Chad lens edition
Last one:
>>3220638 Read the sticky first!
Post anything gear related, cameras, lenses, bags, tripods, other fashion accessories (clothing, fancy straps, Leica) etc...
Post your question here, instead of starting a new thread about which lens to buy or what are the best beginner cameras.
And don't forget, be polite!
Anonymous
I'm looking for a manual zoom lens about ~70 - ~210mm for Pentax mount that I can buy cheaper than 50$, are there any recommendations? There are only two things I need from it - nice lens speed and ir should fit in my budget. There are no local sellers of such lenses, so I'm thinking about ebay.
Anonymous
Any resources (books/websites/articles) about modifying lens hardware? I bought a few old lenses I want to open up and play around with but I don't feel like fucking them up and ruining them.
Anonymous
>>3222964 Which Pentax mount:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_(lens)#Mounts >M37 (screw mount, branded Takumar, Asahiflex only) >M42 (screw mount, branded Takumar, all other Pre-K Mount 35mm bodies, e.g. the Pentax Spotmatic) >ES M42 Mount (Introduced in 1971. Allows open aperture metering with Super Multi-Coated Takumar lenses with Pentax ES and ESII cameras. 3rd Party ES lenses include Sigma YS, Sigma XQ, Vivitar TX, and Tameraon Adaptall mounts.) >K-mount (bayonet mount, all 35mm SLR and DSLR bodies since introduction of the K series in 1975 as well as the K-01 MILC body) >Pentax 6×7 mount (bayonet mount, some of them branded Takumar, for the medium format Pentax 6×7 and Pentax 67 film SLR bodies) >Pentax 645 mount (bayonet mount for the medium format Pentax 645 series SLR and DSLR bodies) >Pentax 110 mount (bayonet mount for the 110 film Pentax Auto 110 and Pentax Auto 110 super SLR bodies) >Q-mount (bayonet mount for the Pentax Q series series MILC bodies) Like what camera do you have exactly?
Anonymous
>>3222967 >K-mount This ofc, Mine is Pentax P30t
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222965 https://www.ifixit.com/Device/Camera_Lens https://www.amazon.com/Camera-Maintenance-Repair-Book-Comprehensive/dp/0936262869 The best advice I can give you is to take notes and photos of everything as you open the lenses, and to drop serious money on good tools. There's nothing quite like snapping off the tiny tiny screwdriver head because you bought a $5 eyeglass screwdriver set then say "fuck it!" and use a drill press on every screw after that (not saying I did that....but I did that.)
Anonymous
If the 85mm 1.4g dont worth the 1000dlls wich lens do then, from nikon?
Anonymous
>>3222969 FYI, that has a 45.46mm FFD. Meaning you can use any lens for other cameras that have a higher FFD, like all the Nikon mount lenses (46.50mm FFD.) You can either get an adapter with corrective lens for that or find an adapter that moves the lens out from the Pentax mount exactly 1.04mm that doesn't have a corrective lens. Even if it was just a tiny bit thinner than 1.04mm...like just 1.0mm, you'd still get infinity focus, but the closest distance would be pushed out a tiny bit from the camera (maybe like 2 feet max), which probably shouldn't be a problem at all. You could probably DIY one by buying one of those Fotodiox Pro Lens Mount Adapters with the corrective lens and taking the top and bottom mounts off then epoxying those two pieces together, omitting the body of it and the corrective lens, just so long as it is 1.04mm or slightly less thick between the flat parts of the two sides, it should be fine.
I only mention this, because it can open up a lot of lenses to your camera without slapping in cheap ass glass between the lens and body.
>nice lens speed Good luck on that:
https://www.ebay.com/b/Pentax-K-Manual-Focus-Camera-Lenses-70-210mm-Focal/3323/bn_80600434 Anonymous
Quoted By:
I'm eyeing a mid-tele for my Fuji. 50mm 2.0 or 60mm 2.4? Both can be found for almost the same price, and the 56mm is out of the question for being twice as much.
Anonymous
>>3222978 So I can pick random lens for my mount? I thought that there are some brands I should avoid. And what if I'm into that mess with adapters, are there any list of lenses that I should take a look at?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3222983 >So I can pick random lens for my mount? Not really.
You’re pretty much limited to native Pentax K lenses or M42 lenses with an adapter.
Anonymous
help a /p/al out. looking at:>leica m9 >sony s7rii
Anonymous
>>3222986 That what I saying in my post.
>for my mount Anyway, any brands/models or I'll have to choose it by myself from this heap of chinese crap?
Anonymous
>>3222989 >professional camera from a luxury manufacturer >overheating toy made with spare playstation parts Why do you even ask?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222989 There’s no reason to buy a digital Leica if you haven’t used/fallen in love with a film one previously. They only really exist for sentimental old-timers and people with lots of M mount lenses from prior shooting.
I have an old M4-2 and just use a Sony to adapt those lenses for digital shooting, that’s the reasonable thing to do.
Anonymous
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3222989 >both around $2k Note that the Leica is going to be a lot more expensive when you factor in lenses.
If I were making the choice you are, I would look long and hard at that Leica with lust in my heart, then buy the Sony since it’s much, much more practical.
Anonymous
>>3222983 You are limited to all the ones below your camera lens mount on this list either via DIY means or purchased adapters that have the chance of not having a corrective lens. For everything above it you'll need a corrective lens which may or may not work well.
>>3222990 Since you want a manual lens, just about anything vintage will work and have good glass. Those will have all metal barrels too. Ebay, KEH, etsy, and amazon are your best bets for that.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223004 I guess it'd help if I actually posted the image.
Anonymous
>>3223004 Well ok, I've got it [spoiler:lit]I know about all this situation with mounts, the only thing I wanted to know is exact brand like Vivitar/Cosina etc cause there are tons of different rebranded crappy lenses[/spoiler:lit]
Thanks for you help, I still not sure that adapter with corrective lens is a good idea for PK mount.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3223004 >You are limited to all the ones below your camera lens mount on this list either via DIY means or purchased adapters that have the chance of not having a corrective lens Not really—nikon F and Olympus OM are close enough that there’s not really enough room to build a mount adapter without optics. M42 is only possible because Pentax specifically made the K Mount in suck a way that they could make an M42 adapter for it easily.
Anonymous
got a sb 600 off ebay but it didnt come with the stand I assume there all pretty much the same and I should just get the cheapest one?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3223007 The cheap Vivitar/Cosina/whatever lenses probably aren’t gonna be super great, but they are probably gonna be like five bucks, so just buy whichever and see if it’s acceptable quality for you and if not throw it away.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3223014 Yeah, the shoe mount has been standard forever, so pretty much any shoe-mount stand will fit pretty much any shoe-mount flash.
Anonymous
I want to buy babby's first DSLR. That said, I'm not a total "babby" to DSLRs. All my family uses Canon (dad has 6D, mom has T6, uncle has 5D, brother has old 20D). I'm not particularly partial to any one brand, and I wouldn't likely be borrowing lenses from family members because they all live in another state, just saying that to disclose bias. I've used all of these cameras and I feel like a used Canon 70D would be a good option, but I don't want to limit what I'm looking at.
Anonymous
>>3223010 Read
>>3222978 for how to DIY one that is thin enough to connect PK to NF. I do a lot of DIY work and so long as there's at least 1mm of room to work with, it will be easy. That does not mean it will be cost effective for a random company to churn out such things when they already have tubes and corrective lens from other things they can slap together for super cheap when compared to having a new part designed on new machinery they don't already own. For the two of us however, that means we have to DIY it which can cost about $5-$40 depending on where you get your parts and how you make things.
Like you can get two reverse rings, one each for Pentax K ($7) mount and Nikon F ($10) mount, size their flange distances to be 1.04mm then epoxy them together to make your own Pentax K mount to Nikon F mount adapter without a corrective lens. Some sand paper ($2) and JB Weld ($9) would be involved and a set of nice calipers would make things more accurate. Total cost should be just under $38, at Amazon prices, with sand paper and JB Weld left over for many other things. For mounts that require larger distances you can normally find pre-made adapters for them, if you can't, you do the same thing, just add in a metal or plastic spacer tube between the two reverse ring mounts and epoxy.
This sort of stuff can be really fun once you start to think outside the box. It can also open up a lot more options to your camera bodies, as well as reduce your expenses.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223027 Oh, I forgot, some black paint/flocking would be needed to make things inside the adapter properly black.
