Hi /p/,
Just started getting in to photography and my richfag parents bought me this set up. I'm a neet living on autismbux so it seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Also, is Ken Rockwell and Fro Knows Photo a good place to start learning?
You put no effort into this.
>>2832010
I'm not joking, this is legitimately true.
Just asking for some advice here.
>>2832013
I still don't believe you. You can be a journalist photog with a new piece of equipment trying to troll. Let me remind you we lived through numerous influx of sonyfags and fuji fanbois. Your troll-fu is weak. It's so weak, even watered down water has a stronger impact.
made me reply/10
>>2832017
Fuji fanboi, you say?
I love Fuji. The X-Pro2 is legitimately my only camera.
I legitimately traded in every other single piece of gear I own to get the X-Pro2 and 3 lenses.
How's that for fanboi?
>>2832008
Kek great troll
But if you're not trolling ken Rockwell is definitely the best place to learn, also always shoot auto because you're using a great camera so the settings don't matter
>rich
>couldn't afford to get you an m9 and a noctilux
I have the same body and lens.
You're a faggot
>>2832013
If you're serious, DigitalRevTV is a great place to learn how to take proper care of your camera.
>>2832008
Is the 85mm the only one they bought you?
>>2832008
I'll pretend I believe you.
This is not a good place to start. What you have there is an advanced piece of equipment. Nobody should start with something like this. It's designed and built for pros. You are not one of these.
An 85mm lens is "zoomed in" and is not a good general usage lens. It's very very good for portraits. You won't be getting very good landscapes and stuff like that from this.
As far as learning goes, don't read too much right now. Google "how to photography beginners" and read what you find. But don't spend too much time reading right now. Spend more time going out and shooting. Take some pictures and post them here. Before you do that, harden the fuck up. Because your photos will suck and you need to hear why they suck so you can be better.
>>2832073
>What you have there is an advanced piece of equipment
No way!
Now the $4000 price tag makes sense now!
>>2832068
No, they also bought me some other stuff as well.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi
>>2832078
>24-105mm f4
Why do your parents hate you?
>>2832078
ah, the old trombone!
>>2832008
I too will play ur fucking game, troll.
I highly recommend not using manual focus on that lens (at least not above f/5.6) - it fucking sucks and you will miss lots of shots
>>2832078
Now I'm out.
Absolute lies.
You're full of shit OP, and no one likes you
go take some photos with it and post those instead OP
>>2832008
haha all these jelly mad people at gear that isn't even top of the line
Buy a beginner's photography book to get the basics down. Websites only as supplement
we photog now
>>2832083
What's wrong with it?
>>2832115
Heavy, slow, zoom slides out, and mediocre image quality. Focuses pretty close and it has IS, otherwise I wouldn't touch it. Belongs in the trash in my opinion. Might be because I don't like zooms though.
>>2832119
>Heavy, slow, zoom slides out, and mediocre image quality.
do we own the same 24-105?
it's the second lightest lens I have after the 50mm f/1.8, and the IQ is quite good considering the zoom if you ask me
best thing about it is the versatility tho
pic related is the less edited picture I have taken with it
>>2832104
>weeb lenses
>weeb sensors
last millennium's german tech is where it's at
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make TCT Camera Model ONE TOUCH 6012D Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:05 22:12:30 Exposure Time 0 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Other Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2560 Image Height 1920 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2832141
this is pic related
>>2832142
can you take that again to include the original post image in my browser
>>2832141
>considering the zoom
i.e. shit
The 50mm f1.8 is a much better lens. Versatility goes out the window when the lens is F4 at the fastest and slides out all the time. I love seeing tourists with this lens as the zoom keeps sliding. I can spot this lens from a mile away just for that. Lens is pretty worthless too. It's used price is half of it's new price. Never seen that before.
Can't think of a worse lens.
>>2832142
But those were made in Japan
>>2832119
>>2832083
Negro, the 24-105L is a fucking sweet lense.
The first time I played with one on a 5D3, I made a sharp handheld photo at 100mm at 1/2 a second.
That's mind=blown territory.
Also, it's a very useful range, f4 is a perfect aperture for actually shooting most things (as in getting the entire subject in focus), but you won't get ugly stopped down pentagon bokeh like you would with a faster prime at that aperture.
