Gear Thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Gear Thread
If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread.
Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new. You have been warned!
I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!
And don't forget, be polite!
Previous thread: >>2726252
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3657 Image Height 5509 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2012:09:10 13:06:28 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 664 Image Height 1000
I've got a 6d and I'm going to buy a 85mm prime, which is the best idea: Buy the cheaper f/1.8 from Canon? Buy the Sigma f/1.4 or just wait for a potential release of a Sigma Art version?
>>2729147
Get the Canon. f/1.8 on 85mm will give nice shallow DOF and is sharper than the Sigma.
What's the best decently priced telephoto lens for architecture for pentax k mount?
I've got that DA 50mm 1.8 and I love it for almost everything but in some cases I really cant get any closer
>>2729162
Try the DA 50-135/2.8
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-Star-50-135mm-F2.8-SDM-Zoom-Lens.html
>>2729164
dang that's pretty expensive
guess I'll just deal for now and in the meantime at least look at other options but it seems like that would cover what I'm missing fairly well
Got a new panasonic GH4 for christmas today, with a metabone adapter, and a fucking sigma 18-35 canon lens.
I was going to use it to shoot film, and was looking at a tutorial for it when I wanted to put on the new sigma lens and test it out, but it wouldn't fit. I tried twisting it harder, and when I finally gave up, I looked at my lens contacts and
>This happened
I guess my speedbooster was too tight, I'm about to unscrew the face and press down the springs, but any of you had a similar expierience as this?
If so, any tips? Should I use the warranty, or just try and fix it myself?
I made a thread about it over here
>>2729165
then realized I should just post it on the gear thread instead
i'm a beginner photographer with a Canon T5i and kit lens (15-55 IS STM). I'm the 50mm 1.8stm and i need a cheap zoom lens that goes further than 55mm, what should i get? Mind that im shooting mid to large events and sports as an amateur, so i don't get to stand very close to my subjects
>>2729142
Alright /p/, I'm planning on getting a new camera in time for the new year, something compact, so can't be a DSLR, I can consider a mirrorless if the associated lenses are good and fairly cheap enough but mostly I'm looking for a premium compact under $730. Any suggestions? I'm considering the Ricoh GR but any other cameras in that price range would be handy to check out
I consider trying photography as a hobby. I do not seek for professional result and I'm not even sure I want to spend hours editing my shots.
I just want to have fun manually tuning the camera and enjoy taking shots of daily life.
I want to buy a used camera and maybe two lenses. No more than 3 lenses anyway.
Do you recommended me to lurk for older camera on eBay or should I visit second hand camera shops that professionally cleaned and fix minor problems?.
>>2729275
550D, get some primes with it
24mm 2.8 pancake
50mm 1.8
And it probably will come with a kit zoom
Can't really go wrong with it.
>>2729270
holy fuck what is that lens
>>2729278
I had in mind something older, with just enough electronics to save my pics in a digital format.
>>2729284
What ever camera you get, if its canon, get the 24mm pancake.
Can't get better value for money than this
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS Kiss X4 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:12:22 23:31:40 Exposure Time 1/500 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2729286
Thanks. I'll keep that as a rule of thumb.
>>2729278
150mm 1.8, as written on the barrell.
>>2729297
what?
>>2729282
Can you even read faggot?
>>2729275
>I do not seek for professional result and I'm not even sure I want to spend hours editing my shots.
A hobbyist doesnt spend hours editing; simple tweaks in lightroom are enough.
>I just want to have fun manually tuning the camera and enjoy taking shots of daily life.
What does this even mean?
Juts buy a cheap micro 4/3rds with a crummy kit lens and enjoy
>>2729304
Does the absence of optical viewer in 4/3 removes the fun?
>>2729302
oh kk
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS Kiss X4 Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:12:24 00:19:06 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2729310
Buy one with one.
Olympus EM-D E-M10 w/ 14-42mm lens is 5 hundo on Amazon.
>>2729319
Thanks. I'll read reviews of it and try to try one in an electronic shop.
Have x100s and x-t1 with 18-55mm and 35mm. Looking to get something telephoto-ish for portraits and skiing action and mountain pics, etc. In lightroom I notice most of my photos with the 18-55mm are are 18mm or 55mm.
Should I get the 56mm 1.2, 55-200mm 3.5-4.8 or spring for the 50-140mm 2.8?
>>2729332
56 isn't going to be good for things that aren't portraits. It's a fantastic lens, but it's very specialized. I'd push the 50-140, or other tele zoom.
>>2729332
I have the 56mm and its a fuckin dream m8
Ive never owned a telephoto zoom
so cant comment, but you will adore the 56
>>2729302
Any sample shots?
anyone have experience taking landscape pictures in snowy places? I'm thinking of renting a tripod for my 2 days trip and I was wonder is there anything I need to look out for. So far I know
>camera underexposes
>put camera in zip lock bag before going into warm place
>bring ND filter
>wide angle len
>extra batteries that keep near my body for warmth
the only thing left I know is about the tripod. the one that I have is really crappy and shit.
found my dad's old canon t70. i'm new to photography and i figure its a good enough starter camera. thoughts?
