Support NeoGAF

[Zyzyxxz]

Should be fine with what you are describing, I only struggle with mine when my 2 year old is running around, but heck, I have troubles focusing the little one even with a Canon 7D.

BTW PM an offer and I might sell you my X100 , maybe the X100s will focus correctly on my child lol.

Oh I don't want to insult you as I don't shoot as much as I'd like but the 35mm focal length is perfect for me but I'd rather wait to see agreeable prices on the used market. I'm hoping they will steer toward $500 soon but that may be naive of me.

 

[Damaged]

Anybody used a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG II HSM Macro?

Got a Nikon fit one on the way as I'm supposed to be taking some pictures at a few race meetings next year. Saw a few reviews that were reasonably positive and it was pretty cheap for a fixed 2.8 telephoto so figured why not take a chance on it.

I know 200mm may be a bit short at some circuits even on an APS-C body, but if I get the x2.0 sigma tele convertor its a constant f5.6 and up to 400mm which should be way more than I need.

 

[Dreaver]

I am planning to buy a (second-hand) Canon 70-200 F/4 L for my Canon 550D. I am looking for (quick) advice on a tripod and bag. Long time ago I've asked a similar question, but it was without the 70-200.

- I am looking for a tripod, the total weight (lens+body) is a maximum of 1235 gram (1.2kg) total, what would be the cheapest (for at least decent/good quality) option? (I guess something of Manfrotto?) I am willing to spend $150-200.
- I will also need a bag, I loved the concept of the Lowepro Slingshot AW but I'm afraid it won't fit the 70-200mm (according to the internet). Does anyone have good alternatives? I'd like space for the body (550d), 70-200mm, 50 f/1.8, and the 18-55 kitlens at least. I prefer a smaller bag over a big bulky one, my budget would be around $100.

Cheers!

 

[Damaged]

I am planning to buy a (second-hand) Canon 70-200 F/4 L for my Canon 550D. I am looking for (quick) advice on a tripod and bag. Long time ago I've asked a similar question, but it was without the 70-200.

- I am looking for a tripod, the total weight (lens+body) is a maximum of 1235 gram (1.2kg) total, what would be the cheapest (for at least decent/good quality) option? (I guess something of Manfrotto?) I am willing to spend $150-200.
- I will also need a bag, I loved the concept of the Lowepro Slingshot AW but I'm afraid it won't fit the 70-200mm (according to the internet). Does anyone have good alternatives? I'd like space for the body (550d), 70-200mm, 50 f/1.8, and the 18-55 kitlens at least. I prefer a smaller bag over a big bulky one, my budget would be around $100.

Cheers!

Dont know what the prices are like in the US but have a look at Kata bags, the website asks what gear you use and wll see what bags will fit your gear http://www.katabags.co.uk/?ref=1

 

[Menelaus]

Ever since i moved up to full frame three things happened:

- I love the 35mm/50mm focal lengths
- I cant believe how wide 24mm is on full frame. I honestly love the wideness and want to go even wider!
- f 2.8 is as wide ad i ever open. Sold of my 50mm f1.2 i bought for a short time to see how id like. Love the focal length but d.o.f is ridiculously shallow between 1.2 - 2.8 and i only get sharp results from 2.8 & onwards with that lens.

17mm was one of the most fun focal lengths IMO!

 

[Ember128]

I am planning to buy a (second-hand) Canon 70-200 F/4 L for my Canon 550D. I am looking for (quick) advice on a tripod and bag. Long time ago I've asked a similar question, but it was without the 70-200.

- I am looking for a tripod, the total weight (lens+body) is a maximum of 1235 gram (1.2kg) total, what would be the cheapest (for at least decent/good quality) option? (I guess something of Manfrotto?) I am willing to spend $150-200.
- I will also need a bag, I loved the concept of the Lowepro Slingshot AW but I'm afraid it won't fit the 70-200mm (according to the internet). Does anyone have good alternatives? I'd like space for the body (550d), 70-200mm, 50 f/1.8, and the 18-55 kitlens at least. I prefer a smaller bag over a big bulky one, my budget would be around $100.

