• Gear discussion thread v. "I own more nifty fifties than cameras they fit"
    2,522 replies, posted
I'll (hopefully) be hunting down a 400D in a few months, possibly with the kit lens. The only question that remains is which lens to get extra. I'm looking for a decent general-purpose lens on a budget. As far as I know I have two options right now. 1) Get the older EF-S 17-85mm IS USM. It covers everything and is relatively cheap, has fast and silent focusing, features image stabilization - but optical quality suffers. 2) Get the EF 28-135mm IS USM. Also has fast and silent focusing, and image stabilization (albeit an older version of it). Compared to 1, is cheaper but has better optical quality and longer reach, yet lacks wide-angle coverage, especially with the 1.6x crop factor. Option 1 would be a no-brainer if the optical quality was better. Option 2 is superior in that respect, but I would have to stick with the kit lens for wide-angle shots until my budget allows for another, wider lens.
On that note, is the EF-S 15-85mm really worth nearly twice as much as the EF-S 17-85mm? I was thinking about the first one but the second one is just much cheaper.
After finishing my first roll on the 67, I decided to put the MX in the bag, picked it up and it felt like a toy :v:
[QUOTE=Dominik93;36577910]On that note, is the EF-S 15-85mm really worth nearly twice as much as the EF-S 17-85mm? I was thinking about the first one but the second one is just much cheaper.[/QUOTE] The 15-85 is wider-angle and is significantly better in every way. The 17-85 is barely worth it's price unfortunately. That's why I'm looking for alternatives.
[QUOTE=Raygen;36593747]The 15-85 is wider-angle and is significantly better in every way. The 17-85 is barely worth it's price unfortunately. That's why I'm looking for alternatives.[/QUOTE] I suppose I might go for the 15-85mm then, depending on what my dad says. (Maybe I can get to share the lens with him so that I won't have to pay the full price all by myself)
You might want to read this review before making any decisions though. It'll let you judge the quality for yourself (you could jump straight to the Gallery page for example). [URL]http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon1785EFS/[/URL] I've found Cameralabs to be a great help in choosing in a wide variety of things. Despite what I said about the 17-85mm earlier I might still get it. Cameralabs does lots of comparisons and actually advised getting the 17-85 over the 28-135.
It's been a while! I have a very well paying job now in addition to my student loan and I can finally get back into photography. Looking at 3 different (older) bodies to match with some pro glass, each have their own benefits but I'm not sure what to go with! It's between the 5D MK I, 1Ds MK I, and 50D. 5D and 1Ds are of course full frame, fantastic. 1Ds is bigger, but is far sturdier and has weather sealing. 5D is lighter, smaller, but is more damage prone and has no weather sealing. 50D has no full frame, but a faster FPS, higher ISO performance and the same magnesium body. All are roughly the same price, I don't know what to do!
[QUOTE=Funny;36619424]It's been a while! I have a very well paying job now in addition to my student loan and I can finally get back into photography. Looking at 3 different (older) bodies to match with some pro glass, each have their own benefits but I'm not sure what to go with! It's between the 5D MK I, 1Ds MK I, and 50D. 5D and 1Ds are of course full frame, fantastic. 1Ds is bigger, but is far sturdier and has weather sealing. 5D is lighter, smaller, but is more damage prone and has no weather sealing. 50D has no full frame, but a faster FPS, higher ISO performance and the same magnesium body. All are roughly the same price, I don't know what to do![/QUOTE] I will try to give you some things to make it easier for you to choose so i will sum the camera's up for some of their features + my personal opinion on them. [B]Canon EOS 1Ds[/B] - a beast of a camera at first sight, but it's painfully slow in normal use if you compare it to both the 5D classic or the 50D. The AF is 45 points which is awesome, but the in camera processing of images slows the whole camera down, and the buffer isn't that big either (10 jpeg shots or 10 RAW). The 2 inch screen on the camera is quite useless and does not even have magnification in playback mode. Plus the ISO sensitivity "only" goes up to ISO 1250, which is quite low. If i'd had to choose between a 1Ds and a 5D classic, i would go for the 5D, hands down. Simply