>>2729410
I prefer the 50mm 1.8 but the 1.4 is great too
>>2729410
> thoughts ?
It's not digital, so it's an expensive way to start and continue.
>>2729409
Maybe just buy an useful tripod. It's not something you only use once.
>>2729409
>ND filter
Why not a polarized filter? Since they remove 2-3 stops and take the glare off the snow too
Also recommend getting a plastic bag for if it starts snowing onto your camera. It's basically slow rain after all.
>>2729496
>not using a weather sealed body with WR lens
>>2729500
plastic bags are free at the store when u buy tendies m8
>>2729501
My weather sealed kit costs less than your pathetic plastic fantastic toy camera
>>2729502
ehhh wut
>>2729505
Pentax K-50, brah
I have an eos 450d with kit lens (18-55mm) and I'd like to upgrade to something better.
The question is - what should I replace first - the body, or the lens, as I don't have enough money to buy both at once. I've got ~400-500 euro to spend, mainly doing street photog
thanks a lot
>>2729507
Ricoh GR
>>2729508
am I getting memed on?
>>2729507
Either can be better.
An A6000 or something kit could be nice to get a better sensor, faster burst rates and so on, but a good lens also is nice.
I guess you'll have to decide what you lack most and buy based on that?
>>2729509
Not really, You mentioned you mainly do street and that is the best way of upgrade for that.
>>2729510
alright and what's a go-to 'street lens'?
35mm prime? 50mm prime?
>>2729511
I guess, but I wouldn't like to limit myself and I feel like my options are more open with a DSLR
I'm on a budget, so I can't really afford to get a ricoh for street and then a DSLR for something else
>>2729512
Usually it's 35mm for APS-C, and 50mm for Full Frame. It's all up to personal preference though, some people like shooting 28mm or wider.
>>2729512
There is no go-to street lens.
Some like the IQ and relative speed of a Sigma Art or Canon L or better Nikkor, others prefer a pancake or vintage lens...
What's the cheapest recommendable camera with non fixed lenses?
>>2729517
The final setup I am targeting for consists of 3 lenses
>do-everything pancake
>zoom
>wide angle for quick snapshots on the street.
>>2729517
Depends on the purpose you want to use it for.
But for stills in decent light, some of the cheapest useful things might be a Nikon D3x00 or Pentax K-50 kit.
Not that I actually bought them.
>>2729524
what about some 4/3 or rangefinder?
>>2729525
>4/3
If you mean micro4/3, then there are some options. It's mostly about pocketable, portability stuff. Not very good in low light, lenses are mighty fucking expensive. No real wide option.
Rangefinders are mostly for film or if you are a wealthy nouveau rich chink and want to show off a Leica without actually using it.
There is also Fuji as an APS-C compact MILC but the price is still too high.
Budget-wise your best option is an older DSLR with kit lens and a standard fast prime (35mm f/2.8 or faster) like >>2729524 said. You also get the most camera for your money with Pentax. It's a fact that is also a meme around here.
>>2729531
In fairness to m4/3 their expensive lenses are quite godly
>>2729547
Yes, compared to DSLR lenses the expensive ones are very very good for both. DSLRs have good quality lenses for cheap though.
>>2729531
>No real wide option.
Like Zuiko and Panasonic 7-14 mm?
>>2729560
>not rectilinear fisheye crop
>>2729210
can anyone spare a helping hand?
>>2729583
Get a used 70-200 f/4, if you can afford it then get the f/2.8.
Non IS versions are cheap and with a little practice and a tripod you can shoot without vibration blur.
Fuck, /p/, you're turning me into a film camera collector. How do I get out?
>>2729598
By not collecting gear, sell them and only keep those you actually use.
I have a Canon 6D with a 24mm-105mm kit lens. I am into a bit of astro and landscape. My first buy was a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 which takes awesome milkyway shots. Next I wanted a 50mm so I went for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 DG, and a Sigma 24mm 1.4 DG. Love the Sigmas as they are sharper than the L kit lens. My question is I don't know what to buy next. Now your question is going to be "what do you want to do with it?" and my answer would be IDK....maybe a photography class and go from there?
>>2729531
>lenses are mighty fucking expensive.
>mfw 40-150 2.8 is $1300 but a 14/2.5 is $400
it's some bullshit
I'm looking at upgrading from my x10 to something pre owned but generally better. I was mostly in film until my Yashica T3 died, so I'm wanting a digital equivalent. I used to like the pen ep-1 when I had one, but found the lenses too expensive. I'm looking at the Sony a6000 and Ricoh GR at the moment. Any advice?
n00b here.
Wide angles; are these good and versatile?
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF-S 10-18 mm f/4.5-5.6
>>2729506
I'm not sure the wr lenses from pentax are all that great, apart from the super expensive limiteds.
Unless you're saying you're not using wr lenses. Please tell me you're not using non wr lenses
Is pentax really a meme? I quite like the handling of their cameras, and the astrotracer thing in the k3-ii sounds pretty cool, but there's not much of a second hand market near me (UK has fuck all decent camera shops, certainly not where I am). All the decent primes seem very expensive, and there seems to be no fast primes other than the limited ones. Also there seem to be very few wr lenses, which kind of undermines the usefulness of the weather sealed body.