Anonymous
>>3223019 how important is the weather sealing to you?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3222972 It sounds like you're trying to spend $1500 on a lens. What you should be doing is buying lenses that suit what you need to take photos of, not figuring out how to make $1500 disappear. If you want a great 85mm FF lens, buy the f1.8 version because it's barely any different from the f1.4 version. Use the $1000 you save to buy something else you may need, or something that would open up a whole new photographic perspective, like a lens in a focal length that's noticeably different from anything else you have. I have no idea what else you have though, so I can't make a recommendation.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223027 Man, I'm really off my game today. I double checked my notes and you need the front plate mount off an old/cheap extension tube for the lens to fit into and a reverse ring or rear plate of an extension tube of the other mount type that goes into the camera body. Here's a screen of my notes. It even shows what to use if you want to add a rear lens filter to them. Just use stackable filters for that.
Anonymous
>>3223019 Try a used Pentax K-3II or a new K-70
The Nikon D7200 is also a good choice. Be aware that Nikon has much less lenses optimized for APS-C and the prices are usually higher than Pentax.
It would also make sense to go Canon since all your family uses it and you can borrow lenses, unless you want to stick it to them and show some spectacular image quality. The Nikon and Pentax can serve you well for years with the right lenses.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223043 Nikon lenses are priced the highest out of the non-luxury brands. Why do they do it to us? It's late to change system (i already have 2 nikkor primes from the 70s).
Also bentax lenses look super cute with that green ring compared to the ugly gold nikons
Anonymous
snagged this today for $2.50, fucking thing weighs like 5oz.. i aint into canon so i'll probably give it to my niece.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222961 reposting in this new gear thread bc the last one was about to die. i was thinking about starting a studio up. What are the best lights i should get for a basic studio for taking photos of beautiful women?
pic related, it's what's on amazon
Anonymous
>>3222961 that's a big longboi
Anonymous
>>3223063 It's the 1200mm F5.6 L USM. Weighs 36.37lbs/16.5kg, costs over 100,000$ and looks absolutely ridiculous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223043 >Be aware that Nikon has much less lenses optimized for APS-C and the prices are usually higher than Pentax. What do you mean? One lens Nikon makes that I'm looking at is the 35mm f/1.8 that you can get for under $200 new. Pentax's equivalent lens is f/2.4. Yes, Pentax makes the 31mm/1.8 Ltd, but it costs $1000. It seems like Nikon's more affordable DX lenses span a pretty wide range of focal lengths. What are they lacking?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223066 But, what do the photos look like?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222961 STOP POSTING FUCKING CANONS YOU FUCKING FAGGOT
Anonymous
Does anyone have an updated infographic explaining Nikon AF compatibility with different lenses and bodies?
Anonymous
>>3223066 >1200mm >costs over $100,000 Why not use a telescope? You can get an outstanding apochomatic refractor telescope in the $10-20,000 range.
Example:
http://www.buytelescopes.com/telescope-engineering-apo180fl-apo-refractor-146566 Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3223087 F/5.6
Autofocus
Aperture control
Probably better image quality, since it’s designed primarily to throw an image onto a camera focal plane rather than an eyeball.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3223043 >Be aware that Nikon has much fewer lenses optimized for APS-C Be aware that Nikon’s full frame lenses all work on APS-C, so this isn’t an issue.
Anonymous
>>3223087 >>3223111 You could snag the manual focus FD mount version for just $5,000
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223082 >infographic No but Our Lord and Saturater Ken Rockwell has charts and tables.
Anonymous
>>3222961 >Chad lens OK, so this has no AF but will spank your pic related in terms of resolution.
Old picture, have a slightly better camera now.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3223118 I’m not sure that you could. Link?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222972 Ignore
>>3223037 get a 35 1.4G or a 200-500 5.6 or spend 10 times more and get a 800/5.6.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223054 yongnuo 50mm f/1.8
Anonymous
>>3223151 Isn't that a mirror though?
Anonymous
>>3223164 It is catadioptric. Look up "Maksutov Cassegrain"
Anonymous
>>3222989 a7rii.
It is even a better camera if you intend to use nothing but m-mount lenses. It can autofocus them.
Anonymous
Help /p/, I travel a moderate amount and want to take my travel photography to the next level. I have a D750 and 24-120 VR 3.5-5.6 which was a mistake and a 50mm 1.8g. In my mind I would need something like a wide lens and a walk around one. I'm thinking of getting a zoom and a prime combination for any of the stated purpose. Any suggestions that will not break the bank?
Anonymous
>>3223207 Get the 35/1.8D or G
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223191 don't forget the massive asterisk on your post there, buddy.
Anonymous
>>3223207 The definition of "bank" is wildly different for different people. The 16-35mm f4 is a great landscape lens.
Anonymous
>>3223215 I have been looking at 18-35mm 3.5-4.5, is there a big difference?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223212 Yeah, Im looking at 20-35mm for a wide prime. It seems that 35mm would be great for a walk around lens and wouldn't require me to get super close to get a decent shot like a street scene.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223223 16-35 has VR and a nano crystal coat for slightly better image quality, especially facing the sun. Nothing major though.
Has a gold ring to project your /pro/ status to the masses.
Anonymous
>>3223017 what about a ttl cord are they worth having?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3223170 Catadioptric is what he means by mirror.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3223245 Ehhhh. Wireless is a lot less annoying and prone to causing you to trip and knock all your gear over.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223247 That is technically incorrect. Catadioptric is catadioptric, mirror optics is mirror optics.
The difference is mirror optics has no corrective lens elements. Look up newtonian telescope.
Anonymous
>>3223037 i have the 24-70 nikon and the 16-28mm tokina. i just want some bokeh porn and a perfect autofocus ( i tried the 35mm art 1.4 sigma, not perfect focus like the 24-70) i use the cameras for weddings, landscape, maybe ill try the portrait photography. (sorry for my bad english, hope you understand). i had the 85mm 1.8g before, its not that sharp at 1.8, i need something fast and sharp.
Anonymous
Cheap Extension tubes or Expensive extension tubes?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223307 Start with dumb extension tubes and manual focus, then realize that extreme field curvature at macro distances that normal lenses are not designed for make macro shots difficult or outright bad.
This is where you will start looking for a dedicated macro lens like the Tamron 90/2.8 Macro or Sigma 105/2.8 Macro lens.
Anonymous
Just done a little bit of searching and discovered that olympus has the best out-of-camera jpeg colors
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223307 The difference is metal tubes versus plastic tubes. The plastic ones are terrible as I found out. The tabs that lock into the camera mount start to snap off under the weight of the lens. I ended up getting vintage metal tubes off ebay for less than the plastic ones. They don't have auto focus, but that doesn't matter since I reverse the lens anyway. If you can find metal tubes that are in your price range with the features you want, get them. Otherwise, just make some yourself, it isn't difficult at all if you have the metal mounts to epoxy to something.
Anonymous
>>3223170 I'd rather have a super expensive refractor telescope than a mirror of any kind.
Anonymous
Between the lumix tz70 and the coolpix B700 what would you choose for a starting camera?
Anonymous
>>3222961 >>3223151 >the virgin DSLR Those aren't Chad lenses
ac !!hMB1p2jaDAI
Quoted By:
>>3223339 >planning to just take family snapshots in jpeg Just get whatever’s cheapest.
Anonymous
Would you consider using close up macro lens if you had no money for actual gear?
Anonymous
>>3223366 It is a Canon lens which goes on Canon cameras. Your Chad has a Canon camera in that image. I'm not sure what your confusion is.
Anonymous
>>3223342 >refractor >superior L O L
Anonymous
>>3223370 For macro, I have the following, listed in order of time purchased:
Extension tubes with AF (for general macro with any lens)
Reverse ring + aperture adapter (to reverse the lens)
Macro Rail (for focus stacking)
Lens coupling ring (to reverse 1 lens and couple it to the front of a longer lens)
Macro Bellows and Rail (for more extreme macro)
Close-up filter lens kit (for quick close-up and macro)
The only thing I don't have is a dedicated macro lens. Each of those items has it's own functions, pros, and cons. A close-up filter lens kit is really cheapo and I do recommend getting one just to round out your macro tool kit. You can even stack them for getting even closer.
Anonymous
>>3223375 They are, but they are far more expensive due to the wizardry involved to prevent/remove the aberrations. Mirrors are both soft focus need all manner of things added to them via software when you start getting to the giant ones. Refractors at those sizes are extremely cost prohibitive and have similar software needs as the mirrors. The the rest of us, who don't have government grants and property on Mauna Kea, refractors are the way to go for clarity and precision. I have both refractor and mirror. I prefer refractor every time, but mirror is fun because it is smaller and far more portable.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223374 More importantly than a Canon, he has compact camera.