Cheers!

Check out the Lowepro Urban Photo Sling Series. I'm picking that up because I need to bike and use a bag that will stay on me.

 

[dmshaposv]

17mm was one of the most fun focal lengths IMO!

Was it the canon 17mm TS-E?

I knew a guy in uni who took photos with it and lawd almighty - not only can you go crazy wide without distortions but that shift effect made architecture shots drool worthy.

Heck even if you are a lens collector type person, id wish to some day get since the glass element looks so gorgeous. Only problem it costs a body organ and then some.

 

[RuGalz]

Finally found a daypack that fits all my needs - holds enough camera equipments, has tripod holder, has enough space for food/water, comfortable, built in rain cover. Place for tablet/laptop is a bonus.

The Mountainsmith Borealis, in case anyone else is in the same situation.

 

[Parallacs]

I am planning to buy a (second-hand) Canon 70-200 F/4 L for my Canon 550D. I am looking for (quick) advice on a tripod and bag. Long time ago I've asked a similar question, but it was without the 70-200.

- I am looking for a tripod, the total weight (lens+body) is a maximum of 1235 gram (1.2kg) total, what would be the cheapest (for at least decent/good quality) option? (I guess something of Manfrotto?) I am willing to spend $150-200.
- I will also need a bag, I loved the concept of the Lowepro Slingshot AW but I'm afraid it won't fit the 70-200mm (according to the internet). Does anyone have good alternatives? I'd like space for the body (550d), 70-200mm, 50 f/1.8, and the 18-55 kitlens at least. I prefer a smaller bag over a big bulky one, my budget would be around $100.

Cheers!

For tripods, I always recommend:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...o_055XPROB_055XPROB_Aluminum_Tripod_Legs.html

This is the tripod that like EVERYONE has. It is sized to fit much heavier cameras, but that only means it will be more stable for you. It also does an awesome ground level mode.


For heads, if you want to pan, just get a $50-$100 ball head. The Giottos or Manfrotto ones get the job done.

However, if you want quick repositioning or want to do macro, get:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/303591-REG/Manfrotto_322RC2_322RC2_Grip_Action_Ballhead.html
It is so much fun to use and is more stable than one would expect. I love it.

 

[phisheep]

For tripods, I always recommend:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...o_055XPROB_055XPROB_Aluminum_Tripod_Legs.html

This is the tripod that like EVERYONE has. It is sized to fit much heavier cameras, but that only means it will be more stable for you. It also does an awesome ground level mode.

I'd concur with that - I'm very happy with mine. Just the one proviso that I find it very heavy & bulky for lugging around, so it lives indoors and doesn't come out with me any more (except at night-time when I do actually need it). Mostly I do fine outdoors without one, but if I ever feel the need I'll probably get something a bit dinkier for travelling.

 

[Menelaus]

I have that tripod as well...it IS a bit heavy/bulky, but it does what it's supposed to like a champ.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Gotdamn. I watched a review on the Noctolux f/0.95 today. Fuck me that I'll never get to own one. 0.95! crazy

 

[BlueTsunami]

Gotdamn. I watched a review on the Noctolux f/0.95 today. Fuck me that I'll never get to own one. 0.95! crazy

Zeiss actually made a f/0.7 that Kubrick used in 'Barry Lyndon' to record scenes by candlelight. Lens was originally intended for NASA to photograph the dark side of the moon.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Zeiss actually made a f/0.7 that Kubrick used in 'Barry Lyndon' to record scenes by candlelight. Lens was originally intended for NASA to photograph the dark side of the moon.

fuck. I love that movie and the natural lighting is one of the reasons. I wonder where that lens is?

edit:
according to wikipedia they are all claimed. I know what I'm getting for christmas

 

[Dreaver]

For tripods, I always recommend:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...o_055XPROB_055XPROB_Aluminum_Tripod_Legs.html

This is the tripod that like EVERYONE has. It is sized to fit much heavier cameras, but that only means it will be more stable for you. It also does an awesome ground level mode.