Is their lens selection really as shit as I think it is?
>>2729662
In my country it's the same, you're limited to canon or nikon since it's the only shit they sell gear for.
The cameras are good though, I do like them, but I wouldn't change systems to pentax.
>>2729641
Buy a Samyang. They are cheaper and faster.
>>2729666
faster at missing focus am i rite
>>2729641
10-18 a GOAT
>>2729662
It's the /p/ meme. You're wasting your money if you don't buy Pentax, and if humidity goes above 80%, your camera will die if it's not a Pentax. Pentax is the meme SLR and the A6000 is the memerless camera. The reason these cameras get recommended is because they're decent and have the longest spec sheets. Pentax lens selection really does suck, although the weather sealing is legit.
>>2729673
It's a wide angle lens,you have to be an ape to miss focus with that.
>what is live view?
alright so I'm just getting into photography and i want to buy an entry-level Nikon, so what are the differences between the 3200 and the 3300?
and also what lenses should I get, for like weeding photos and maybe shooting at a concert, festival ect... thanks
>>2729700
google.
since I'm tired of having my stuff just flying around in my backpack I want to invest in a proper bag.
I'm thinking about something like pic related, it should be able to fit two camera bodies and 3-4 lenses and I want the compartments to be easily removable so it can hold a 6x7 instead of the 35mm bodies sometimes
is domke still considered the good stuff? I don't mind the ruggedish appreance, much more to my taste than tacticool lowepro stuff
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1364 Image Height 980 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2014:06:23 11:06:55 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1650 Image Height 1185
>>2729142
I've had my D3200 for about a year and I've gotten a lot of use out of it, but now I want to upgrade.
Should I jump ship and try out the Sony A7 or go for a Nikon D600? I'm looking for something that's cheap used.
I'm also open to Canon if there's any cheap FF near the price range of the other two models.
I only have one FF lens (50mm 1.8 AF-S), so switching brands is still reasonable.
Or, is upgrading to FF not worth it?
>>2729142
>pentax k5
>bro has k3
>shoot it for first time
>better than any canon and nikon ive used
>each shot looks great
and he only got it because he was jealous of my slr, now im jealous
very stupid question, but alas
does eTTL work in M mode? and does FEL work too? or does it stay at the settings I set in M no matter what, and at 1/1 flash strength
>>2729717
for what? why?
>>2729275
ignore the two previous replies. Get the Nikon d3300 or if you're willing to spend a bit more, the d7200. Use the kit lens. Learn with the kit lens. Grow from the kit lens. If you feel like photography is your thing and you can see improvement from when you started, then you can start looking into better lens to better yourself.
>>2729737
What camera? What flash?
M on the camera, yes.
M on the flash, no.
is there a particular version of lightroom I should get as a beginner? should I even get lightroom or would some other editing software be better? thanks
>>2729791
It's a tool. Only you can decide what tools you need.
Also, there is only one version. Get the newest you can afford for the best tools and results.
>>2729769
320EX on the 6D.
And it is the M mode on the mode dial, flash is not set to manual.
whats a good sturdy tripod? Preferably under 100$ as well, going to be used for primarily Astrophotography.
>>2729740
Upgrade for what?
To keep shooting people, I do a lot of portraits and shoot a lot of people.
Why?
Upgrading for better high iso performance, not having to have cropped lenses, much bigger viewfinder, better dynamic range, and more bells and whistles features too.
I'm interested in upgrading after using a friend's full frame Nikon.
I'm going to Paris in two weeks for entire semester and I was just thinking of getting casually into photography as I'll have lots of free time there. I don't have any prior experience although I'm very sensitive for photography in films and I used to be interested in art history, so I guess I have some kind of visual sense.
I was thinking of getting Holga as it seems quite budget camera and good for debutants from what I've read but would like to hear your recommendations first before purchasing anything. I guess I just like that analog and vintage aspect of Holga from what I've read about it.
>>2729717
The A7 is pretty good, but I'm not sure most of /p/ might consider it cheap used.
>>2729861
I can't relate to the idea of using photography devices that would have been bad in the 60ties or so already. Never mind paying for new ones of those to be made.
I can relate even less to making this not a random novelty thing to try for a few days, but actually making it your only / primary equipment.
But if you feel like doing that is right for you, have fun with it.
I want to upgrade from my first DSLR which is a 60D. I have about 3500 USD to work with. Is the 5DS worth the price or should I go for the 5D mark III? Something else entirely?
I mostly shoot sports stuff for my university if that makes a difference.
>>2729871
I'd personally get a Sony A7 II (or A7S / A7S II if low light shooting was a huge concern). Or a Nikon D750. The rest would probably go to lenses.
But a 5D Mark III is quite okay, too (hated the Mark II). It's just a bit too expensive for how it performs.
>>2729871
wait for that sweet sweet pentax full frame to come out
>>2729876
So what are the specs on that, exactly?
