PDA

View Full Version : Camera gear


xsvly-fat
09-28-2010, 11:43 AM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4154/5034080500_b6d6663bc5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/45585670@N02/5034080500/)
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/5034073830_860d44be39.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/45585670@N02/5034073830/)

Canon 70-200 f/4 non IS. I've only taken a few pictures but so far I love it :)

bigred76
09-29-2010, 03:44 AM
Nice lens. I love my Sigma 2.8, but the Canon F/4L is definitely a bit sharper.

xsvly-fat
09-29-2010, 08:12 AM
I almost got the Sigma 2.8 but I wanted a lens I could do portraits with and I didn't think I was going to be taking a lot of night pictures so I just got this.

Hob Hayward
09-29-2010, 12:50 PM
Damn sonny, jealous here... I've pretty much just got crap for lensage.. 18-55 EFS non IS, 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, pentax SMC takumar 50 f/1.4, pentax smc takumar 135 f/3.5...

Pentax lenses are ancient and manual focus, but they do better than anything I can afford. Nabbed the 24-85 this summer for $100 but I'm not really happy sharpness and contrast. It does have fancy ring focus with FTM though..

xsvly-fat
09-29-2010, 01:17 PM
How's the pentax 50 F/1.4? I only have this and the stock lens so don't feel to bad ha. I'm thinking about getting a 50 F/1.4, 100 F/2.8 macro or a fish eye next but I'd have to sell my Ripper if I were to get one and I really don't know If I can bring myself to doing that haha.

bigred76
10-01-2010, 02:47 AM
I chuckled real good at the Takumars.... :P You also mean USM, Ultrasonic Motor, right? Little gold band? Yeah...

The Sigma isn't too shabby at portraiture, it's all in how you use it. Mine needs the front element recoated rather badly, so it's sharpness issues likely stem from that. I was lucky enough to get a good focusing copy, and if it does get out of whack on me, well... 45pt AF is a God-send. The primary reasons I went with the Sigma are that I liked the black lens and I simply don't need weather sealing. I have a simple Kata E-702 cover that will protect it for the rain. Cost me a whopping $50 VS the $500 more I'd have paid for the 70-200 F/2.8L.

xsvly-fat
10-01-2010, 10:52 AM
Yeah it is USM. I'm kinda lost lol. What happened to your lens? Is it the outer glass or what?

Yeah the 70-200 F/2.8L is very expensive. I was looking at getting one but at this point I don't think I could drop that much into a lens.

bigred76
10-01-2010, 12:28 PM
The front element is the front piece of glass in the lens. Previous owner didn't take care of it the best, then I neglected it with some paint once and now it REALLY needs to be recoated. Meh.

Muddytaco
10-01-2010, 06:58 PM
Nice pickup, I got his big brother and its a beast to carry around sometimes.

xsvly-fat
10-01-2010, 07:20 PM
The front element is the front piece of glass in the lens. Previous owner didn't take care of it the best, then I neglected it with some paint once and now it REALLY needs to be recoated. Meh.

That's what I thought but wasn't sure. How much does that cost? Do you use filters for shooting paintball? Some people said the filter can break but I don't want the front piece of glass to get paint and all that on it.
Nice pickup, I got his big brother and its a beast to carry around sometimes.

Do you have a F/2.8 IS or a F/4 IS?

bigred76
10-02-2010, 01:35 AM
I use a simple, cheap UV filter when shooting paintball simply for the dirt and grime. If it gets hit with a ball and breaks, I'm pretty screwed. Gotta float the pieces off the front element with water and carefully get them off. It isn't going to protect the front element from a dumbass bunkering my camera dead-on, though. I think it's going to cost me a couple bills to have the lens recoated, but eh... oh well. That's a couple days' pay. I'll also have the focus adjusted while it's in for ****s and giggles.

He has the F/2.8L. No IS. Thank God he doesn't either, because that adds at least another half a pound. Pointless, too. You don't get a 2.8 lens then have to turn on IS.... If you do, a better value would be a flash/tripod and breathing control. Oh, or a body that can do a clean ISO 1000 or above set to Manual.