For heads, if you want to pan, just get a $50-$100 ball head. The Giottos or Manfrotto ones get the job done.

However, if you want quick repositioning or want to do macro, get:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/303591-REG/Manfrotto_322RC2_322RC2_Grip_Action_Ballhead.html
It is so much fun to use and is more stable than one would expect. I love it.

Thanks, great suggestion. Do you have a recommendation for a pan one as well?

Check out the Lowepro Urban Photo Sling Series. I'm picking that up because I need to bike and use a bag that will stay on me.

Dont know what the prices are like in the US but have a look at Kata bags, the website asks what gear you use and wll see what bags will fit your gear http://www.katabags.co.uk/?ref=1

Thanks guys.

 

[Lucis]

I have a question.

I haven't done photography for a while. I have an old 5dmk2 and I only have 1 lens left... which is the 17-35 f/2.8. I need to take up camera again and I just don't feel like it's enough, I can't take portraits that well with out background being stretched which can look funny some times...

I am thinking about getting a prime,
I have been debating between the 50 f1.4 and 50 f1.2 for a while. I understand there's a huge difference in price between those two, however I can afford it, it's just a question whether it would be worth it.
Then there's another choice, the 85 f1.2 which is even more expensive, but offer an even more dramatic change of the focal than the 17-35 I have currently.

Any gaffer has some good suggestion and can point out to me the pros and cons by choosing between those ?

 

[1871]

I have a question.

I haven't done photography for a while. I have an old 5dmk2 and I only have 1 lens left... which is the 17-35 f/2.8. I need to take up camera again and I just don't feel like it's enough, I can't take portraits that well with out background being stretched which can look funny some times...

I am thinking about getting a prime,
I have been debating between the 50 f1.4 and 50 f1.2 for a while. I understand there's a huge difference in price between those two, however I can afford it, it's just a question whether it would be worth it.
Then there's another choice, the 85 f1.2 which is even more expensive, but offer an even more dramatic change of the focal than the 17-35 I have currently.

Any gaffer has some good suggestion and can point out to me the pros and cons by choosing between those ?

For portraiture, go long. 135 f2 L if you can.

 

[Lucis]

For portraiture, go long. 135 f2 L if you can.

I used to have a 105mm, which I think is already too long for some situation, especially indoor, 135 will be even harder to use.

Maybe it will be a good addition after a mid focal range prime...

 

[nitewulf]

Gotdamn. I watched a review on the Noctolux f/0.95 today. Fuck me that I'll never get to own one. 0.95! crazy

reasonable, eh, eh?

http://www.adorama.com/VT17095.html

 

[giga]

I have a question.

I haven't done photography for a while. I have an old 5dmk2 and I only have 1 lens left... which is the 17-35 f/2.8. I need to take up camera again and I just don't feel like it's enough, I can't take portraits that well with out background being stretched which can look funny some times...

I am thinking about getting a prime,
I have been debating between the 50 f1.4 and 50 f1.2 for a while. I understand there's a huge difference in price between those two, however I can afford it, it's just a question whether it would be worth it.
Then there's another choice, the 85 f1.2 which is even more expensive, but offer an even more dramatic change of the focal than the 17-35 I have currently.

Any gaffer has some good suggestion and can point out to me the pros and cons by choosing between those ?

If you want 50mm, the Sigma 50/1.4 will offer a similar level of oof blur and bokeh that the 1.2 gives.

85mm...is a different focal length. Probably the minimum I would use if you wanted to do portraits. Both the 1.8 and 1.2 are good.

 

[Menelaus]

I used to have a 105mm, which I think is already too long for some situation, especially indoor, 135 will be even harder to use.