>>2729871
Nikon D610 w/ 70-200mm (for sports) and 35mm for dinking around doing snapshit stuff.
>>2729869
Then what would you recommend instead? Mind you that I have limited budget.
>>2729299
Best lens 10/10
>>2729715
I'm going to tell you flat out, Dont get a messenger bag. I used one with a d5100 and about 4 lenses and some accessories, and long walks/hikes would be brutal. I'm looking into getting a backpack for my gear now since I'm ff. I had to constantly switch shoulders on long walks. Granted I like traveling with all my gear since I Dont want to miss a shot as a result of being a bitch nigga
>>2729715
get a mf fanny pack, put your lenses in socks, and youre good to go
>>2729923
I'd rather suggest going digital. Either use your phone or get a cheap Sony NEX 5n, maybe an EVF for it.
It is small, somewhat pocketable and has great results while being rather budget friendly.
Guys I have an Olympus E-300 (years and years old) with 14-45mm, 35mm macro and 40-150mm lenses. I recently read that they don't really make DSLRs any more.
Is there any market for the body and lenses? I'd want to make some money off of them.
my grandad has a camera in the attic. pic related anyone know the name ?
i would have to drive 3 hours to pick it up is it worth it ?
>>2729977
looks like a Mamiya Press
I got a Nikon D3300. What beginner lens should I buy for portraits?
>>2729270
Sigma dp2 merill. It can outresolve a D810 and beats all bayer sensors for color accuracy.
>>2729673
How does the lens selection suck if K mount lenses from forty years ago will fit right on?
>>2730036
Yes. Might as well buy a Nikon if you wanted to slap film era lenses on. At least the Nikkors are good.
>>2729861
I really don't get toy cameras. Used professional film cameras are literally cheaper than new toy cameras. Would you prefer professional quality results or limiting yourself to, at best, interesting dogshit?
Also speaking from experience take lots of pictures while you're abroad. You may never have subjects that interesting ever again, and you can have something to remember your trip by.
>>2729923
>>2729953
>>2730044
If you want to stick with film you can get an entire Konica film system (Autoreflex TC and 2-3 lenses) for around $60. The limitations on the body (1/8 slowest shutter speed, film advance standoff switch, plastic build) are worth it for the amazing and totally orphaned glass.
>>2730049
>Autoreflex TC
Why would that be your first choice?
>dat t3 weight; smoothness; sexuality
>>2730053
Cause it's small, fucking cheap, and mounts Hexanons? T4 is great if you can fucking find one, FS-1s are generally all paper weights by now, and FT-1 see what I said for T4. T3 and earlier are too big for me personally.
>>2729967
bump, please don't bury me
>>2730049
I just found Konica Autoreflex TC with some Hexanon AR 135 ON eBay for 40$. Would you rec it for beginner then? As I said I don't have any prior experience with photography. Also, I might have an old Zenith in the attic, it would do good too?
Are canon AE 1s decent starter cameras ?
Additionally for messing around what is the best option for polaroids?
Yeah, I was thinking about Polaroids too, mostly because of the new Polaroid Snap but I guess most of you'd call it utter shit. But it seemed alright for my needs like messing around during my free time on scholarship in Paris.
I just need something cheap and simple and preferably analog.
Looking at getting a good 80s film camera, is the Olympus OM2 Spot Program a good choice?
>>2730059
I just found that T4 that you've mentioned and it comes with some Hexanon 1.7/50 lens. It doesn't ring me a bell as I'm new to all of this but it's for 60$ - is it worth it?
>>2730066
>for messing around what is the best option for polaroids?
Instax Mini
>>2730030
I've heard the camera's output is problematic when it comes to software such as Lightroom, the software bundled with the camera is awful, and that the Foveon sensor is only useful in really specific circumstances, which, considered with the price, really doesn't sit well with me.
Any other suggestions?
>>2730083
Get the GR, you will love it.
Maybe if you need more zoom you can consider the RX100 (III or IV?) but the larger sensor in the GR will be more useful.
If you are willing to trade pocketability and quick use, then maybe a mirrorless like the A6000, Panasonic GF7 or one of the latest Olympus Pen cameras are worthy to check out.
I say go for the GF7 with the kit lens and get a fast 14mm prime to have the GRs wideangle. You will love it.
>>2730089
Panasonic's fastest 14mm is only f/2.5, the better option would probably be getting Rokinon's 12mm f/2 in mft mount
>>2730104
f/2.5 is plenty fast. My 35mm f/2.4 is more than I need for everything. Anything faster than that is just bokehwhoring.
>>2730113
Sour grapes, nigga.
So I've seen a few people talk about the Sigma 50mm 1.4 but only for canon. I have a Nikon D750 and want to buy a new 50mm prime. I'm stuck between the AF-S FX Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM. Is there anyone with personal experience with both? And if so which one has a sharper image in your opinion?
>>2730113
>My 35mm f/2.4 is more than I need for everything.
I have Pentax too and I second this.
>Anything faster than that is just bokehwhoring.
STFU
Is the canon 35mm 1.4 better or worse than the sigma 35 1.4 art?
>>2730143
what is "better"?
