Support NeoGAF

[Arcipello]

Canon has their own 28/1.8 thats supposed to be good (at around $400) and I believe you could get the same Sigma for Canon if you want. There's the Canon 50/1.8 of course that only goes for around $110. Then they've got a 85/1.8 and 100/2 that go for around $500.

i feel like a noob, but is it generally the rule that f1.8 lenses tend to by fixed lenses with no zoom? my 28mm is fixed but im fine with it since its wide enough, the thought of going to 50mm or even 100mm isnt appealing if they are fixed. how is F2.8 for general indoor use?

 

[BlueTsunami]

i feel like a noob, but is it generally the rule that f1.8 lenses tend to by fixed lenses with no zoom? my 28mm is fixed but im fine with it since its wide enough, the thought of going to 50mm or even 100mm isnt appealing if they are fixed. how is F2.8 for general indoor use?

Yep, lenses faster than f/2.8 are generally primes (which don't zoom). A zoom at its fastest will be a non variable f/2.8 (meaning its f/2.8 throughout the zoom range). Though you'll be spending a good amount of money to get a Zoom that is a non variable f/2.8 from Canon (like their EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 which is nearly $1000). Since you've used a Sigma I'm guessing you may be indifferent to using third party lenses? You may like the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8. Its listed as $460. I've heard only good things about it but have never used it first hand. For $200 more there's the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 SP XR Di II VC. It has VC (Vibration Compensation) which helps for shooting with handshake at slower shutter speeds.

 

[Always-honest]

i feel like a noob, but is it generally the rule that f1.8 lenses tend to by fixed lenses with no zoom? my 28mm is fixed but im fine with it since its wide enough, the thought of going to 50mm or even 100mm isnt appealing if they are fixed. how is F2.8 for general indoor use?

Why not?

2.8 for indoor use can be good (depending on available light) , but even at 2.8 you'll be wanting more light indoors most of the time.
Basicly, you'll be upping the iso or using flash.. and increasing iso sucks ass, period (unless you have a 1D or 5D... then you can easily go up to iso1600 or 3200 and not give a damn).

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

Why not?

2.8 for indoor use can be good (depending on available light) , but even at 2.8 you'll be wanting more light indoors most of the time.
Basicly, you'll be upping the iso or using flash.. and increasing iso sucks ass, period (unless you have a 1D or 5D... then you can easily go up to iso1600 or 3200 and not give a damn).

I'm guessing he's referring to the focal lengths of those lenses since he has a crop camera. The 50mm (at 80mm equivalent?) wouldn't be too bad, but the 100mm might be pretty limiting outside of shooting wildlife and such.

 

[Arcipello]

A friend had a fixed 50mm lens and he complained about how cropped everything felt when using it, I tried it out myself and couldn't really imagine using it for indoor stuff. So a fixed 100mm lens is certainly not what I'm looking for. I guess I'm after an all round lens rather than something too specialised

 

[BlueTsunami]

50mm on Crop is definitely great for portraiture but it can feel a bit tight in enclosed spaces. But 50mm lenses are some of the best compromise lenses you can get. Extremely sharp stopped down, not a lot of distortion, great separation between the subject and background when shot wide open.

 

[Red]

Just got my Zeiss 1.4/50mm in the mail. Feels good man.

Excited to test this thing out.

 

[Always-honest]

A friend had a fixed 50mm lens and he complained about how cropped everything felt when using it, I tried it out myself and couldn't really imagine using it for indoor stuff. So a fixed 100mm lens is certainly not what I'm looking for. I guess I'm after an all round lens rather than something too specialised

35 mm then?
Or a zoom...

I'm guessing he's referring to the focal lengths of those lenses since he has a crop camera. The 50mm (at 80mm equivalent?) wouldn't be too bad, but the 100mm might be pretty limiting outside of shooting wildlife and such.

I love the 100mm macro 2.8 Macro. You can take pictures from ac omfortable distance and get those spontaneous facial expressions. I use it a lot.

 

[Arcipello]

50mm on Crop is definitely great for portraiture but it can feel a bit tight in enclosed spaces. But 50mm lenses are some of the best compromise lenses you can get. Extremely sharp stopped down, not a lot of distortion, great separation between the subject and background when shot wide open.