Hob Hayward
10-02-2010, 09:58 AM
Eh, I don't care how fast your lens is, IS is still nice to have.. 2.8 isn't overwhelmingly fast either. I mean its really solid for the focal length and the fact that its a zoom but yeah, if you want to stop it down the IS is certainly handy to have.

The SMC Takumar 50/1.4 is supposed to be excellent, its actually got mildly radioactive thorium glass in it.. kinda cool. My copy isn't the best because I took a chance on an ebay auction with a sold as is policy. Terrrrrible fungus, I took it apart though and cleaned it completely, only issue now is the coating on the front element is damaged in a few places but whatever..

Yeah I meant to say USM for the 24-85, but my favorite part of USM is FTM.

Lenses that I can actually afford that I would like to get:

EF 50/1.4
EF 85/1.8
EF 28/1.8
These three are all USM, and relatively inexpensive for their performance. Also I love fast lenses..

andddd my dream lens is the EF 24/1.4 II L

xsvly-fat
10-02-2010, 05:45 PM
I use a simple, cheap UV filter when shooting paintball simply for the dirt and grime. If it gets hit with a ball and breaks, I'm pretty screwed. Gotta float the pieces off the front element with water and carefully get them off. It isn't going to protect the front element from a dumbass bunkering my camera dead-on, though. I think it's going to cost me a couple bills to have the lens recoated, but eh... oh well. That's a couple days' pay. I'll also have the focus adjusted while it's in for ****s and giggles.

He has the F/2.8L. No IS. Thank God he doesn't either, because that adds at least another half a pound. Pointless, too. You don't get a 2.8 lens then have to turn on IS.... If you do, a better value would be a flash/tripod and breathing control. Oh, or a body that can do a clean ISO 1000 or above set to Manual.

Ok I bought a filter I just wasn't sure if I should use it for that or not. Can't do much about it, beats buying a new lens.

For sports I don't really see the point of IS. Plus getting an IS lens is so expensive.

Eh, I don't care how fast your lens is, IS is still nice to have.. 2.8 isn't overwhelmingly fast either. I mean its really solid for the focal length and the fact that its a zoom but yeah, if you want to stop it down the IS is certainly handy to have.

The SMC Takumar 50/1.4 is supposed to be excellent, its actually got mildly radioactive thorium glass in it.. kinda cool. My copy isn't the best because I took a chance on an ebay auction with a sold as is policy. Terrrrrible fungus, I took it apart though and cleaned it completely, only issue now is the coating on the front element is damaged in a few places but whatever..

Yeah I meant to say USM for the 24-85, but my favorite part of USM is FTM.

Lenses that I can actually afford that I would like to get:

EF 50/1.4
EF 85/1.8
EF 28/1.8
These three are all USM, and relatively inexpensive for their performance. Also I love fast lenses..

andddd my dream lens is the EF 24/1.4 II L

The first two lenses I heard were great. I would probably end up getting a Canon 50 F/1.4 but I have heard alot of good things about the 85 F/1.8

Muddytaco
10-02-2010, 09:25 PM
IS is absolutely useless for sports, your shutter speed is always high enough to freeze action so IS really does nothing.

IS stabilizes the lens/body shake NOT the picture, If your action pic is blurry before turning on IS its still going to be blurry when you turn it on.

I went from all IS glass to all non-IS glass and don't miss it one bit, hell I have a 400mm without IS and have yet to miss any pics b/c of not having it.




Also fast glass is nice to have (i have a few) but putting on my 580exii and bouncing it off a wall will give me the same result if not better.



Also I am one of the ones that never uses a protective filter, the front element is way strong then the thin ass piece glass on a filter. All thats going to lead to is having to carefully take broken filter glass off the front of your lens.