Canon
>better build quality
>weather proofing
Sigma
>cheaper
>subjectively better color rendering
So currently I have a beginner Sony. I've been doing some research and am really interested in the Pentax models, particularly the K3-II, can you guys give me any suggestions or recommendations on this as a new line/ upgrade?
I really like what I see, but I'd rather hear facts from people with genuine experience using them or whatever.
Thanks!
>>2729923
Digital.
Or if you must, an used film camera that was not designed to suck. It's not like even *good* film cameras are expensive these days.
> Mind you that I have limited budget.
More firmly a digital camera. I don't know how much you intend to shoot, but film is expensive. A few rolls + having them developed and you've amortized an entry-level DSLR.
A few thousand photos + having them developed and/or scanned and you can pay for an enthusiast MILC / DSLR.
>>2730027
There are no beginner lenses. But I guess lenses with great sharpness, AF and maybe VR (IS) can make things easier for everyone including beginners.
If you can afford a Sigma Art or some good Nikkor prime lens with built-in AF motor somewhere between 50-90mm, those would surely be good portrait lenses.
>>2730067
> Polaroid
> cheap
Polaroid is *extremely* expensive to shoot, even more so than film.
>>2730127
Get the Sigma *Art* 50mm, not the EX.
The Ex is okay, but what really created the buzz around Sigma + 50mm is the Art version, which has much better sharpness / resolution, more controlled Bokeh, and quite a few more things.
>>2730163
That's the one that's like 900$ right? Price isn't a issue I just wanna make sure.
>>2729951
messenger bags are only good if you buy small ones. bringing more then a smaller camera and 2 lenses will kill you
>>2730169
Should be around $700 (global market price, dunno how they regionally price them), but yes, that one. There's only one Sigma Art 50mm.
>>2730168
if your Camera got that fucking dusty, sell it. You shouldn't have to worry about destroying your camera because you want to clean the dust off of it.
Sell it. Invest the money in a Photography trip and some nice walking Boots. You don't need that Leica.
>>2730184
Little faggot deleted his comment.
>>2729804
Thanks mate
I don't need expensive F1,4 apertures since I'm mostly an F5,6 shooter, so this lens is perfect for me.
Really good size, good lightweight, and good lens cap design. I like this lens so much, except for its price.
Zeiss, why you do this to me? Why this price?
Why can't Zeiss just be like the other manufacturers and make their bucks on large volumes of affordable pricing instead of low volumes of insane pricing?
ZEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!
i got an old pentax k-x with a couple of lenses. and it's a lot of fun, and i don't think i need a newer/more expensive cam yet as i only started with manual photography earlier this year.
now i need a new zoom lens, as my Samsung (Schneider Kreuznach) 50-200mm has a lot of dust inside, and i don't think fixing is worth it (right?).
now there's a 70-300 by Tamron for about 100€ and a 70-300 by Sigma for 140€. how would i go about finding out if there are any real differences between them? how do i decide which to buy?
http://www.amazon.de/Tamron-70-300mm-4-5-Macro-digitales/dp/B000HP7L6E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451231656&sr=8-1&keywords=pentax+70-300
http://www.amazon.de/Sigma-70-300-Makro-Objektiv-Filtergewinde-Objektivbajonett/dp/B000B8T6E2/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1451231368&sr=8-10&keywords=sigma+pentax
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Felix Image-Specific Properties:
>>2730268
Get the DA 55-300, much better than the kit 50-200.
>>2730282
this one doesn't seem available in my area (amazon doesn't even carry it) so i didn't include it.
now im sad.
>>2730284
Try ebay, I got a lens earlier this month for less than half price in "like new" condition.
>>2730268
Sigma is as sharp as a blunt butter knife, Tampon is better but not by much. Your 50-200 will be still better.
>>2730193
nice foreskin lens hood faggot
>>2730321
I'm not sure what you mean, but compact and low weight lens hood is a good thing.
That style is optimal for small aperture F2.8 lenses.
>>2730326
He's just mad he can't afford the lens
>>2730287
it has more than 3 clearly visible dark spots.
see the ones here in the top right corner or a bit left of the bird. i fucking hate it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-x Camera Software RawTherapee Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 300 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4288 Image Height 2848 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:12:17 17:22:25 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 200.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2730332
Easy to fix in post, also get that lens cleaned, shouldn't be too much compared to those shitty lens.
Also those spots can be dust on the sensor. I have a very very dusty Sigma and it doesn't show up as spots on the image. It's another question it has so much dust it does noticeable diffraction on wide aperture.
>>2730344
it's not sensor dust, i used the cleaning tool and checked it visually, there's nothing on it. also, it doesn't show up on other lenses.
how expensive can a lens cleaning be on average? i don't dare to do it myself.
>>2729862
I've seen them go for $ 450-500 on occasion, which isn't so bad. Used from a reputable place, they're not cheap haha. But I'm talking about eBay.
>>2729717
Bump
My mother always uses the popup flash on her eos 60D and does no post processing of any kind (she only shoots auto, JPEG only, no manual camera control of any kind), so her photos always end up with reflections all over and generally look really washed out.