Anonymous
>>3223377 You have no idea what you are talking about
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223377 >triple dubs Awesome digits. What do the hexagons mean?
Anonymous
>>3223351 If all you want is a point and shoot then the Nikon Coolpix B700 is way better than the lumix in most everything. It has a faster shutter speed than the lumix, but the lumix ISO can go to 6400 while the B700 only to 3200, but I'd not consider that a problem really. The B700 has a long battery life too.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223380 >t. buyer's remorse Anonymous
>>3223376 I see, thanks. I'll start with the filters.
Anonymous
>>3223285 You should be more concerned with focal length than aperture for bokeh porn. It sounds to me like you need the 70-200 f2.8. It's slightly more than the 85mm f1.4, but the bokeh, autofocus, and sharpness are excellent and it's entirely in focal lengths you don't have. Out of the 9 nikkor lenses I've had, if I had to get rid of all but one, I would keep the 70-200. Mine is the VRII variety. I haven't used the newest one.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223385 Keep in mind that the aberrations are also going to stack up when using the close-up and macro filter lenses.
Anonymous
>>3223387 Thats a good advice, thanks ill see reviews of the 70-200. Thanks
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223405 Look up the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC USD and VC USD G2 for comparison
Anonymous
Anyone here that have Olympus cameras with IBIS? Mind telling how automatic is it, as in do you also have to input your lens' parameters?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223412 My K-3 has 60mm setting, but it shouldn't be much problem if you use it at 50mm on a Helios 44.
Later on I got the plastic fantastic primes, 35 and 50mm and I don't really need my vintage lenses anymore.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223412 It's all automatic. Any lens with electronic communication with the camera should automatically set IBIS parameters.
>>3223332 AF-D lenses: older optical formulas perform well in the center, but to varying degrees in the corners. Some are terrible, some are good, some take a stop or two down before they are good. Some people prefer the rendering of the older, simpler optical formulas. Coatings are restricted to Nikon's standard multicoat. You won't see the Nano coat's awesome flare suppression here. Autofocus is fast to initial acquisition with D7100+/DX00/DX bodies, but the nature of the screwdrive means they are not as accurate for fine focus adjustments.
AF-S lenses: newer optical formulas give good results across the frame wide open, in most cases. some people bitch about aspherics and cold rendering or other subjective shit. Autofocus is now lens dependent: lenses like the 85/1.4G focus rather slowly (either in absolute speed, or compared to their D-type predecessors), but all of the pro-zooms and telephotos are snap snap fast. The motor is capable of much smaller adjustments in focus, allowing for a little more reliability in capturing thin planes of focus as intended (eyes at portrait distances wide open). Beware of first generation AF-S motor death plaguing the AFS 17-35, 28-70, 80-200, and I believe some of the supertelephotos as well. Repairs are no longer possible.
For those of you gearfagging and wanting the best of everything, it's always got to be the new stuff. For the poorfag chads that would rather save money, put interesting subjects in front of the lens, and not worry about already good image quality, the older stuff can be just fine as well.
Anonymous
Should i get the older Nikkor 50mm 1.8D, or the newer 1.8G version?
Anonymous
>>3223446 The D is nice and cheap, but also requires in camera focus motor, which makes it a little loud when using it. It is also light and small, which is why I chose it over the G. The manual focus adjustment is also very coarse, making it not all that useful. Can't remember what it was, but after having looked up the IQ chart, there was something I liked better about the D compared to the G.
Anonymous
>>3223473 Thanks man. The price is a pretty big point yeah. I think i'll do it.
The size is a huge plus for me, I just need a lens that makes the D810 a more viable carry around camera as opposed to the 24-70 I have on it now.
Anonymous
I saw one of these the other day and it's REALLY small. I kind of like the idea of having a small, lightweight DSLR that still has a modern, high quality sensor, which I could throw in my car for back up or when I may not bring my main DSLR. The price, with kit lens, of $400, seems too good to be true. I remember buying digital point-and-shoot cameras for only slightly less than that. I can probably find a used one for $300 and keep it around as a back up to my main DSLR.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223489 As far as I remember you can turn the rear screen off by pressing the "info" button, and in the menu you can set it to not come on automatically.
Anonymous
>>3223489 I have a D3400. Nearly the exact same thing with same menus. Once I got everything setup, I rarely go into menus and I normally use all manual stuff except whitebalance since lighting changes so much. Once the dial is set to "M" you'll still need to go into the menus to change some other stuff to manual as well. Like ISO for instance. Then you don't need to do that again unless you reset things to default.
As for the screen, there's several timer settings to tel lit to turn off after x mins/secs as well as to turn off most every other things the screen does like photo preview when you take a photo.
You can change ISO, Aperture, and Exp all using 3 buttons + wheel (hold button and rotate wheel), without the menus while the screen is off. You press the Info button to get the screen to pop on for x amount of time if you want. Otherwise, it is off 100% of the time. I'm pretty sure the D3300 is the exact same way, but I could be wrong. I do this for saving loads of battery life and because having a bright as fuck screen near your viewfinder fucking sucks in low light.
Anonymous
>>3223383 Sorry I saw just now that I got the wrong one, I mean the coolpix B500, should I still choose this over the lumix?
Anonymous
>>3223605 No. Don't get either, get a used DSLR Like a D3200 or D5200 with kit lens.
Do yourself a favor and buy a decent camera for starters.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Ok, talk me out of the Lensbaby Velvet 56mm as an all purpose lens for an APSC sensor. Wide open gives you an ultra soft image for dreamy portraits, stopped down is still sharp for general use photography and also works as a macro.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3223642 > talk me out of the Lensbaby Velvet 56mm Manual focus only
56mm is uncomfortably tight on APS-C
Bad in low-light, since you can't really go wider than f/5.6 or so without it turning into a blurry gimmick lens.
For the price, you could get get a lens that would be a much better all-arounder.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3223648 >Manual focus only Not a problem
>56mm is uncomfortably tight on APS-C You might be right, still I want something a little bit longer than a normal for portraits
>Bad in low-light, since you can't really go wider than f/5.6 or so without it turning into a blurry gimmick lens. Yep, I'll give you this one
>For the price, you could get get a lens that would be a much better all-arounder. It's the same price as the 50mm F2 and 60mm F2.4 macro and more or less does the job of both though.
Nah, you're right. I'll sit on this one and come back to it if I can get a it second hand.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3223651 What mount are you on?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223642 You can get a vintage lens that yields similar results for a fraction of the price
http://sjp.id.au/photography/lensbaby-velvet-56-lens/ Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223642 just buy a canon fd or minolta 50mm f1.4
Anonymous
re-posting from another /gear/ thread because I didn't realize it was abandoned
Anonymous
>>3223783 85/1.8G, hands down
The Tamron and Tokina are macro lenses and are corrected for macro distances. Can be used as portrait lens but not with very stellar results. Also macro lenses move the aperture differently so for the same aperture you will get less separation.
Just get the normal portrait lens.
Anonymous
>>3223783 >>3223788 This. 85 f1.8 is fantastic.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223446 Get the AI 50mm f2 instead if you're man enough for manual
Anonymous
So I found this 7d for 175 dollars on normiebook but the mode dial is stuck av mode I really want to upgrade from my shitty rebel but I don't know how easy it would be to repair this anyone ever had this issue
Anonymous
>>3223783 Nikon 85mm 1.8 G is your answer. It's optically pure. That focal length of 85mm is where most lens companies will put their maximum effort, because portraits bring in the most money for them.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Which one? Loxia 50mm for around $600 or Loxia 35mm for around $900?
Anonymous
why is setting my sb600 to be triggered of camera by the popup flash so unintuitive is it like this on all the nikon flashes?
Anonymous
>>3223835 They've significantly improved this with newer cameras/flashes.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223848 Im starting to think i should have just got a 3rd party flash
Anonymous
>>3223835 It's about as bad as it gets, although it didnt take me long to figure it out. Hold left and down, put it into CSM mode (wiggle - 1), make sure group and channel is your preference. Go to flash settings on camera, put flash into CSM commander mode, set channel/group to desired flash setting.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Is the original x-pro still worth buying for 300 Eurobux?
Anonymous
>>3223809 the 7d is just another shitty rabal now you mongloid. save your money.
Anonymous
Someone wants to trade me a used m6 with a Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH for my Mamiya 7ii with a 80mm
Anonymous
>>3223859 Jesus christ, is that a joke post?
Anonymous
>>3223865 Sigma lenses are easy to do.
It is the native Canon ones that are going to be tough.