I'd love to be able to just test out a range of lenses and find the one that fits my needs, not sure if stores would even let me though.. Need to find out. The pentax was a Xmas present, I never felt that I really bonded with it... I was always fighting with it... I hope now that I'm getting a camera that I have chosen and paid for myself that I can really get to know it intimately

 

[lbcyalater]

any news on the possibility of the canon 5d mark III?

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

I'd love to be able to just test out a range of lenses and find the one that fits my needs, not sure if stores would even let me though.. Need to find out. The pentax was a Xmas present, I never felt that I really bonded with it... I was always fighting with it... I hope now that I'm getting a camera that I have chosen and paid for myself that I can really get to know it intimately

Well brick and mortar camera stores have to offer certain perks and incentives to compete with online retailers since it's hard for them to compete on price (plus lack of sales tax in most cases), so visit one and give it a shot

 

[reggieandTFE]

Yep, lenses faster than f/2.8 are generally primes (which don't zoom). A zoom at its fastest will be a non variable f/2.8 (meaning its f/2.8 throughout the zoom range). Though you'll be spending a good amount of money to get a Zoom that is a non variable f/2.8 from Canon (like their EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 which is nearly $1000). Since you've used a Sigma I'm guessing you may be indifferent to using third party lenses? You may like the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8. Its listed as $460. I've heard only good things about it but have never used it first hand. For $200 more there's the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 SP XR Di II VC. It has VC (Vibration Compensation) which helps for shooting with handshake at slower shutter speeds.

Olympus has some f/2 zooms

 

[Kadey]

I need a small DSLR. I'm pretty much a noob so I don't know what's what. Coming from a DSC-WX1, I'm pretty sure any DSLR performs better. What's the differences between a NEX-3 and NEX-5? Something else coming out this year to watch for?

 

[BlueTsunami]

Olympus has some f/2 zooms

That was in the back of my head when I posted that lol but yep. I think they utilize the benefits of a smaller sensor camera somehow to achieve this though. I'm surprised Canon or Nikon hasn't done this.

I need a small DSLR. I'm pretty much a noob so I don't know what's what. Coming from a DSC-WX1, I'm pretty sure any DSLR performs better. What's the differences between a NEX-3 and NEX-5? Something else coming out this year to watch for?

I believe the difference between the NEX-3 and NEX-5 are the type and resolution video they record (NEX-3 = 720p and NEX-5 = 1080i), the build quality of the NEX-5 is also better (I believe its a magnesium body?).

 

[golem]

any news on the possibility of the canon 5d mark III?

http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/01/1ds-mark-iv-the-saga-continues-cr2/

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

I believe the difference between the NEX-3 and NEX-5 are the type and resolution video they record (NEX-3 = 720p and NEX-5 = 1080i), the build quality of the NEX-5 is also better (I believe its a magnesium body?).

Yes, magnesium body which allows it to be slightly smaller than the NEX-3.

 

[chaostrophy]

That was in the back of my head when I posted that lol but yep. I think they utilize the benefits of a smaller sensor camera somehow to achieve this though. I'm surprised Canon or Nikon hasn't done this.

I think the Olympus f2.0 zooms are for Four Thirds format, a smaller sensor than Canon or Nikon's DSLRs. The smaller a sensor is, the less glass (and expense and weight) you need for a fast aperture lens...but OTOH the advantages to a fast lens are shallow depth of field and low light ability, and smaller sensors result in compromises in both areas.

 

[vitaminwateryum]

Posted this in the Q1 thread, but figured it might get of a response in here with the equipment.

I'm actually also headed to the zoo this weekend, weather permitting. I won't be able to afford a nice telephoto 'til around mid February. What kind of shots can I be expecting with a 50mm prime?

 

[captive]

What's the point then if you know you will change it to B&W, lomo...

this is like saying why buy a wide angle if you only ever shoot telephoto...

Of course if you only ever shoot in black and white then yea you probably don't care about color accuracy. However, color still affects black and white. This is why they have B&W filters for red, green and blue, and newer cameras have this filter built in for some B&W options.

I think the Olympus f2.0 zooms are for Four Thirds format, a smaller sensor than Canon or Nikon's DSLRs. The smaller a sensor is, the less glass (and expense and weight) you need for a fast aperture lens...but OTOH the advantages to a fast lens are shallow depth of field and low light ability, and smaller sensors result in compromises in both areas.

double depth of field is absolutely an advantage if you're shooting people or things in low light. Using a 1.4 or 2.0 lens on full frame you end up stopping down anyway to get more in focus. It's all relative.