If you plan on shooting paintball with that lens get on ebay and buy a cheap china knockoff hood. I already had one crack from taking a shot in the side from pretty close. I was out $10 for another cheap one instead of the $50 canon would of charged. Plus paint would easily stain the nice felt on the inside of the factory hood.

bigred76
10-02-2010, 09:32 PM
Yeah, I know Dave, but some of the fields I shoot at are dirt, and I'd rather clean dirt off a filter than my front element. It's kinda hard to take the front element off and run it under some water. Lazyness ftw. ;)

The EF 85 F/1.8 is probably going to be my next purchase, after an EF wide-medium zoom... I can't use my EF-S 18-55mm IS that came with my XSi on my 1D unfortunately. Not too big of a deal since I wanted a new lens anyways, but it has now become a necessity.

xsvly-fat
10-03-2010, 03:50 PM
Also I am one of the ones that never uses a protective filter, the front element is way strong then the thin ass piece glass on a filter. All thats going to lead to is having to carefully take broken filter glass off the front of your lens.

If you plan on shooting paintball with that lens get on ebay and buy a cheap china knockoff hood. I already had one crack from taking a shot in the side from pretty close. I was out $10 for another cheap one instead of the $50 canon would of charged. Plus paint would easily stain the nice felt on the inside of the factory hood.

Yeah that's what some of people I talked to said. I think I'm going to stick with using a filter for now, my field is pretty dusty too.

I'll was gonna use the hood but I'll have to look into a cheap one.
The EF 85 F/1.8 is probably going to be my next purchase, after an EF wide-medium zoom... I can't use my EF-S 18-55mm IS that came with my XSi on my 1D unfortunately. Not too big of a deal since I wanted a new lens anyways, but it has now become a necessity.

What are you looking at?

bigred76
10-03-2010, 09:15 PM
Thinking about the Tammy 28-75 F/2.8. I can't remember if it's EF or EF-S, but from my recollection the glass quality was quite good. Just a micro-motor focus, but Tamron has pretty darn good glass on their top end lenses.

Hob Hayward
10-11-2010, 04:35 PM
I was halfway through suggesting a wider than 28mm lens, but then I remembered your on a 1.3x body.. Damn ye tim!

xsvly-fat
10-11-2010, 08:08 PM
I just totally changed gears. I want a 10-22 mm next. Anyone use that or any fish eye?

Hob Hayward
10-12-2010, 04:23 AM
I wish I had something that wide... I hate how much a 5d would cost.

bigred76
10-13-2010, 03:03 AM
5Dc's are only a little more than a 1D MkII... and that isn't even that much. Wait just a few more months when the 5Dc owners need money for Christmas, and you might find a good deal. Or a few more when Uncle Sam wants his dough.

10-22mm... meh. I like the 18mm on my 1.6x crop body (XSi), but as I have a 1.3x crop body now (1D MkII) I can go with a slightly higher powered lens and get the same results. For instance, a 22mm will give me the same 28mm equivalent that the 18mm would. I can deal with a bit of that not being there with the 28mm.

Back to the 10-22mm, though. I personally do not see how anyone really needs that, but... whatever you want.

xsvly-fat
10-13-2010, 09:48 AM
I think next summer I'll end up getting a 1D MKII I need something that has a higher FPS if I wanna start taking more sports pictures.

I've seen alot of pictures at like 14-16mm that I've really liked so I'm not sure. Probably wont be getting anything new for a few more months though :(

bigred76
10-13-2010, 01:15 PM
1D is a heavy, heavy body. It really is. I think my camera weighs about 10lbs or so with my lens on it, and it wears out my shoulder real good after a solid day of shooting. A 40D has a 6fps rating, and is quite decent at 10mp for large prints and cropping. And, it's a few hundred bucks cheaper. Also, if you do end up getting the 10-22mm, it's an EF-S lens that cannot be used on the 1D MkII. Look around a bit and pick your poison carefully since you have time.

xsvly-fat
10-13-2010, 02:45 PM
Yeah I will for sure. I know my friend has a 50D so I'll probably play with that and see how I like it.

Muddytaco
10-13-2010, 02:56 PM
If you plan on shooting sports go for the 1D, even my 40D seems like a POS when I switch to it for a shot. AF system on 1D just can't be beat.