And even best case scenario, this thing won’t beat the worst of the e-mount adapters.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223882 >It is the native Canon ones that are going to be tough. Like this?
https://www.fujirumors.com/fringer-smart-adapter-canon-ef-70-300l-fujifilm-x-t2-af-c-demo-video/ >And even best case scenario, this thing won’t beat the worst of the e-mount adapters Based on absolutely nothing.
Anonymous
Looking for a mid zoom, is the nikon 28-85mm at $150 a steal? Or should I skip and look for something else?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3223893 I have a D750, just for a good walk around lens
Anonymous
>>3223894 Why not just get a 35mm prime for a walkaround lens? Cheap, sharp and most useful focal length.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223896 There's that too, I am still deciding whether a good walk around lens for me would come in a form of mid zoom or a prime lens
Anonymous
Anyone got a camera bag they recommend, particularly side/messenger style? I'm kinda tempted to splurge and get it leather but canvas is nice too
Anonymous
>>3223899 Peak design Everyday messenger bag or Sling bag
Natgeo Walkabout messenger bag
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223906 The Peak bags look nice, thanks
Anonymous
>>3223486 I agree with
>>3223473 regarding the coarseness of the focus adjustment when manual focusing the D. Plus it has a tendency to have harsh, sharp background blur at times but not always. Low price plus manual aperture control tho.
Anonymous
>>3223618 I'd love to go for something more serious that a PnS, but I don't really know where to search for used body + kit.
If I go though ebay or amazon all I find is the base price -70/80 euro, which is out of my strike zone for a hobby I want to start in which I have abysmal practical knowledge. That's why I was leaning toward PnS, eventually if I get the hang of it I'll start accumulating for something good.
That's why I was asking about those 2 cameras, they are right at the border of my budget and from what I read, they seem to be the best out of many.
Anonymous
>>3223960 Is there a local photography shop that deals with second hand material? You can usually find insane deals thanks to gearfags trading in barely used cameras to sidegrade yearly.
Just think about this: if you actually end up liking photography, sooner or later you'll want an actual camera that does a little bit more than a p&s so, since you're going to spend that kind of money now why not doing it on something good?
Anonymous
>>3223783 I use a Tammy 90 2.8 non Di, Nikon mount. It's noisy and sometimes slow focusing since macro lens. Not dedicated f2.8, varies depending on distance to subject, usually starts at f3. Sometimes it hunts at low light. Still very usable as a portrait lens with creamy bokeh and can be very sharp to the skin pores at f5.6 especially when using strobe/s.
Go for a portrait lens if exclusive for portraiture. Samyang 85 1.4 manual lens has good reviews too.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223963 Nah, there were local shop not that many years ago, but many were replaced by the -BRAND- official store, or by chinese shops.
I only know about one pretty well stocked shop that has a D2300 body for 160 euro, that could be good but then I really don't know which lenses to choose, they have a used section for those too, which one should I aim for?
I'd like to take shots of streest and buildings, I live in a portual city with lots of medioeval buildings. Is there a lens more suited for that kind of photo, or should I go for a general purpouse one for the time being?
Anonymous
>>3223963 Here's what they have under 100 euro
10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 VR
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G VR AF-P
18-55mm f/3.5 5.6 AF-P G VR
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3223960 >If I go though ebay or amazon all I find is the base price -70/80 euro, which is out of my strike zone Look for older models. A DSLR from 2005 will still trounce just about any point & shoot, and it will be able to grow with you as you become more knowledgeable and get more into the hobby. Something like a canon 40D or Nikon D90 would be good and you should be able to get used copies with their respective kit lenses for less than the new cost of either of the point & shoots you’re looking at.
Anonymous
>>3223960 >>3223997 Or, if you look at it the other way, most p&s cameras have sensors barely a little bit bigger than a smartphone but coupled with worse apertures thanks to MUH ULTRAZOOM LENS. So most of the times a decent smartphone (even flagships from some years ago) will take better pictures.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223997 >>3224000 >>3223623 >>3223618 Thank you for your time. You've been of great help!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223881 no thats really what you have to do
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223892 The 28-80/85 arent amazing lenses, they're old kit lenses, which is why they're cheap. Try and swing for a 24-85 G VR, or maybe the """"OK"""" 24-85 F2.8-4D.
>>3223964 And for those who don't know already, losing light as you focus closer is standard behavior with macro lenses.
>>3223957 Adding to this, most D lenses have straight aperture blades, giving you shaped bokeh when stopped down.
>>3223899 If you're canadian, look at Roots73's offering (Roots licensed bags). London Drugs usually carries a selection if your local stores dont.
>>3223969 The 10-30 is for nikon 1 mount. AFP lenses don't work with d3200.
Anonymous
Dang that new 18-135 looks sweet as hell and compact.>After a string of disappointing general-purpose zooms for their cropped-frame bodies, the E 18-135mm thankfully delivers fairly crisp results across the frame and throughout the range.
Anonymous
>>3222961 since this camera (Panasonic GH5s) appears to be a bust, how soon will i be able to get one for cheap? will still be keeping my G85 and E-M10-II around for stills
Anonymous
>>3224116 $20 says he got a 1/100 good copy and sample variation will reign hell on anyone else trying to get one.
Anonymous
Anyone have any experience with the Tamron 10-24 VC? Any good?
Anonymous
>>3223489 I have the D3200. It's pretty no-frills with lots of hand-holding controls, but nothing that gets in the way of MASP modes. Also, don't buy to D3200, since it doesn't support AF-P lenses. If you're willing to spend a little extra money, you can buy a used D7100 for around $600. The D7100 supports AF-P, as well as older AF and AF-D lenses, while having basically the same sensor and better build quality than the 3000 or 5000 series.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224117 >$500 more than GH5 >aimed at "pro" shooters >get one for cheap Never. Wait for the GH5 discounts in a year and get that.
Anonymous
>>3224137 This is from a new generation of Sony zooms. They upgraded their factories and acquired new software that spits out perfect optics on the first design try.
The zooms you see from them today is nothing like in the past.
The 12-24 for example, so ridiculously small Front element is 60% the size of competitors, weight is down, cost is down, price is down, sharpness and optical quality is up, and UP.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224139 i got a d7100 used a year and a half ago with the 18-140 for 700 im sure you could get one cheaper now
Anonymous
I've been seaching for a used camera suggested by the anons above, what's better in you opinion?
Anonymous
>>3224148 yeah you're right.
i'm just kind of pissed that i have to get the 12-24 over the 16-35 f4, but its worth the price to know it'll have a for sure good copy. My zeiss 24-70 is tolerable, glad to have it smaller and lose some IQ at 70mm compared to my old canon 24-70 + mc-11 weight and size
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224116 Sony has come a long way.
Anonymous
I like macro photography, I have a sigma 17-50 f2.8 on a d5300 which I turned into a crude macro lens with some rings. Will I benefit from the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro or will it hardly give any improvement. 400 euro is quite some money so I was wondering what people think
Anonymous
>>3223518 >>3224139 Thanks for the feedback. I got a used D3300 ($200) and a 35mm f/1.8 prime ($150). Hopefully I didn't do too badly, but the plan is, if I like the pictures I get and find myself handicapped by the single dial and lack of buttons/top LCD, then I'll sell the body and upgrade to a D7100, or D7200 if the prices of those come down by the time I'm ready to upgrade. On the other hand, I deliberately chose the D3300 and the 35mm prime because they are a really lightweight combination, although I'm not sure if it will end up being light enough to matter. In any case, this is just to try out.
Not too sure about zooms yet. Usually a plastic mount means "stay away," but the new 18-55 gets such positive reviews. Maybe I'll get one of those at a later date, or maybe I'll get a super zoom, just to have a sort of "do it all" to keep in my car without investing too much into the system up front. How is the 18-200mm VR (non II)?
Anonymous
>>3224152 Pentax K100D
Solely because of the IBIS and top deck lcd display
Anonymous
>>3224191 >Pentax K100D Hey what do you know, they have it at 190 euro.
gg man
Anonymous
>>3224194 Just beware it's a brand that will go nowhere. You will never have anywhere near the same lens options as the other two.
Anonymous
>>3224195 But wait is the pentax really worth against the D3100 with double the Mp?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3224180 That's pretty good. Most people are picking up the 35 G DX as a second lens anyways. The 18-200 is typical superzoom, sharp enough but not all that sharp really. You might like it because it's a superzoom. I say keep your eye out for a Nikon 16-85 VR at a good price, $300-350 USD. Careful with the Sigma 17-50, it has been known to have occasional AF problems on Nikons.
My personal upgrade path so far has been starting with a D3100 + 18-55 VR, eventually adding a 70-300 VR, 35 G DX, and 16-85 VR, before finally finding a D7100 at a good price.