said, the 1Ds is just too old (which also makes it hard to get one in good condition). [B]Canon EOS 5D classic[/B] - The first camera in the 5D series, but still is a capable camera in todays used market. The 12,7 MP sensor has less noise than the 1Ds Mk1. Still, the camera isn't that fast, but it's a lot faster than the 1Ds in normal use, having almost twice the buffer capacity in RAW and multiple times in JPEG. The 2.5 inch LCD screen is way more usable and has magnification in playback mode. Ofcourse there are some points you should consider with buying a 5Dc, biggest point being it's prehistoric AF system. But as long if you use the middle point most of the time, there shouldn't be such a big problem. Also the lack of weathersealing isn't a huge problem because even without it the camera easily survives a rain shower (my 40D isn't weathersealed and it got soaked multiple times without a problem). Both the 1Ds and 5Dc don't have a built-in sensorcleaning mechanism, so look forward to be cleaning your sensor a lot more often than with the 50D. Both camera's are no speed monsters in terms of frames per second, but unless you are shooting sport this shouldn't be such a big issue. [B]Canon EOS 50D[/B] - 1.6x Crop sensor camera with 15 megapixels and good ISO performance up to about ISO 1600 (less noise than a 5Dc at ISO 1600, but the 5Dc will have more detail!). Also good for sport with 6.3 frames per second continious burst. The AF system is better than the 5Dc with all 9 points being crosstype for f/5.6 lenses or faster. The screen on the 50D is the same one as the 5D mk II making this screen the best of your 3 options, and the 50D has liveview which could be really usefull depending on your type of photography. A very nice camera in my opinion. All in all, it's not a easy choice but I would drop the idea of the 1Ds mk I unless you can get it in top notch condition for a decent price. I would very much like to hear what you photograph most of the time, because if you shoot a lot of landscapes or do street photography i would recommend you a 5Dc hands down. If you shoot things like sport or fast action you will need a 50D. I hope this was somewhat helpful for you :smile:
I currently have a Nikon D40 which I bought in 2007, since then the camera has become quite old and I have never bought a lens for it I have always used the standard 18-55mm lens that came with it. Despite this I won many competitions in the past and have sold photographs but I don't enter competitions anymore as I'm busy with other things in my life. I was looking to replace it with a newer camera and was looking at the D3100. I wanted to know if the D3100 is a good camera to replace it with and if so how much do you think I could sell the now old and discontinued D40 for?
[QUOTE=frag4life;36620664]I will try to give you some things to make it easier for you to choose so i will sum the camera's up for some of their features + my personal opinion on them. [B]Canon EOS 1Ds[/B] - a beast of a camera at first sight, but it's painfully slow in normal use if you compare it to both the 5D classic or the 50D. The AF is 45 points which is awesome, but the in camera processing of images slows the whole camera down, and the buffer isn't that big either (10 jpeg shots or 10 RAW). The 2 inch screen on the camera is quite useless and does not even have magnification in playback mode. Plus the ISO sensitivity "only" goes up to ISO 1250, which is quite low. If i'd had to choose between a 1Ds and a 5D classic, i would go for the 5D, hands down. Simply said, the 1Ds is just too old (which also makes it hard to get one in good condition). [B]Canon EOS 5D classic[/B] - The first camera in the 5D series, but still is a capable camera in todays used market. The 12,7 MP sensor has less noise than the 1Ds Mk1. Still, the camera isn't that fast, but it's a lot faster than the 1Ds in normal use, having almost twice the buffer capacity in RAW and multiple times in JPEG. The 2.5 inch LCD screen is way more usable and has magnification in playback mode. Ofcourse there are some points you should consider with buying a 5Dc, biggest point being it's prehistoric AF system. But as long if you use the middle point most of the time, there shouldn't be such a big problem. Also the lack of weathersealing isn't a huge problem because even without it the camera easily survives a rain shower (my 40D isn't weathersealed and it got soaked multiple times without a problem). Both the 1Ds and 5Dc don't have a built-in sensorcleaning mechanism, so look forward