Distortion and chromabs are the biggest flaws, and the plugins in the Canon raw processor will fix that automatically.
>>2832162
>i.e. shit
still pretty decent really
>Versatility goes out the window when the lens is F4 at the fastest
have you tried shooting sports or something similar?
a 24-105 zoom is pretty versatile even at f/4
>slides out all the time
only happened to me when I had it perpendicular to ground to be honest
>It's used price is half of it's new price. Never seen that before.
neither did I really
in fact I've only found one on ebay going for about half the price of the new one, without hood or box
>Can't think of a worse lens.
depends on what you're doing really
if you're doing portraits an otus 85 will be better
if you're shooting a rally in the desert, even an otus is a worse lens
>>2832154
yeah
why tho
>>2832166
I was mostly referring to the german designed lens
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make TCT Camera Model ONE TOUCH 6012D Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:05 23:34:35 Exposure Time 0 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Other Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2560 Image Height 1920 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2832176
>have you tried shooting sports or something similar?
Too slow for sports and not long enough.
It slides out all the time when it's at an angle of more than 45 degrees down. It just slides out faster when it's perpendicular.
The otus will be better for the rally because if it gets dark you can take advantage of the wide aperture. You can also see the markings better at night. During the day you can bump up the shutter speed and get some great shots.
There is no reason to ever use the 24-105mm f4.
>>2832078
why that lens is not white?
use your 1dx mkii.
>>2832176
what a weeb.
>>2832168
>you won't get ugly stopped down pentagon bokeh
Why are you using kit lenses?
>>2832205
i think he meant the old 50 1.8.
even kit lens have 7 blade now.
>>2832008
>my richfag parents bought me this set up
tch, not even a mark II
>>2832185
ah, so you haven't tried shooting sports or something similar
>Too slow for sports and not long enough.
if you're shooting a car/bike you might want to get it all in focus
if you're shooting people running you might want to get something around their bodies
each idea applies to the other subject
if you're in the street of a small Italian town shooting 50y/o cars one might come near you, and you might not wanna loose a shot or two
>It slides out all the time when it's at an angle of more than 45 degrees down.
not mine to be honest family
>The otus will be better for the rally because if it gets dark you can take advantage of the wide aperture.
you might still wanna get the whole subject in focus, and for that autofocus would be soon much more useful than whatever else if you want to take anything more than two pictures that have the same perspective
>You can also see the markings better at night.
in the meantime the subject will be behind you and the next one will soon be there as well
>During the day you can bump up the shutter speed and get some great shots.
or you can take 10 different pictures thanks to zoom and autofocus
say out of these 3 are good - the you got 3 good quality good images instead of a single good quality possibly good one
>>2832205
he was referring to the Canon 50mm f/1.8 I mentioned before, which has 5 blades
also what >>2832208 said
>>2832532
I have shot sports with an 85mm which is almost the long end of the 105mm, so unless you are next to the participants it won't be anywhere near long enough. Most sports are shot with telephoto because you are pretty far. The only exception I can think of is the photographers under the hoop in basketball games that get tackled constantly. They might use a 24-70mm F2.8. Again the 24-105 is neither long enough or fast enough for sports. For the specific situations where you don't need a longer length, there are still better lenses.
I think the 24-105 when it's new and rarely used slides out less. Every time I see someone with it around their neck or when I use it myself it always slides. It sucks if you are shooting something and want to shoot at the same focal length. Unless you want to shoot constantly at right before 105mm, (it never even goes all the way to 105) you will always have to adjust the zoom. Always.
In a rally, cars stick pretty close to the same track. You can easily predict where a car will be. Autofocus on the 24-105 will miss a lot of shots of a car going fast. You can take 10 shots in one second with manual focus and you will get a better hit rate than the 24-105. In a situation where you need autofocus there are better options than the 24-105.
Even the new 50mm has 7 rounded blades. I didn't want to reply to the mention of bokeh when you were talking about the 24-105, because that was clearly retarded. Most lenses have a round aperture wide open. If you are shooting wide open there is no benefit to having the slow f4 aperture.
You have tried to put the 24-105 in specific situations that would make it better than a specific lens. As a whole the 24-105 is worthless and in those specific situations it's still shit.
>>2832054
>rich
>m9 and noctilux
That's for poor people
More like phase one with zeiss Otus