>>3224152 I've shot for a couple years on that D3100, and it's an alright camera with all the typical compromises of a Nikon entry level camera. With enough fuckery in the menus, you can at least get it to behave sensibly (screen off, back button focus, single point AF-C). I upgraded mostly for the higher tier controls, shutter release priority (D3X00 only do focus release), and FPS. The central AF point does a fine job, the sensor's good to ISO 1600.
I've also used a 40D for a weekend before. Solid camera, solid AF, but shows its age trying to compare to a D3100. By the time the D3100 came around, CMOS censors were really hitting their stride. If working with 6? MP doesn't bother you, go for it.
>>3224178 Will you benefit from a lens designed for flat field of focus, focusing at macro distances, the ability to focus from near to far, and generally speaking, a macro lens? Most likely.
Anonymous
>>3224191 >>3224194 The K-5 and K-5 II aren't much more than that and you get 10 more megapixels of resolution and a more modern high ISO performance. In the US, you can get a used K-5 for $250 and a K-5 II for like $325.
>>3224195 No, but Canon only has a handful of pancake lenses (two for APS-C and just one for full frame) and Nikon doesn't have any. Compact lenses are also rare with those brands. Pentax has a ton of compact primes and is making some zooms for APS-C that are also more compact, on average, than Canikon.
Anonymous
>>3224209 Got it, I'll go for the D3100, the guy also told me he'll give me the bag and two battery, guess I got lured in.
>>3224212 Yeah I searced for the K5/K5II but there's no one selling it near me, don't really want to buy used on line since I'd like to check the camera myself.
Everyone on this board so much helpful, thank you guys.
Anonymous
>>3224216 SRS Microsystems in the UK sells used gear that they check themselves previously and will usually give 1 year warranty. I saw a couple of K-5II there last time.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224217 >SRS Microsystems Cool they have free shipping towards Italy, I'll check it out, thanks.
Anonymous
>>3224216 >don't really want to buy used on line since I'd like to check the camera myself. A pretty reliable way to buy cameras online is to check the shutter count. Consumer level cameras might be expected to get 100k actuations, and pro level cameras 150-200k, depending on model. I would typically buy a new camera body if the shutter count is 20k or lower. Usually, anything under 2000 will look like new.
Anonymous
>>3224220 I found a K20D with 17k actuations at 170 euro, the price is reeeeaaally drawing me, and the reviews seems to be pretty good for something of this price. Guess I found what I was searching for.
Anonymous
>>3224230 I would really stretch that budget out for a K-5II, but you know what's best for you.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224237 I'll continue searching for a couple weeks/months more for a used K-5II since as I am now I'm nailed at home due to "family stuff" so I wouldn't really have the time to go out and get the hang of it, thank you.
Anonymous
>>3224237 Because as for now all I was able to find when it comes to K-5II, are a couple of bodie at more than 300 pounds and a one with kit lens at 1300 euro
Anonymous
>>3224155 Even at its best, the Zeiss 24-70 isn’t all that great.
Honestly worth getting the 24-105 instead. Better in every way except size.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224252 The 1300 euro one must be a new one and someone is desperate to sell the stock for profit after 3 years. Stay away from that seller.
Just checked SRS and they have one K-5II and one K-5IIs, the two are a bit different, the K-5IIs has no AA filter and produced in smaller numbers so its price is much higher than the comparable K-5II.
A kit lens you can find online everywhere, I would suggest looking for the newer collapsible 18-50 WR, DAL. The last bit is important, DAL is the bundled kit lens (DA is sold separately) and are usually for sale at lower price point.
If you can work up some cash in the mean time, look for a used tripod, Manfrotto 190something or comparable with a ball head. Will make nature and close-up shots much easier.
Anonymous
Anyone use a battery grip on their crop sensor body? I've been tempted by a secondhand mb-11 for a d7000. It's going quite cheap because it has a couple of scuff marks. I tend to shoot a lot in portrait orientation, I just find things that catch my eye suit it more.
Anonymous
Anyone use a battery grip on their crop sensor body? I've been tempted by a secondhand mb-11 for a d7000. It's going quite cheap because it has a couple of scuff marks. I tend to shoot a lot in portrait orientation, I just find things that catch my eye suit it more.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3224264 Portrait grips (other than the extra battery life) and mainly for people that shoot portrait very often, such as football and other sport shooters or portrait shooters that go hand held.
If you're one of those people that is constantly switching orientation then it's quicker and easier to just keep your hand on the primary grip, in fact a battery grip may end up getting in the way a bit.
Also bear in mind that whilst the extra weight may improve balance with larger lenses (or it might not, it all depends on where the manufacturer places the control rings and what weight body they intended it to be used with) that extra weight is also going to tire you out more lugging it around.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224117 >(Panasonic GH5s) appears to be a bust says who? just because Kai says it's not worth the upgrade lmao
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3224270 I used to use a battery grip on one of my old crop bodies and yeah, it makes shooting with a sideways camera a significantly more pleasant experience.
And it's removable, so you can just pop it off on days when you want to be discrete.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3223879 Compare the prices on a reputable used camera site.
If the Leica is worth more, make the trade. Worst case scenario, you don't like it, you resell it, you buy a new Mamiya 7II with 80mm and have cash left over.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3223882 If you look a bit closer at the article, you'll see that there's a link to a previous article that shows the same adapter with a native Canon lens.
https://www.fujirumors.com/fringer-smart-adapter-canon-ef-70-300l-fujifilm-x-t2-af-c-demo-video/ Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Anonymous
>>3224253 Yeah I'm positive its better but its really out of my way for a focal length i mostly cover already for minimal improvements.
I got my 24-70 for $720 used
If anything I might sell my 28 f2, 85 f1.8 and 24-70 f4 and get the 2.8 24-70 for ultra compactness since I'd eliminate 2 extra lenses.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224282 Sorry, had a brain fart and deleted then reuploaded my post.
>lugging it around I don't mind the weight (I'm a big guy, kek).
>>3224288 Yeah... it's not like it's welded on forever. As accessories go I suppose they're pretty cool. For the monies if I don't get along with it I could just sell it on (I never do that though, I'm a hoarder when it comes to optical related items kek).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223788 >>3223795 >>3223811 >>3223964 Thanks for the opinions. Will go for the 85 then.
Anonymous
What's a good (digital) camera with a prime lens that I could get for <50$? Just looking for a decent snapshitter that I can beat the shit out of
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224308 >ultra compactness have you used that one yet? I've rented it for paid work but would never dream of buying such a monstrosity
Anonymous
why is buying a tripod so complex?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224457 Buy a used legs, manfrotto 190 and 055 are affordable and nice and sturdy. Add a flexpan. Later on get a nice ball head, again used.
Anonymous
>>3224454 Other than that :/
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3224463 it doesn't have to be good by todays standards
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3224457 >why is buying a tripod so complex? God's punishing you for touching yourself so much, and for the shameful thoughts you have when you do it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224466 None!
You have to spend a lot more than that!
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3224448 >What's a good (digital) camera with a prime lens that I could get for <50$? Just looking for a decent snapshitter that I can beat the shit out of For under fifty bucks, you're pretty much in "Get super lucky by having a friend who's getting rid of their old one" territory. The cheapest DSLR on
keh.com right now is a sticky D50 and that's still six bucks over budget without a lens.
Anonymous
>>3224472 Nono I guess I wasn't super clear
I have a d3200 but I want something shitty and small and possibly quirky? idrk
I got the idea from this disposable digital camera I found and tried to fix(couldn't, it's broke good)
Anonymous
Anonymous
Looking at getting a tilt shift lens for my canon, but I'm on a budget where I'd hope to spend no more than £700 (~$1000).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224466 Imagine if you were asking for a car in that price range. You'd know that it's practically impossible right? It's practically the same for lenses.
Maybe look at renting a camera with some kind of insurance in case it gets battered/wet.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3224473 >I have a d3200 but I want something shitty and small and possibly quirky? idrk Oh, so just like a point & shoot? I dunno, go pick one at random, they're all shitty.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224476 I haven't actually done any research into this but it's something you could look into, try and find a tilt/shift adapter for a medium format lens. I don't know how wide you'd be able to get, I imagine 24mm is like ultrawide on medium format so it's perhaps not a good option for you.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3224476 I've got the Samyang. I don't do a lot of serious tilt/shift work (mostly just fuck around with the fake miniature effect), but I think it's perfectly fine even at its wider apertures. But even if it's not great below f/8, if you're doing *serious* tilt/shift stuff, you're going to be on a tripod and shooting at narrow apertures anyway.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3224500 Just scan the negatives. It isn’t hard.