Obviously the best thing to do would be to convice her how to control her camera, but I've tried that in the past with little success. You all know how moms are.
Is there a shoe mounted flash that I could buy her that would be incredibly easy to use for someone who has very limited camera expertise? I am thinking that giving her a flash with a diffuser would help her photos without her needing to take any additional steps when she shoots.
I own no flashes of my own, so I don't know if it's even possible to use a flash in auto mode that would still only trigger whenever the camera senses low light conditions like how the popup flash works.
My budget is $50-100.
>>2729717
>I'm also open to Canon if there's any cheap FF near the price range of the other two models.
There sure is a cheap Canon FF - 5D and may be some 1Ds.
Interesting thing is that ANY Canon camera will give you less base dynamic range than Nikon D3200.
A7 is a compromise - small grip, small battery and maybe some other problems too (dig it yourself). Many of D600 have oil problems but otherwise D600 is a very good camera.
>>2730402
This is the nearest thing to what you are asking for.
http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-YN-565EX-E-TTL-flash-Canon/dp/B00D8635BY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451244091&sr=8-1&keywords=Yongnuo+ettl
just copped this for 40 bucks. looks decent enough for a walking around lens. anyone know how the IQ is? anyone have/used one?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/231366482900?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
>>2730417
>copped
>supertelephoto
Supertelephotos are trash lenses that are blurry as fuck at all apertures, zooms, and positions within the photo.
>>2730163
Is the EX still a good option if you can't afford the Art lens?
Anyone know of some interesting cheap and quirky radioactive russian lenses I can adapt into my A7?
I heard some good things about the Helios 44-2 58mm f/2, are there other old lenses like that around maybe the 35mm focal length?
>>2730417
you'll have fun with it, but don't expect amazing results. anything that zoomes that far doesn't do it without drawbacks.
>>2730471
For the 50mm, sort of. The AF on it is really bad. Usually has front focus and back focus, depending on your distance to the subject. Image quality is better than anything Canon offers though.
>>2730493
thats what i figured, i just want something with more flexibility
i have a 50mm 1.8 thats really sharp and a 35-105mm 3.5 this will kind of be replacing
>>2730471
Yes and no.
The lens itself is amazing. Great IQ, great build quality.
The AF is a russian roulette experience.
I had one for years, it has quite a long story actually as it was lost by gypsies in Rome a long time ago, but I found it again, and I currently use it on a 5d2. But its been on many cameras:
On a 450d, where it misfocused heavily and could be used at 1.4 only in live view - it was accurate from 2.8-4 onwards.
On a 7d, same thing, a little worse maybe.
On different 5d2's where it never was really spot on accurate
And finally on my current 5d2 where by some fucking miracle it's my most reliably focusing lens after my Canon 100 2.8 macro. And it really is a joy to use since it now works.
>>2730472
get normal lenses, and in stead, look for interesting, cheap, quirky photos to take with them. Shitting up your image quality isn't going to do anything to make your boring snapshots any better. The best thing you can do is accept that fact, and try to avoid gear-centric behavior.
>>2730500
But what about all those crazy old lenses with radioactive bokeh? ;_;
>>2730501
>Shitting up your image quality isn't going to do anything to make your boring snapshots any better.
>>2730502
>you can never experience deadly doses radioactivity from secret weapon KGB camera lenses of Soviet era
Depressing ;_;
Whats the best website to buy cheap lenses? Used or otherwise.
>>2730524
keh.com
What the catch?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Comment Screenshot Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 754
>>2730551
Superzooms and supertelephotos are effectively the same given how shit their image quality is.
Thinking about selling my Linhof 617 and buying one of the newer models. I'd get the lenses and the tilt shift stuff, but I don't know if it's smart to invest in film. I own my own scanner but probably need to upgrade. Spent the last three hours cleaning dust off of scans.
>>2730564
Literally just buy on ebay or on amazon.
>>2730578
>not knowing that ebay and Amazon are more expensive due to exchange rates
I got my Canon 55mm f/1.2 SSC for $290 plus taxes up hyere (about 320 altogether) on ebay that lens sells for at at least $350, and can sometimes go for as much as $600
>>2730554
when you go to pick it up they're going to hit you over the head with a baseball bat and sodomize your asshole
>>2730589
Better pay more than get some piece of shit lens just because that's your only choice.
>>2730626
It's actually not bad, even wide open the shots are nice and sharp, I don't care much about contrast as I usually shoot with a flat color profile and correct it in post anyway
sup /p/hags.
i'm going to be getting a canon 7 pretty soon and i was wondering if you guys could share your thoughts on the lenses available for that mount type.
>>2730668
M39 lenses. Pretty easy to find out on your own.
>>2730556
>Super telephotos
>shit quality
>the $10000 lenses professional wildlife and sports photographers own or are issued to capture some of the best pictures in their respective fields when long focal lengths are required
>the lenses that all companies put their latest and greatest technologies into first and come in great big hard cases
>shit quality
>>2730747
>look at an MTF chart
>it's shit
>look at sample images
>they're shit
>both the center and edges of an image are soft as fuck at all focal lengths and apertures
>vignetting out the ass
>bokeh is shit
>CA out the ass
>max aperture is shit
Boy, I'm sure glad I spent >$1000 on an 18-300 nikkor/canon/sigma that performs worse than a kit 18-55 and a $200 55-200 both designed 10 years ago.