Maybe it will be a good addition after a mid focal range prime...

135 is the best portrait lens, hands down, IMO. Great for dark indoor parties, getting tight across longer spaces.

 

[JDeluis]

Finally found a daypack that fits all my needs - holds enough camera equipments, has tripod holder, has enough space for food/water, comfortable, built in rain cover. Place for tablet/laptop is a bonus.

The Mountainsmith Borealis, in case anyone else is in the same situation.

Nice bag! I'm actually thinking of picking up the Incase Designs Corp DSLR Pro Pack. No rain cover, but looks very stylish and doesn't look like a camera bag.

 

[RayStorm]

135 is the best portrait lens, hands down, IMO. Great for dark indoor parties, getting tight across longer spaces.

135mm great for indoor parties? Indoors in what? Hollowed out planets?

 

[Joel Was Right]

At what focal length does a tripod become necessary, especially in low light situations where presumably you would need a low shutter rate

 

[Art Teitlebaum]

At what focal length does a tripod become necessary, especially in low light situations where presumably you would need a low shutter rate

Shooting film? Reciprocal of your focal length in seconds. 50mm glass would make a tripod for a shutter speed longer than 1/50s recommendable. A tele with 135 would allow you to shoot shutter speeds up to 1/135 freehand. (Maybe 1/100 if you are not an alcoholic and have a good holding technique.).

Shooting digital without stabilization? More or less everything larger than 100mm is difficult to handle for an amateur, especially if the glass is slower (f4 or above) and the resulting speeds are getting longer. You get two or three extra speed stops with stabilization.

 

[Danoss]

Why would film be different from digital when shooting longer focal lengths?

 

[Art Teitlebaum]

Why would film be different from digital when shooting longer focal lengths?

Good question. Apart from the obvious (target size, in comparison to APS-C or even smaller) it could be the chemical behaviour and the resulting effects on film grain that makes it less sensitive to blurring than the fast reaction of electronic pixels.
But I don't know anything about this tbh. I just repeated the rules of thumb I learned years ago and they seemed always practical and correct to me.

 

[phisheep]

At what focal length does a tripod become necessary, especially in low light situations where presumably you would need a low shutter rate

Depends. The short answer is "when your photos get all blurry", but that's not so much about focal length as it is about how sober you are, how steady you are, whether you've got something to brace yourself against and so on.

Usually I find I can get by with about 1/30 second handheld at 50mm without IS. Which means more-or-less I can manage without a tripod except for night-time architecture/landscape which takes a few seconds at least. I've happily shot at 250mm from the top of a moving bus though usually sticking to f/8 or f/11 for that - anything less and it gets all blurry.

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

I used to have a 105mm, which I think is already too long for some situation, especially indoor, 135 will be even harder to use.

Maybe it will be a good addition after a mid focal range prime...

105mm works great indoors on a full frame. Shot a ton of tight head shots for work with one, 1-2m from the subject.

 

[gcubed]

anyone have any good techniques to still yourself without a tripod? i'm a shaky mofo

 

[Thraktor]

I am planning to buy a (second-hand) Canon 70-200 F/4 L for my Canon 550D. I am looking for (quick) advice on a tripod and bag. Long time ago I've asked a similar question, but it was without the 70-200.

- I am looking for a tripod, the total weight (lens+body) is a maximum of 1235 gram (1.2kg) total, what would be the cheapest (for at least decent/good quality) option? (I guess something of Manfrotto?) I am willing to spend $150-200.
- I will also need a bag, I loved the concept of the Lowepro Slingshot AW but I'm afraid it won't fit the 70-200mm (according to the internet). Does anyone have good alternatives? I'd like space for the body (550d), 70-200mm, 50 f/1.8, and the 18-55 kitlens at least. I prefer a smaller bag over a big bulky one, my budget would be around $100.

Cheers!