Not to mention all of the zuiko f2.0's are outstanding wide open.

Some more food for thought as well. Fast lens light fall off and ISO compensation. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues

 

[GaryD]

I bought an Canon 500D some months ago, I got a regular 18-55 mm lens. Anybody who can recommend me a good not that expensive beginner lens. I am starting to grow tired of the 18-55 mm lens.

I've got the same kit too but I'm going to be traveling south America this year and want some sort of all round lens to shoot both scenery but also able to zoom up to wild life and the like. Are any of the cheap super zooms decent? I keep getting mixed reviews. I understand they will always be a trade off and won't be perfect but I don't want to carry a lot of gear. What is the best lens here with image stabilization. Also keep in mind I am a noob at this and chances are I'll be shooting in auto mode.

To the other person who was talking about nose smudges on the LCD, I get this too. Though, I do have a big beek.

 

[345triangle]

yeah, so i like the way the A55's viewfinder sticks out at the back - solves that problem.

im not sure i follow, i wasn't speaking about APS-C vs any other size sensor. I was speaking about the misconception that small camera = not able to take good pictures. I've seen this misconception multiple places, people just assume that bigger cameras take better pictures.

But my point still stands at web resolutions you wont see much of a difference.

well, what makes the NEX qualitatively different to a similarly-sized compact? it's mostly the sensor, and there are valid reasons to want big ones. i figured the guy you quoted was simply referring to the fact that the NEX shows you can fit an APS-C into the smaller form factor, given that he's after "D7000 quality".

of course you're right about camera size not necessarily meaning anything - i'd take a PEN over any bridge camera ever made any day of the week. nikon already makes small cameras, though, and they're not very good.

 

[captive]

hilarious blog from kirk tuck :lol
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/01/can-we-talk-very-frankly-about-serious.html
If some of the people on photography forums spent half as much time learning their camera they wouldn't have to be on forums whining about perceived issues with said camera.

@345 triangle, thats what i was talking about.

 

[Danielsan]

So I'm thinking of getting a new lens next month and I've decided that I want to get a zoom lens first, before I plunk down the cash for the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4.

Now I'm left to decide between Nikon AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR and the Nikon AF-S 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR. The price difference between the two is roughly €100. My question is: is the additional 100mm worth the €100 or am I better off getting the 200mm?

 

[Futureman]

http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/01/1ds-mark-iv-the-saga-continues-cr2/

Canon Rumors is a joke IMO. I mean they must have posted roughly 100 5D3 rumors last year and obviously none of them turned out.

This fall will be 3 years since the 5D2 came out. I'm thinking there's a good chance the 5D3 comes out later this year. Thing is though... there STILL really isn't a camera on the market that can compete with it's feature set at the current price. Canon doesn't have much of a motivation to release an update, but I'm sure we will see it at some point.

To me, it's the perfect photo camera, so really the only improvements would be to the video. I guess my number one wish would be clean video at ISO 1600.

 

[Stalfos]

So I'm thinking of getting a new lens next month and I've decided that I want to get a zoom lens first, before I plunk down the cash for the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4.

Now I'm left to decide between Nikon AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR and the Nikon AF-S 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR. The price difference between the two is roughly €100. My question is: is the additional 100mm worth the €100 or am I better off getting the 200mm?

I'm assuming you already have the kit lens right? The extra 100mm will really come down to what type of stuff you like to shoot. If for instance you are going to be shooting things like animals from a distance then the extra 100mm will probably help a lot.

 

[Danielsan]

I'm assuming you already have the kit lens right? The extra 100mm will really come down to what type of stuff you like to shoot. If for instance you are going to be shooting things like animals from a distance then the extra 100mm will probably help a lot.

Yeah, I have the 18-55mm kit lens and I'd really like to expand my range with a new lens. I'd definitely like to able to shoot animals (birds primarily) from a distance so I guess that answers my question.

 

[mr_nothin]

this is like saying why buy a wide angle if you only ever shoot telephoto...

Of course if you only ever shoot in black and white then yea you probably don't care about color accuracy. However, color still affects black and white. This is why they have B&W filters for red, green and blue, and newer cameras have this filter built in for some B&W options.

double depth of field is absolutely an advantage if you're shooting people or things in low light. Using a 1.4 or 2.0 lens on full frame you end up stopping down anyway to get more in focus. It's all relative.

Not to mention all of the zuiko f2.0's are outstanding wide open.