Top of the line lenses indeed.
They're shit.
>>2730754
i dont even think you understand what you're arguing about
did you come from /pol/ or something you dumb fuck
>>2730755
>hurrrrrrrrrrr ur retarded
And yet you provide no refutation of anything that I said.
I'll be waiting.
>>2730754
Superzooms and super telephotos are not the same thing, dumbass!
>>2730760
no, they are literally completely different
>>2730762
Not saying they are the same, saying people use the terms interchangeably.
I made a thread about this, but this might get more replies.
Monitor suggestions for photo editing? I'm not going to be dropping $1k on one, but I need something better than this like 2007 acer I'm using.
>>2730763
No they don't.
>>2730764
Buy an IPS.
I would specifically recommend a dell IPS since I own a 1440p one that I quite enjoy.
The monitor offers a lot of control over color / brightness / tilt / height etc.
You can have it 'professionally' calibrated for color if you want to go that far.
>>2730765
Yes they do :^)
#rekd
>>2730768
One fucking idiot does. I've never seen anyone else in my 20 years of photography and eight years on this board with who knows how many tens of thousands of posters passing through fuck it up.
>>2730769
You must not have very much social contact then, I see it all the time on ken rockwell fan forums :^0
>>2730766
Honestly I would prefer to not have to do much calibrating. is 1440p enough resolution you think, or should I try for 4k?
>>2730771
It depends on how rich you are. I dont know if 4k IPS monitors exist yet but personally I wouldn't buy a new monitor in 2016 at 27" or above without it being 4k.
If you're working on 1080p right now either resolution will be a big improvement, but you might as well get a 4k monitor since they can be had at large sizes for relatively cheaply right now.
With a 4k monitor you could just about fit a 23 MP photo across the entire screen without any scaling which would be really nice, especially if you love pixel peeping.
I got a canon t5 and its my first step into the world of photography, Im looking for a good lens for night photography/dark indoor use.
So far Ive noticed that fast shutter speeds and poor lighting do not mix, but it makes it hard to take pictures of people at parties and such (unless I use the flash, which Ive found really destroys colour and depth).
what would be a good lens for this? Ive been looking at the ef 50mm f/1.4 usm but not sure if it will suit my needs and Im having a hard time finding night samples online. Or perhaps my kit 18-55mm will do the trick if I learn to use it better. It also came in a bundle with a 75-300mm lens, but it is only f/4.0-5.6 making it pretty bad for indoor/low light use from what Ive found.
Thoughts?
>>2730787
Night photography you'll definitely want a fast prime
that 50mm 1.4 might be good but for indoor stuff you'll probably want a fast 28-35mm prime
>>2730791
any reccomendations? I would think the 50 would be better for outdoor and the smaller one for indoor no? since you often get closer to subjects than you do landscapes
>>2730803
Yep
You can get away with using a 50 indoors but you'll have to move back
Honestly I'd probably recommend just getting a 28-35mm and going with that since the t5 is crop sensor
>>2730806
Im not going to lie, I have no idea what a crop sensor is, Im going to google that.
canon makes a 35mm f2, but its $650 cdn. yikes.
>>2730807
The size of the sensor depends on what field of view you're going to get
If you use a 35mm on a full frame you get a wider field of view than if you used that same lens on a crop sensor
>>2730806
so I just found out what a crop sensor is. Knowing that, wouldnt canon take that into account when numbering their lenses? so that a 300mm is actually a 300mm on a crop frame camera? or is it still multiplied?
>>2730812
You really cant go wrong though. The t5 is a decent camera and with a nice 35mm prime on it you'll do fine. Try setting the kit lens to 35mm to get an idea of what your field of view would be
It is still multiplied. That being said you really wouldn't run into that many problems but it's definitely something to consider if you're shooting indoors a lot as getting a wider field of view for indoors
You should definitely thing about planning lenses for the future though. If you get a decent lens that you really like further down the line it could be worth it to upgrade to a full frame body and you can still use the lenses you own
>>2730816
So canon makes decent enough cameras that I could buy a "better" one when I get there and get a really good camera?
I am looking at the sigma 30mm f/1.4 right now, its cheaper than the canon offerings and its got a better aperature than the canon prime lenses.
Im a slow learner, so Im going to ask if this is a good lense for indoor as well as outdoor landscape shots/night
>>2730818
Don't buy full frame lenses for use on crop bodies.
You'll actually get worse image quality than equivalent lenses designed for crop sensors.
Also full frame lenses are expensive as fuck, heavy, and large.
Just buy lenses designed for APS-C and if at some point you REALLY want a full frame, you can just sell your lenses for some depreciation if you really want to since good lenses will keep a lot of their value.
>>2730819
>You'll actually get worse image quality than equivalent lenses designed for crop sensors.
wew lad
>>2730819
wow, so I guess that really limits my options to basically only canon lenses?