I've used the Slingshot 200 for almost exactly the same equipment as you (550D, 70-200mm F4, 18-55mm and a Sigma 50mm F1.4 in place of the F1.8) and it's fit everything neatly, with space left over for a flash or another small lens. I'd definitely recommend it if you like the form factor.

As far as tripods go, you can't really go wrong with a Manfrotto in your price range.

 

[Menelaus]

135mm great for indoor parties? Indoors in what? Hollowed out planets?

Stand across the room, shoot as if you're several feet away, crush the background, profit.

 

[tino]

^^^ why are you shooting across the room though?

anyone have any good techniques to still yourself without a tripod? i'm a shaky mofo

There was a video an Army rifleman talk about how shooting photo is similar to shooting a rifle. Take the shoot in between breathes; bend your right hand in such a way that it doesn't move; use nose and forehead; use wall as make do monopad etc etc.

See if you can find it.

edit: google reader is very handy, here it is

http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/2/23/2820395/dslr-shooting-gun-technique-us-army

 

[cbox]

anyone have any good techniques to still yourself without a tripod? i'm a shaky mofo

Breathing techniques help, I always wait until I'm breathing out to shoot.

Edit : ^^ holy shit that's where I saw it from, nice.

 

[gcubed]

^^^ why are you shooting across the room though?



There was a video an Army rifleman talk about how shooting photo is similar to shooting a rifle. Take the shoot in between breathes; bend your right hand in such a way that it doesn't move; use nose and forehead; use wall as make do monopad etc etc.

See if you can find it.

edit: google reader is very handy, here it is

http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/2/23/2820395/dslr-shooting-gun-technique-us-army

awesome, thanks!

 

[nitewulf]

^^^ why are you shooting across the room though?

the longer reach compresses the background more, longer lenses definitely look better for portraits if you can arrange the space.

i think 85 to 100mm lenses are great in general. dat 135mm f/2 is the sharpest ever though.

 

[radios shipping overview]

I'd have to be in a big, big room to shoot anything wider than a headshot with a 135mm.

 

[tino]

the longer reach compresses the background more, longer lenses definitely look better for portraits if you can arrange the space.

i think 85 to 100mm lenses are great in general. dat 135mm f/2 is the sharpest ever though.

A faster 85mm is more useful imo.

 

[TedNindo]

Film student here. I recently got a Panasonic GH2. It's already running other firmware. I'm on the look out for some nice lenses. Any European websites that sell nice quality older lenses? I'm not sure if I trust buying lenses over ebay.

I was interested in some older nikkor ai / ai-s lenses. Because they seem to be well loved wherever I come across information about them. But they seem to be pretty rare around here. Anyone that could help me out with some info on great older lenses that would fit well on my camera or a place I could find some would be much appreciated.

I have some money to spend. But I'm not interested in overly expensive lenses. But I am looking for solid but affordable set of prime lenses that will give me the range needed and the cinematic look I want.

 

[dmshaposv]

A faster 85mm is more useful imo.

Agreed

And the bokeh from "the keg" 85mm f1.2 II is sssssooooo soft and buttery. The lens also is as sharp as the 135mm f2.

The 135 mm f2 is just too tight - even for full frame - for a walk around lens/casual lens. The oddball focal length brings it down for me.
If i had a large studio or loads of room to move back - then it becomes awesome.

I guess this is the reason canon has one of its sharpest lens priced rather fairly (135mm f2) unlike the more usable 85mm f1.2 that is quite expensive.

 

[Damaged]

A faster 85mm is more useful imo.

Agree, I love my Nikkor 85mm 1.8 for portraits

 

[giga]

Outdoor portraits: 135mm full frame (85 aps c)
Indoor portraits: 85mm full frame

135mm indoors is really cramped for space and you basically are limited to upper body shots from afar.

 

[RayStorm]

the longer reach compresses the background more, longer lenses definitely look better for portraits if you can arrange the space.

For "snapshots", not made in controlled environments however, long focal length seems fairly unusable, which IIRC was the beginning of the question.