Some more food for thought as well. Fast lens light fall off and ISO compensation. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues

Yep, exactly
I have a Panasonic GH2 (nothing beats this camera in terms of video resolution/features) now and being able to go down to f/.95 and still being able to manage focus is pretty awesome. You get the same amount of light as .95 on any other camera but you also get a lot more DOF to play around with. IIRC, I think the DOF when at f/.95 on the GH2 is equal to around f/2.0 or f/2.8 on full frames. Getting 2-3 stops more light on my GH2 lens (f/.95) over my nikon & canon lenses (f/1.8 & f/2.8) while still being able to manage focus is a Godsend.

It's a Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 and it's equivalent to 50mm on a fullframe. Pure bliss!

 

[Nameless]

I'm looking at getting a flash in the next week or so. I'm conflicted between the 430exII and the 580exII. I don't mind spending the extra $150 on the 580 just as long as it's really worth it, which is basically my question to Photo-GAF. Is it worth it?

Edit: pulled the trigger on the 430

 

[East Lake]

I just got my kodachrome back from Dwayne's... I now understand why people call this the best film, goddamn. About halfway through the scans.

 

[345triangle]

a few days ago i picked up the NEX 10mm fisheye adapter, which was announced with the camera back in spring but proved elusive to get hold of til now.

it's pretty great, actually! feels really solid, being made of metal just like the 16mm 2.8 it clips onto, and it performs about as well as you could reasonably hope.

definitely a nice way to get into using a fisheye lens without spending like 1000 dollars on a proper one, because even with pixel peeping i'm sortof at a loss as to where the advantage would come from. i haven't used it in the daytime, though, which would probably be less flattering for landscapes and suchlike.

anyway, i like it more than i thought i would.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

Olympus has some f/2 zooms

It is also $2,500 and 3.6 lbs.

I can't imagine how much it would cost or weigh when designed for a full frame sensor. My Canon 24-70L is a constant f2.8 and weighs in at almost 4 lbs. A 24-70 with a constant f2 would be incredibly heavy.

 

[captive]

It is also $2,500 and 3.6 lbs.

I can't imagine how much it would cost or weigh when designed for a full frame sensor. My Canon 24-70L is a constant f2.8 and weighs in at almost 4 lbs. A 24-70 with a constant f2 would be incredibly heavy.

damn, it had been floating around 2k for a while, stupid dollar vs yen. They also have the 14-35 f2.0 and the 150f2.0 i personally owned the 150 f2.0 and it was amazing.

 

[Unlimited4s]

630 euros for a used 5D1 (+ a zoom lens, still need to find out which one), that's not too much, right? If it's not damaged of course (gonna get my hands on the body this weekend, what should I look for besides number of clicks and external damage?)

 

[mrkgoo]

630 euros for a used 5D1 (+ a zoom lens, still need to find out which one), that's not too much, right? If it's not damaged of course (gonna get my hands on the body this weekend, what should I look for besides number of clicks and external damage?)

Check for sensor quality.

Get something blank, set the focus to manual, set to AV, and smallest (largest number) aperture. Obviously, most sensors will have a bit of dust, but if it's horribly caked up, or has cracks and stuff it will be a sign that it hasn't been well looked after.

At the very least, stick it on manual clean mode and have a look at the sensor.

 

[Instigator]

i personally owned the 150 f2.0 and it was amazing.

Not amazing enough to keep it.

 

[Unlimited4s]

Check for sensor quality.

Get something blank, set the focus to manual, set to AV, and smallest (largest number) aperture. Obviously, most sensors will have a bit of dust, but if it's horribly caked up, or has cracks and stuff it will be a sign that it hasn't been well looked after.

At the very least, stick it on manual clean mode and have a look at the sensor.

Will do. As far as I know the guy who sells it really takes care of his material, so hopefully it's alright. If it's bad I will probably see this right away while inspecting at 100% right?

 

[Futureman]

630 euros for a used 5D1 (+ a zoom lens, still need to find out which one), that's not too much, right? If it's not damaged of course (gonna get my hands on the body this weekend, what should I look for besides number of clicks and external damage?)

there is no way to tell the number of clicks on a 5D FYI.

you got a laptop? It would be nice to bring it, take some sample shots, and then upload them just to make sure.

 

[Unlimited4s]

there is no way to tell the number of clicks on a 5D FYI.

you got a laptop? It would be nice to bring it, take some sample shots, and then upload them just to make sure.

