touch darker, but more importantly, there is slightly better contrast, sharpness and detail, especially in the edges and corners, where it's quite noticeable. But in the centre areas, there's very little between them.
The bigger benefit to me was the lighter weight, and general weight distribution of the lens. Much better balanced and makes the camera feel a good degree lighter and easier to use for prolonged shoots. Bare in mind, version 1 is actually better built (full metal construction) and feels more tank like. I do think Canon is royally taking the piss with the price of this new lens, especially without the IS feature. Should be a couple of hundred pounds more than the original at most.
Point is, only get the new lens if you have bags of money, get it for a great price, or not so much above the price of version 1. I think for 99% of people, the differences won't really be necessary. Luckily print isn't nearly as revealing (unless you print massive) as over zealous pixel peeping, so the differences in real world use should be negligible.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I have an odd question. I just found some photos that I took in the 90s from an old 35mm camera. It has a date on the back but I'm quite sure the photos were taken a few months prior. Could this date be when they were developed or carry a different meaning?
It'll be the date they were developed/printed.
chaostrophy
Member
I have a workflow/software question, for those with experience in Lightroom and Photoshop. Currently I own Photoshop CS5, and I heard about some nice improvements in the latest version of Adobe's RAW processing engine. Then I compared the price between just the upgrade to PS CS6 ($200) with the full version of Lightroom 4 ($100). I had never used Lightroom before but I downloaded the trial version and it seems nice, especially the browsing and file loading seems more responsive than Bridge. So I'm thinking about getting Lightroom and keeping that up to date for the latest RAW processing instead of updating Photoshop. Has anyone else taken this approach? Are there any potential pitfalls I should be aware of?
Go for it. I don't even touch PS anymore unless I need to do some really heavy work. LR has it all and it's just much more efficient in terms of workflow.
CrudeDiatribe
Member
I only use Photoshop for panos these days, having switched to Aperture (similar to Lightroom) six years ago. I think if you do a lot of model shooting with airbrushing you'd want Photoshop, but that's after the RAW conversion. Otherwise it's fantastic not using Photoshop.
BigJonsson
Member
Is the Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens good? What is a good price on it? (Preferably in Canada)
How does it compare to the 100mm macro lens?
Is it useful for non-macro usage?
How does it compare to the 100mm macro lens?
Is it useful for non-macro usage?
The_Inquisitor
Member
Well after being robbed months ago I finally have my new setup
Canon Rebel T4I
18-135 STM + B+W UV filter
70-200mm f/4L (only surviving part of kit)
Vello Battery Grip
OEM Battery
Case Logic DCB-308 SLR Camera Sling
Anything else I should get to fill this kit in except a 430exii eventually and maybe a polarizer?
Canon Rebel T4I
18-135 STM + B+W UV filter
70-200mm f/4L (only surviving part of kit)
Vello Battery Grip
OEM Battery
Case Logic DCB-308 SLR Camera Sling
Anything else I should get to fill this kit in except a 430exii eventually and maybe a polarizer?
element
Member
I rented the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4. HOLY SHIT! Sigma has a winner here!
First is the build quality. All the years of plastic body and poor mechanics must have gotten to Sigma. This lens is easily one of the best build quality lenses I've ever had my hands on. Feel very much inline with the Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 at 1/4th the price!
Image quality is spectacular! I've rented the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L and the CanonEF 50mm f/1.2L and this lens is RIGHT there. It is spectacular! Auto focus is quick and quiet as well!
Here are some shots I took seeing Wild Belle and Deep Sea Diver on Friday.
First is the build quality. All the years of plastic body and poor mechanics must have gotten to Sigma. This lens is easily one of the best build quality lenses I've ever had my hands on. Feel very much inline with the Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 at 1/4th the price!
Image quality is spectacular! I've rented the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L and the CanonEF 50mm f/1.2L and this lens is RIGHT there. It is spectacular! Auto focus is quick and quiet as well!
Here are some shots I took seeing Wild Belle and Deep Sea Diver on Friday.
Would need to build a very small "studio" to my workplace, mostly to shoot jewelry and watches and as usually I'm running on a tight budget here.
Would these make any sense
Camera:
Canon EOS 1100D + 18-55mm
Lense for shooting jewerly / watches:
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM M Macro
And the "studio" equipment. Are these kind of sets any good at all?
Photography Light Tent Studio With Two Lights For Product Photography
Open for ideas and suggestions.
Would these make any sense
Camera:
Canon EOS 1100D + 18-55mm
Lense for shooting jewerly / watches:
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM M Macro
And the "studio" equipment. Are these kind of sets any good at all?
Photography Light Tent Studio With Two Lights For Product Photography
Open for ideas and suggestions.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Manual focus shouldn't be lived with it should be embraced
element
Member
NO! It totally doesn't feel or perform like any Sigma lens I have ever used. It is really on par with the Canon L lens or a Zeiss lens. The entire body is metal and almost 1.4 lbs!
yea... mainly would be using it for video, so manual focus is fine.
I think I'm gonna pick it up. I need a new focal length.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
If you'd like to experiment with something probably cheaper Takumar's 85mm is well regarded vintage glass.
edit:
apparently not much cheaper but still loved
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
One of the best 85mm lenses as far as wide open performance
- Status