But now that mentioned the thing about background compression, with a large amount of bokeh, does this really matter as much? Dos anyone have comparison pictures shot at different focal lengths with similar bokeh handy?

 

[IllumiNate]

Got my kit in the mail yesterday! I'm excited. I got the D600 with the 24-85mm kit lens and a Nanuk 930 case free. The case is incredibly well built and I'm surprised how cool it is, was a very nice throw in.
I went down to my local Foto source and brought the kit lens with me hoping to trade it in for credit towards another lens. Luckily they said yes and that they'd take it for $450!
Wow that's pretty good considering it was free with the camera.
Yesterday was the last day of the Canadian rebate promotion that was going on, but she was still able to get me the rebate for the lens of my choice. I showed her the online stores that had the 70-200mm for $2,099 and she was able to match the price after some persuasion.
I was able to get the Nikon 70-200mm VRII for $1,650 after trading in my kit lens, I think that was pretty sweet.
The bad news is that upon inspection of my new lens there seems to be a small scratch or scuff mark on the inside front lens. Tried to wipe it with a micro fiber cloth to no luck. So I called them and will be bringing it back to them for inspection and or cleaning.
All in all I'm happy and hopefull that my lens situation gets sorted out.

 

[Dreaver]

What would you guys think is a decent price for a second-hand Canon 70-200mm F/4 (non-IS)?
New from the shop it's about €535 ($702). Most people seem to be offering it for about €375 ($496), add another $25 on gas. I am not too sure if if I'd rather buy it new then.

I've used the Slingshot 200 for almost exactly the same equipment as you (550D, 70-200mm F4, 18-55mm and a Sigma 50mm F1.4 in place of the F1.8) and it's fit everything neatly, with space left over for a flash or another small lens. I'd definitely recommend it if you like the form factor.

As far as tripods go, you can't really go wrong with a Manfrotto in your price range.

Can it hold the 550D with the 70-200 equipped? Also, it isn't too cramped (which could harm the lenses)? I was thinking of buying the Slingshot 302 AW, but if it fits the 200 it would be better!

 

[phisheep]

Can it hold the 550D with the 70-200 equipped? Also, it isn't too cramped (which could harm the lenses)? I was thinking of buying the Slingshot 302 AW, but if it fits the 200 it would be better!

Sure it'll fit.

I've got my stuff in a slingshot 100: that's a 550D, EFS 18-55, EFS 55-250, EF 50, Full set of extension tubes, battery grip, spare batteries and all cables/chargers etc.

Bit of a tight squeeze but it fits.

 

[Iacobellis]

Stand across the room, shoot as if you're several feet away, crush the background, profit.

Boobies!

Great lens by the way.

 

[Thraktor]

Can it hold the 550D with the 70-200 equipped? Also, it isn't too cramped (which could harm the lenses)? I was thinking of buying the Slingshot 302 AW, but if it fits the 200 it would be better!

Certainly can, although you'll have to move the dividers around to make space for it (which is easy as they're held on with velcro). It's definitely not cramped, and I actually just picked mine up and remembered that I undersold it a bit earlier. I've previously fit:

Canon 550D
Canon 18-55mm
Canon 70-200mm F4
Sigma 50mm F1.4
Sigma 10-20mm
Canon 430EX flash

all in the main section at once, fitting neatly in. There's also the other section at the top of the bag, which I've managed to contort a full-size gorrillapod into once or twice, but could also hold flashes or even another lens or two. Shouldn't be a problem at all space-wise.

 

[BigJonsson]

What kind of wireless remotes would work with a T3i?

I guess anyone that says it will work with a T3i haha

2nd question....do the cheap ones work ok?

 

[phisheep]

What kind of wireless remotes would work with a T3i?

I guess anyone that says it will work with a T3i haha

2nd question....do the cheap ones work ok?

I use Yongnuo ones, cheap, and work just fine.