It will beat the fuck out of any $50 dslr you find too.
cruz
is fuji xm-1 a good choice for small but decent camera?
Anonymous
>>3224503 I have an olympus XA if I want a small film camera along with Pen EE and film ricoh
Lmao
Anonymous
>>3224505 Well then you should know better then to ask for a $50 DSLR.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223875 But what about muh full frams
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3224503 >[The Minolta X-370] will beat the fuck out of any $50 dslr you find too. It will also probably cost more than $50 with a prime lens, even before you factor in film costs..
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224516 Picked mine up a few months ago off e-bay for $30 with 50mm f/1.7 prime.
Anonymous
>>3224507 I didn't, I wasn't very clear though. I didn't mean DSLR.
Anonymous
Is the convoluted Nikon lens compatibility meme just a meme, or has it ever affected you personally?
Anonymous
Just starting out with photography and need to get a good beginner DLSR that i can learn on hopefully. I'm looking to spend around $0 to $400 on the camera used, should i stick with looking into the Canon rebel t6 or t5? I do still plan on doing more research but i'd love if someone could send me in a direction for solid beginner shit. I do need to look more in depth to the lenses i want, but i do have an idea of what i want.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224518 You are unlikely to find anything worth buying for $50.
I have seen some first gen m43 and Sony’s (i.e.-NEX-3) for that low, but it is quite rare.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224527 If you're not using a lens that's old as absolute fuck, and you're not using a camera that's 10 or more years old, the issues are largely irrelevant. This encompasses about 99.9% of Nikon DSLR owners and the lenses they own or would even consider purchasing. Even if you are using a camera that's more than 10 years old and you run into an E diaphragm incompatibility, you're stuck wide open, which is how most people shoot it anyway.
AF-P lenses are shit and only normie soccer moms would get them in a kit with the 3000 or 5000 series new model camera and it'll work fine for them. They're irrelevant to anyone that puts forth any more effort into photography than said normie soccer mom.
Anyone that has any actual hobby-level interest in photography where they learn a little about what they're doing isn't going to run into any traps due to this compatibility situation.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Insert in a military surplus bag vs dedicated photo bag go
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3224527 >Is the convoluted Nikon lens compatibility meme just a meme, or has it ever affected you personally? It has affected me personally. I got a D70 several years back to fuck around with, and a neighbor gave me a box of old Nikon manual focus gear and I couldn't use the manual focus lenses on the D70 in anything but full-manual exposure mode. Also, I have a D3200 now and can't autofocus with my 50/1.8D on it. Neither are a big deal (especially since I also have a D7000 now that can deal with both of those), but they are things I've actually experienced.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3224531 Yeah, a Rebel is fine for a beginner.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222989 Those are two phenomenally different cameras. Be honest with yourself. Do you really know what you want in a camera or do you just want a nice piece of jewelry?
Tbh tho my M9 was much more fun to use than the A7RII my company owned ever was.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223191 Ah yes, with the Fotodiox AF adapter that occasionally works and may also brick your camera.
Seriously though. Who the fuck buys Leica glass to autofocus with? You're missing the point entirely.
Anonymous
would the 17-40mm f/4L be good if I wanted to take some landscape shots on a crop sensor camera?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3224651 The 17-40 is overkill on crop. It’s designed with the constraints of being an inexpensive ultrawide on full frame, so on crop it’s just an average wide. If you have an 18-55 IS kit lens, it’ll give you about the same quality, about the same field of view, plus bonus stabilization.
If you really want a wide, maybe look at actual EF-S ultrawides like the 10-22.
Anonymous
>>3224527 >G, No Aperture Ring I'm sick to shit of these modern lenses and their lack of good manual controls. I have the two kit lens for the D3400. They are just handicapped. I've grown to hate AF. I've been scouring for cheap vintage lenses ever since.
Anonymous
>>3224667 Can I put lenses that fit on my d3200 on a nikon 1 mirrorless
Anonymous
>>3224651 >>3224663 There's also the Canon 10-18mm for about half the price of the 10-22mm and it has IS. Dunno if it's actually any good but worth looking in to.
Anonymous
halp /p/, I edited pic related on my old laptop but after posting it and seeing it on my iphone and its all too yellow. Same thing with a bunch of prints from a trip to the desert in Utah, yellows/oranges are all way overboard. I never bought my laptop with photography in mind...is there anything to do besides upgrade? Some quick googling suggests that I can't just replace my monitor with a higher res one because of gfx card reasons, is this true?
Anonymous
>>3224667 It's one of the reasons why I appreciate the Sony GM primes.
They all have aperture rings, and the aperture ring is both smooth configurable and clicky configurable with a simple lever.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224669 If you have an adapter, yes. The FFD is different between the two, but the Nikon F mount FFD is much larger than the Nikon 1 mount. Meaning you can certainly use an adapter.
Nikon makes an adapter:
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/lens-adapters/ft-1-mount-adapter.html But, there's way cheaper versions made by Fotodiox:
https://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Lens-Mount-Adapter-Mirrorless/dp/B006NPYUDO >>3224674 That's really nice.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224667 >** G is not a feature. G is a handicap. G lenses are lenses which have been crippled by removing their aperture rings to save cost. This is a classic example of taking away features while making customers think they are getting something new. G eliminates many features with older cameras. Since G lens is a crippled version of something else, you must look in the other columns that apply to your lens, probably traditional AF or AF-s. The features that will work are only those present in all relevant columns. Heh, didn't even see that in
>>3224527 until I went to the actual page,
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm Anonymous
Quoted By:
Is the Leica branding on this lens literally just branding or is it actually a decent lens
Anonymous
>>3224651 The EFS 10-18 is your go to ultrawide for Canon APSC.
>>3224671 Buy a monitor and/or calibrator.
>>3224667 >They are just handicapped. I've grown to hate AF. I've been scouring for cheap vintage lenses ever since. They're not handicapped, you are. The AF on that camera was perfectly fine and you just need to know how to control it into doing what you want it to do. No amount of manual controls is going to teach you how to make the best of your camera. If you think AF on that camera is a pain, then I can't wait to see your experience with manual focus lenses on that tiny pentamirror viewfinder.
Anonymous
>>3224671 Learn how to edit images in just about any image editor. Download a thing to calibrate your monitor. Learn how to correctly set white balance on your camera.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3224685 >The AF on that camera was perfectly fine Except when the lens spazzes out half the time and won't focus or is just too slow to focus. I've switched to full manual long ago.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224663 >>3224670 >>3224685 The 10-18 sounds good plus it's cheap as heck, thanks friends
Anonymous
>>3224690 Then force it to single point focus, use only the center point, and don't point it at low contrast objects and expect a focus lock, especially in fading light. Look for edges to focus on. It's little different from using a split prism aid on a manual focus camera. The viewfinder isn't good enough to truly distinguish focus manually, and the rangefinder dot uses the autofocus sensor anyways.
Anonymous
Is their a 18mm or around that focul length(with autofocus) for nikon apsc? The 20 1.8g is out of my budget and 20 1.8d won't autofocus
Anonymous
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Anonymous
>>3224727 I do fine with manual focus on it. I already tried all that with the AF and it just doesn't help. It will sit there and cycle the AF for a long time then turn red. I don't have time for that when I'm photographing wildlife.
Anonymous
>>3224504 No, get something used for that much how much is your budget
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224735 I want a prime i already own the 18 to 140 and I need to use very slow shutter speeds to get decent shots in low light which i dont appriciate
cruz
Quoted By:
>>3224740 250 usd or so
I'm looking for something cheap and that will give me nice colors for shooting family etc
from what I recall fuji sensors were praised for this
Anonymous
Hey Guys, I´m a media-design studdent i´m looking for a decent monitor for for Photo and Video editing and graphic design. What are the best options inbetween 300-500 eurobucks?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224772 size is not relly important
4k would be nice but not really necessarry
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224772 Use some of that to get a decent calibration tool. I like the Dell Premier Color line
Anonymous
lmao gays here's the matter
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224791 There are a lot more choices.
A7 if you want to go really cheap, like 700 Euro kind of cheap. Lose out on IBIS though.
On the other side of the spectrum is the A7Rii, I hear they go for 1900 USD now. It's the one with the super sensor which is huge upgrade from the A7 / A7ii.
Anonymous
>>3224138 I got that lens for Christmas, love it so far
Anonymous
>>3224809 Is there a type of ND filter which filters the middle portion of that image and allows longer exposure for the bottom and top of the image?