>>2730818
Yeah sigma is decent and 1.4 is pretty fast. I'm not 100% familiar with canon lenses but it probably won't have as good image quality as the native lenses so read some reviews and look at some example images first. You'd be able to do night stuff well with it. Honestly though your best friend for night landscapes is a good tripod. At least try using the standard kit lens with a tripod to at least before you get a new lens so you can give it a shot
>>2730822
Not entirely. Sigma is alright but make sure to read up on reviews specifically for your manufacturer but yeah if you have canon you're limited to canon lenses
>>2730821
well fuck. now Im confused.
not to mention the sigma lens is cheaper than the canon, so thats also confusing, if ff lenses cost that much more than cropped.
>>2730828
sigma is always going to be cheaper
apparently the sigma Im looking at is designed for aps-c bodies
http://www.amazon.ca/Sigma-Canon-Digital-Cameras-Black/dp/B00BQXL8BU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451278352&sr=8-1&keywords=sigma+30mm+1.4
>>2730824
Why are you outright lying to a guy who's new to photography? You can use many manufacturers lenses on APS-C bodies.
Hell, I think you can even mount nikon lenses on canon bodies with a converter.
>>2730834
>nikon lenses on canon bodies with a converter
are you serious
>>2730602
He's probably not even interested in the lens
>>2730836
As far as I remember I read a long time ago you can do this due to flange distances working out the right way.
Could be wrong though.
>>2730836
Well it's a bit ridiculous, but it's entirely true...
>>2730836
the 14-24mm 2.8 is useful with no AF
>>2730838
>Tony Northrup
wew lad.
>>2730848
The guy who asked for advice here. Cant tell if youre trolling, if hes trolling. fuck.
>>2730848
>get blown the fuck out
>cannot refute what I or he said
>shitpost instead
What's the pleb life like?
#rekd
>>2730850
Watch the video I linked.
That guy is a real photographer, the guy who's shitposting could just be some chucklefuck from take snapshits with his iphone for instagram.
Also he can't refute what that guy said, so until he can you should believe me / youtube guy.
>>2730851
I knowyou're new at this whole photography thing, but Tony Northrup is a disreputable source that no one takes seriously.
>>2730855
Still waiting for you to prove it.
>>2730853
That seems like a solid enough argument to me. alot of the stuff he said in the video makes sense to me too.
It looks like that sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens will be my best bet, as it is designed for aps-c cameras.
Thank you very much for pointing that out to me, or I probably wouldve been ignorant to the cropped/full lens issue for quite sometime
>>2730838
>this fucking shilling faggot
stop pushing your shit book in every fucking video you cunt
>>2730857
I'm still waiting on Tony Northrup to prove it.
>>2730773
4k is around 8 pickles. Your math sucks.
>>2730865
Yes apparently it does.
It's been a long day. Why the fuck did I think that?
>>2730862
This guy is an idiot, he thinks that sensor size affects light transmission, because light meters are the devil and even dedicated ones are never accurate
44-2 8blades, 30USD, how did I do?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 400 Image Height 266
>>2730891
You bought a vintage lens and posted a photo OF it. How about posting a photo WITH it and tell us how it performs?
>>2729142
Bae looks so good all wet
>>2730819
>You'll actually get worse image quality than equivalent lenses designed for crop sensors.
Not sure where you "learned" this, but it's flat out wrong for most lenses.
In reality, FF lenses often perform better on crop sensors than crop lenses of the same focal lenght. Like so often, the center of a lens is sharper than the edges (even for overall very good lenses), and the center of the lens is exactly what is used when you put a FF lens on a crop sensor.
> Also full frame lenses are expensive as fuck
That is very relative. These days, very high end lenses can be had for $800-1500 (especially primes in the most used focal lengths), which is really rather easy to afford more than an once a year for some westerner with a salary. Sorry if you happen to be unable to afford it, but it's not really a huge expense or for the rich only.
>>2730910
Follow the comments. He got it from a tony northrup video lmao.
>>2729286
What benefits are there to having the 24mm pancake vs the kit lens other than the change in maximum aperture value?
>>2730922
More light, small size, compact, has better IQ than the kit zoom, relieves you of thinking of the zooming so you can just frame and shoot. Also piss easy to keep most things on the photo in focus.
The camera also looks nice with that lens so you get more pussy factor.
>>2730928
Would the 24mm or 50mm lens be a better first prime lens?
>>2730931
The 50mm translates to 75mm on APS-C, more of a portrait focal length.
I'd go with the 24 for a first prime. My system doesn't have budget friendly wide so I went with a 35mm and it is so good. So much different shooting with it than the kit zoom. You'll see.
>>2730933
Thanks for the advice anon.
>>2730933
>mfw no cheap 18mm for pentax k
>>2730940
>doesn't know about the 18-55mm
>>2730943
Is it that much better than the 18-55 kit lens?
>>2730945
He's talking about the 18-55mm kit lens
>>2730951
theres a different 18-55
the DA is better than the DAL kit lens
>>2730953
Is it actually good because the kit lens is alright but it isn't particularly sharp and doesn't really have that great of image quality