He's letting me check out the camera for the weekend, so taking sample shots won't be a problem .

 

[captive]

Not amazing enough to keep it.

sold it for the 300f2.8. I'm not made of money.

 

[Instigator]

sold it for the 300f2.8. I'm not made of money.

I've never tried either, but the way some Olympus fans talk, I was lead to believe the 150 F2 lens was (more) magical.

And probably more affordable too.

 

[captive]

I've never tried either, but the way some Olympus fans talk, I was lead to believe the 150 F2 lens was (more) magical.

And probably more affordable too.

they're both awesome, both take teleconverters extremely well. I will get the 150 again at some point. But i needed more reach.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Here's a cool video showcasing photos taken with a high powered flash wirelessly connected to a FujiGX680 (Medium Format) camera with a digital back...

http://vimeo.com/14894129

Woooh

I personally want to get a classic film Hasseblad at some point in my life but the whole processing of Medium Format film can be expensive. It would be awesome if some company like Sony started producing Digital Backs at $5K or something. Make it feasible for a hobbyist to jump in (the cheapest modern ones sit at around $10K).

 

[vitaminwateryum]

Not sure if this is the best place to post this since it's for equipment, but figure it's better here than the Q1 thread. What's the best way to break into photography as a job? What kind of equipment is an absolute necessity?

 

[East Lake]

There's a thread at SA you might like vitamin. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2959985

Here's a cool video showcasing photos taken with a high powered flash wirelessly connected to a FujiGX680 (Medium Format) camera with a digital back...

http://vimeo.com/14894129

Woooh

I personally want to get a classic film Hasseblad at some point in my life but the whole processing of Medium Format film can be expensive. It would be awesome if some company like Sony started producing Digital Backs at $5K or something. Make it feasible for a hobbyist to jump in (the cheapest modern ones sit at around $10K).

You could get a shit ton of film processed for 5K, I know what you mean though. The up front cost is quite different, if I had had to choose between the two I'd probably stay with a film back just because of the low speed slide films.

 

[BlueTsunami]

You could get a shit ton of film processed for 5K, I know what you mean though. The up front cost is quite different, if I had had to choose between the two I'd probably stay with a film back just because of the low speed slide films.

Thats true and I definitely prefer the tonality and nuanced look over digital too. I think if I did get the Hasselblad I'd just shoot film anyways.

Oh! And not sure if you've seen this Fuji/Bessa III Medium Format camera yet? Its been out for a bit but I just found out about it today...

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtl_bessa_iii.htm

The only other camera I know of like that are the Mamiya 6 and 7.

 

[vitaminwateryum]

There's a thread at SA you might like vitamin. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2959985

You could get a shit ton of film processed for 5K, I know what you mean though. The up front cost is quite different, if I had had to choose between the two I'd probably stay with a film back just because of the low speed slide films.

Muuuuucho thanks! I thought I remembered someone posting that here some time ago, but wasn't about to dig through 50 pages to get to it and discover that it was posted on another forum

 

[East Lake]

You're welcome!

@ Blue

I think I saw pictures of of it before but didn't really look into it. Looks insanely portable, I don't think I'd ever get something at that price without interchangeable lenses though, I already caved and got a Pentax 67.

It was cheap as hell compared to the Hasselblad setup though lol.

 

[luoapp]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusXZ1/page2.asp

Dpreview just posted their review of Olympus XZ-1, and I have to say, I am very impressed by the image quality at low to mid ISO range. IMHO, it's superior to its peers ( so called enthusiast compact, S95, P7000, LX5) by a large margin, and can easily hold up to a DSLR with a kit lens, sometimes even with a premium lens. As pointed by Dpreview, if you are considering an EVIL camera ( GF, NEX, EP series) for the IQ, you should definitely check this one out before make the decision.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I think I saw pictures of of it before but didn't really look into it. Looks insanely portable, I don't think I'd ever get something at that price without interchangeable lenses though, I already caved and got a Pentax 67.

It was cheap as hell compared to the Hasselblad setup though lol.

Cheaper for sure but I've only heard good things about Pentax's Medium Format lenses. I'm just a sucker for Zeiss made optics

 

[345triangle]

the spirit level in the sony A55's viewfinder is the most useful thing ever; i'm sorting through some landscape photos now and i barely have to straighten any horizons! i used to be terrible for that.