Anonymous
>>3224811 no i didn't use any ND filter
the moon was full and was reflecting off the snow making the foreground brighter
Anonymous
>>3224812 I was more asking if such a thing existed.
Anonymous
Anonymous
So i just got my first DSLR, its a NIkon D40 that I'm gonna be using for work as a nightclub photographer. Apparently its a pretty good little entry-level camera. I think i did pretty well to get all this for £130
Anonymous
>>3224688 Thank you anon, the hero.
But now a second question: I live in a van and travel a ton. So space is a pretty big constraint for me, as well as cash. I can’t afford a laptop with higher resolution to actually even see the photos I’m taking in their true quality, but would it be a bad idea to get an iPad and run Lightroom on it? Although I’m not sure how I’d get raws from the body to a tablet without going through LR’s cloud...
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224839 Upload to a website you can download from. I don't know its capabilities, but can it download from
mediafire.com or similar site? If so, just upload to those.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3224839 >would it be a bad idea to get an iPad and run Lightroom on it? Possibly. The main issue that comes to mind is storage—the iPad won’t have much in the way of long term storage for your pictures. Like, less than a memory card. I don’t know how you’re storing your photos now so this might not be an issue for you (eg, if you’ve just accepted a life where you buy cards like people used to buy film, or if you have an external hard drive with attached card reader)
>I’m not sure how I’d get raws from the body to a tablet without going through LR’s cloud... Apple offers a camera connection kit for iPad that’ll let you do that, I believe.
I feel like if you can afford an iPad, you can probably afford a PC laptop though. Might not be as high quality as the iPad, but possibly more suited to image editing tasks.
Anonymous
>>3224651 >17-40mm f/4L on a crop You'll get good image quality with true color rendition and sharpness corner to corner using that lens as a standard zoom. It's also relatively affordable. You can get a used one in great condition on ebay for $325 on the regular (I know because I just sold mine).
The main problem is how large the lens is - it's enormous. The size may be necessary to build such a well-corrected rectilinear wide angle lens that covers a full frame sensor, but if you were to build a crop sensor only EF-S 17-40mm f/4 lens, then it need not be any larger than pic related. With the 17-40/4L, the lens is large enough to cast a shadow when using your pop-up flash at certain focal lengths. The hood makes this issue even worse, but in general, the size of the lens will necessitate bigger camera bags, and cause more strain on your neck carrying it around.
Anonymous
>>3224667 >>G, No Aperture Ring > >I'm sick to shit of these modern lenses and their lack of good manual controls. I have the two kit lens for the D3400. They are just handicapped. I've grown to hate AF. I've been scouring for cheap vintage lenses ever since. I don't understand this perspective.
>I want an aperture ring Why? Don't you understand what aperture priority mode is? You can control the aperture the exact same way with the dial on the back of your camera.
>I hate AF Why? Do you hate having photos be in focus? Don't you understand that you can turn it off with any lens when you want to manual focus?
>I have two kit lenses No one told you to keep buying kit lenses. You clearly would enjoy owning a more premium piece of glass.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3224886 >The main problem is how large the lens is - it's enormous. ... no it’s not. I mean, it’s bigger than an EF-S 18-55, but it’s about average for a full frame zoom lens. Much smaller than my 24-70, obviously much smaller than my 70-200, about on par with my 28-135. Are you maybe confusing it with the 16-35 f/2.8L?
Anonymous
>>3224894 >>3224886 I have one of those 500mm mirror lenses. It is like 5 inches in diameter and is massive compared to everything else. It has really skewed my perception of what a "big" lens is.
Anonymous
>>3224858 Sure thing, kid.
>>3224891 >Don't you understand that you can turn it off with any lens when you want to manual focus? >Don't you understand what aperture priority mode is? You can control the aperture the exact same way with the dial on the back of your camera. Obviously.
>I don't understand That's fully because you are autistic.
>No one told you to keep buying kit lenses. Kit lenses....wait for it.....come with the kit.
>You clearly would enjoy owning a more premium piece of glass. Try reading the post you are replying to you monumental fucktard, kid.
>>3224829 SLR > DSLR for entry level, kid. You learn a shitload more with film than with digital, without the larger cost.
Anonymous
>>3224688 >this absurd wrecking of the color and temperature Way to go, kid.
See, this is why you never take advice from anyone on /p/. They don't know fucking shit about anything.
Anonymous
>>3224894 >but it’s about average for a full frame zoom lens. That's my point. A lot of people use this lens as a standard zoom on their T5 or 70D. EF-S zooms don't need to be as big as comparable full frame zooms. Compare this to either of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm zooms, if you want to compare apples to apples. I posted a Pentax lens that is quite literally apples to apples and the Pentax is way smaller.
My point is that the image quality results are good from the 17-40/4L on a crop sensor, but the size of the lens is bigger than it needs to be, FOR A STANDARD ZOOM FOR APS-C. Especially with a hood - it has a 77mm front element, so the hood makes it even bigger at the front - this lens absolutely does cast a shadow when you use the pop-up flash.
>Much smaller than my 24-70 That's because you're comparing a f/4 zoom against a f/2.8 zoom. It's not smaller than the new EF 24-70 f/4L, though, but that's a totally different point than the one I'm making.
>>3224898 If it impairs normal camera functionality, like casting a shadow when using the pop-up flash, then it's too big. Not everything is subjective. This is an objective measure.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224905 The dude said the image was "too yellow." All the other dude really did show that it's possible to tweak the white balance so it was a little bit less yellow without buying a whole new computer. Calm your tits.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3224891 >You can control the aperture the exact same way with the dial on the back of your camera. There’s something to be said for
1. Having the dial at your fingertips while holding the lens with your left hand, so you can change the aperture without taking your finger off of the shutter button.
2. Physical detentes that you can feel so you can adjust the aperture by feel.
Personally, as a Canon guy, I’m fine giving both of those up since the result is custom modes that can store my aperture (I use this a lot when shooting flash—I’ll have aperture priority mode set up for no flash and auto ISO for behind-the-scenes shots; then C1 will be manual exposure with fixed aperture, iso, and shutter to match the flash exposure; and C2 will be wider aperture/lower ISO for shallow depth of field shots with flash) and easier switching between modes (don’t need to rotate the aperture to A or whatever in addition to changing the mode dial setting).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224904 I'm just curious. Do you think someone will reply to you saying "Quality post. You are a true asset to our community"?
Anonymous
So I have an old T3i and want to upgrade now that I'm peaking with it. How do I know which upgrade will make the most sense for me?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224894 >>3224906 >if you want to compare apples to apples. Sorry, this isn't the right phrase, but you know what I mean. The lenses are apples to oranges, but how he wants to use it is apples to apples.
Anonymous
>>3224915 what lenses you got if you have a bunch of canon ones it doesnt make sense to switch
Anonymous
>>3224919 I was a broke teenager when I first bought it so I never invested much into lenses. It sat in a box for several years until I got back into it.
Now that I have the disposable income I'd like to buy a decent one with a couple nice lenses. I'm not sure if I should go mirrorless or not though.
Anonymous
>>3224923 what makes you think you need an upgrade?
Anonymous
>>3224906 >If it impairs normal camera functionality, like casting a shadow when using the pop-up flash, then it's too big. Not everything is subjective. This is an objective measure. It is a 500mm lens. You don't use the popup flash with a 500mm lens. It would be worthless. I think the shortest distance that lens can focus is like 15-20 feet, but at that distance you might get half of someone's face at best.
Anonymous
>>3224924 I definitely don't need one, but I'd like to get one within the next 12 months. Honestly it's just starting to feel more like a toy the more I use it, I'd like to get something better once I know I'm capable of using a better one.
Anonymous
>>3224932 I'm not referring to that 500mm lens.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224891 I need both a aperture ring and focus ring because it is faster than fiddling with extra buttons or waiting for AF to get around to work or even moving the single point to an edge of the frame. I can just do it by hand in less than half the time the camera decides to get it done. The only difference is when I have to go from something at infinity to something close up, then AF can be faster. With the D3400 kit lenses you can't move the focus rings too fast of they simply don't work at all. With full manual lenses I don't have that problem at all so focusing is much faster.
Anonymous
>>3224935 But, that's the post you replied to?
Anonymous
>>3224904 a-are you sure? my work told me they needed digital for the distribution of the pictures
whats there to learn, if i might ask, im pretty new to this whole thing and i really have an interest for it, at least in the club i find that i enjoy photography and i feel i like i wanna get into this more
Anonymous
>>3224933 have you thought about getting a better lens?
Anonymous
>>3224737 Not to shit in your wheaties anon, but to experienced people that have been using autofocus for a long time and know all the ins and outs of their cameras settings and such, it kinda sounds like you just really don't know what you're doing. You should read the camera manual and maybe look up some autofocus tricks on youtube or something.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224209 Okay 400 euro for that lens is probably a steal, the 17-50 is lovely I guess this one is good too
Anonymous
>>3224829 Uncle Ken would be proud
Anonymous
>>3224944 I have a few picked out from Sony and Canon, I'm just debating on staying Canon or going with Sony.
What's your advice on sticking with the T3i?
Anonymous
>>3224948 id get a better lens first and then upgrade the body
Anonymous
>>3224947 uhh.... thanks??
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3224915 >I'm not sure if I should stay cropped and go with something like an 80D, get an older 5D, go mirrorless I’d say save up a bit more, get a 5D Mark II (or, even better, Mark iii). Having used the original 5D extensively, there are a lot of little quirks that come with a camera that old that are annoying. Like, it’s still perfectly usable, just... old. I upgraded to one after my old 40D and the 40D always felt a heck of a lot more modern, and the 40D is now *ancient*.
So between a 5D Classic and an 80D, I say 80D. If you can swing a newer 5D model though (especially the mark III or IV), get that, because they’re fucking amazing.
Anonymous
>>3224951 You'd have to be a long time reader of ken rockwell's site to know how much he's circlejerked over the D40 in years past. It'll be just fine for what you need. Don't listen to the film troll either that calls everyone kid.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3224940 >a-are you sure? General rule: if someone is calling everyone “kid”, their advice isn’t likely to be particularly worthwhile.
Especially when you’re just learning—ie, when you have to shoot a shitload of pictures because you don’t know what’s going to be good and what isn’t—digital is much cheaper, and the instant feedback lets you learn a lot more quickly.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224949 >>3224952 Thanks for the advice, I'll wait a bit longer
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224953 thank you! i dont think i spent too much money on this. as an entry level camera i feel like itll serve me well
>>3224955 thank you for your advice, i need to get to know the memes around this board
Anonymous
>>3224937 And you replied to my post where I was talking about a standard zoom, bringing up the 500mm lens unsolicited.
Anonymous
>>3224962 It was about lens size, please try to keep up, kid.
Anonymous
>>3224955 Listen up, kid, because I'm only going to say this once. Film makes you stop and think about everything. You don't spray and pray like some digital dong's first night at a cat house.
Anonymous
>>3224945 >autofocus tricks >youtube Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224964 >I called him "kid," I win the argument You're retarded, but I don't even give a fuck because you literally have no point.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3224966 >Listen up, kid, because I'm only going to say this once Sweet, please stick to that resolution.
>Film makes you stop and think about everything. You don't spray and pray like some digital dong's first night at a cat house. There is a school of thought that this is true. There is a competing school of thought that says that the more you practice a skill, the better you get at that skill. Yes, you might take thirteen pictures of one thing instead of just one when shooting digital instead of film, but maybe you’ll find you kinda like two out of that thirteen. Maybe you don’t like any of them, but you can look at them immediately and figure out why you don’t like them. Maybe you go out the next day and take one shot of that subject with what you learned from the previous day and it succeeds where the rest failed.
Stop fetishizing taking fewer pictures. It doesn’t make you a better photographer, it just makes you stay longer in the period where you take the occasional mediocre picture and don’t realize that the pictures are mediocre.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224967 Well for the guy that obviously has no idea what he's doing, he's gotta start at the bottom, correct?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224976 Sure thing, kid.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224730 Third party lenses might have one. Or just go the meme Sony apsc route plus Sigma 16 1.4 or 19 2.8.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
I can't decide which one of these to get. The 10mm has a 109º FOV and very little distortion, and the 8mm has a 180º FOV and is all fisheyey. The ƒ2.8 is super appealing though.
Anonymous
>>3225141 I'm not a big fan of fisheye stuff. One thing I've been looking at a lot for ultra-wides is minimum focus distance. Close focus on something super wide can be useful. Without checking the focus distance, I'd pick the 10, but that's me.
Anonymous
>>3225141 >What would /p/ do? Get one of those ultra wide/fisheye screw on lenses that goes on your existing lens' filter threads for $25 on amazon.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
NEW THREAD:
>>3225146 NEW THREAD:
>>3225146 NEW THREAD:
>>3225146 Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225143 >minimum focus distance -the 10mm is 24 cm
-the 8mm is 30 cm
I think you're right though, the 10mm is more useful overall. Plus dat ƒ2.4. The 10mm also doesn't have any fisheye distortion and looks quite clean. I'll probably start with the 10 but get both eventually though.
Pic is a photo taken with the 10mm
Anonymous
>>3225141 I'd go for the 10mm, fisheye is fun (or so I assume, never used one) but that's about it, most photos it will detract from them unless you correct the distortion. Very rarely will you actually need that much field of view, unless you shoot a lot of skating/BMXing.
That said for the price of the 10mm you could get an ultra wide zoom, it won't be as fast but will have AF and maybe IS and sometimes ultra wide is too wide so it's nice to be able to zoom in.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225145 anon I have $30 Bower ultrawide and a fisheye conversions already. They're fun but they vignette, plus the quality isn't so hot. Plus they're restictive in that you need to shoot with very high f-stops to get clarity and that fucks your shutter speeds and ISO
Anonymous
>>3225153 Dude you're right. Look what I just found. I love the ƒ2.4 but yeah, being able to zoom a bit makes a big difference just for composition. Plus I hate swapping lenses innafield. Thanks for that!
Anonymous
>>3225164 I was thinking more of a 10-18/20/22/24mm ulrawide zoom and not a fisheye, however if the distortion on that thing lessens at the narrow end it could end up giving you both options.
Anonymous
>>3225172 Iit looks like when you get to 17mm it's not very distorted. Plus it has a minimum focus distance of only 2.5cm!I didn't find anything that goes 10-24 but I'll have more of a look
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225051 Go hold them and twist the knobs a bit. You will know immediately which you prefer.
Anonymous
>>3225174 I'm a Canon shooter so I don't know what options Pentax has, but I'd assume Sigma make their various 10-20s in K mount. Also Tokina do a bunch of UW zooms (11-16/20 10-16/17/20, 12-24/28).
Anonymous
>>3225186 Cool mang, thanks for the help! I'd rather buy one lens with a little compromise than buy two lenses. I'll see what sigma/etc have to offer
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225186 The Tokina 10-17 is the Pentax design fisheye zoom posted above for Canon and Nikon mounts.
I have that lens, it is nice and allows correction for semi-corrections in PS for landscape/nature shots.
Anonymous
I have a nikon d3200 but I want something smaller and more fun to shoot with. Is the fuji x100t a good choice? I really like the rangefinder and retro design because I mostly shoot my olympus xa and canon ae1 right now.
Anonymous
>>3225188 >Sigma lenses Actual garbage
Don't waste your money
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225483 And what are you basing that off exactly?
Anonymous
>>3225482 Yes, but its not really small and pocketable as the Oly XA/2 tho.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222961 my boss is letting me borrow his canon 5d mk3 this weekend. He's also willing to sell it to me for a good price ( about 1k euro for the body ). I was previously considering nikon d7200 + a lens for that price but now I'm starting to wonder..
The canon is at around 50k shots. It also doesn't look bad visually.
I should mention I'm a beginner and I'm really just trying to get into photography. ( I've done more than 3 months of research on gear however, because I want to make the best choice possible.)
So yeah, tldr: canon 5d mk3 body vs nikon d7200 + lens (either 18-140 kit or sigma 17-50 f/2.8 or nikkor 35 1.4 g).
And if the canon, what lens is a good cheap option? (Most of my research was based on crop bodies, so not much info on canon full frames).
Anonymous
>>3226797 Hmmm alright. Would it really be worth the extra money to get the x100f instead of the t? I'm only really worried about stepping down from the 24 on my nikon to the like 16 or w.e
Anonymous
>>3226994 >>3226797 Would I be better off getting an xpro1? I found a body for pretty cheap.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3227000 I've read that the XPro1 has slow AF. Ask the new gear thread I suppose.
Anonymous
>>3227000 Pro1 viewfinder is absolute dildos.
And it is slow.
Get an X-T2 if you wanna go Fuji.
Anonymous
>>3227367 >X-T2 No rangefinder!!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3227786 The Pro1 isn’t a real rangefinder either.
Anonymous
>Great opportunity to shoot coming to my city >grab suitcase full of gear >Camp along parade route
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3227885 Shooting something fun like a parade?
An old film camera and a prime. Shoot a roll or two at most.