to be cleaning your sensor a lot more often than with the 50D. Both camera's are no speed monsters in terms of frames per second, but unless you are shooting sport this shouldn't be such a big issue. [B]Canon EOS 50D[/B] - 1.6x Crop sensor camera with 15 megapixels and good ISO performance up to about ISO 1600 (less noise than a 5Dc at ISO 1600, but the 5Dc will have more detail!). Also good for sport with 6.3 frames per second continious burst. The AF system is better than the 5Dc with all 9 points being crosstype for f/5.6 lenses or faster. The screen on the 50D is the same one as the 5D mk II making this screen the best of your 3 options, and the 50D has liveview which could be really usefull depending on your type of photography. A very nice camera in my opinion. All in all, it's not a easy choice but I would drop the idea of the 1Ds mk I unless you can get it in top notch condition for a decent price. I would very much like to hear what you photograph most of the time, because if you shoot a lot of landscapes or do street photography i would recommend you a 5Dc hands down. If you shoot things like sport or fast action you will need a 50D. I hope this was somewhat helpful for you :smile:[/QUOTE] I'm so appreciative of your write up! Thank you! It has cleared some things up for me. I would definitely be using the camera for landscape/street more than I would for sport by far. So I think the 5D is the better choice.
[QUOTE=Scrappa;36622537]I currently have a Nikon D40 which I bought in 2007, since then the camera has become quite old and I have never bought a lens for it I have always used the standard 18-55mm lens that came with it. Despite this I won many competitions in the past and have sold photographs but I don't enter competitions anymore as I'm busy with other things in my life. I was looking to replace it with a newer camera and was looking at the D3100. I wanted to know if the D3100 is a good camera to replace it with and if so how much do you think I could sell the now old and discontinued D40 for?[/QUOTE] I don't know how much you would get but there is still a demand for old dSLRs in fact I've been thinking of getting a D40 or D100.
[img]http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/483317_10150903159426345_153867086_n.jpg[/img] Picking these up for $80! I'm really excited to try out the Hexanon 50mm 1.4
[QUOTE=Mysterio;36626668][img]http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/483317_10150903159426345_153867086_n.jpg[/img] Picking these up for $80! I'm really excited to try out the Hexanon 50mm 1.4[/QUOTE] Pretty great deal, make sure you give them a good clean first though.
I've finally broken down and decided to get a Pentax K-5, with a kit 18-200 lens, a Pentax M 50mm f1.7 film lens which'll be cropped to be 75mm, and some UV filters to protect the lenses against harmful hard surfaces. Are there any red flags there that I should avoid?
It's new. Happy birthday to me. I usually manually focus anyway, because I'm hardcore. I'm still really wary of being 'that guy'. The guy who has all this equipment but takes mediocre photographs.
Just bought a Kmount to M42 adaptor for my Ricoh KR-10
I seem to be torn between choosing either the 60D or the 650D. I love my 400D to death, but I want to be able to do a little bit of videography as well as photography. The phase detection in the 650D looks enticing, but I'm not sure if that's worth choosing it over the 60D. Can anyone help me with this dilemma?
The phase detection is absolutely no reason to purchase the t4i over the 60D. The feature is in its infancy, and works about as well as CDAF on mirrorless cameras. And it requires special lenses. It's a nice direction for sure, but doesn't really make a significant stride in this release. The only true phase detection autofocus through video currently is Sony's pellicle mirror design, which works well for video. Canon is making a good design, but it will not focus as fast as a pellicle design, because sensor based PDAF cannot be as good as a dedicated phase sensor due to physical constraints.
[QUOTE=Jookia;36632432]I've finally broken down and decided to get a Pentax K-5, with a kit 18-200 lens, a Pentax M 50mm f1.7 film lens which'll be cropped to be 75mm, and some UV filters to protect the lenses against harmful hard surfaces. Are there any red flags there that I should avoid?[/QUOTE] Congrats. Happy shooting. Now go make some art (in a dust storm, in a hurricane, at -40). [editline]10th July 2012[/editline] Oh, those lenses aren't the sealed kind :(
I got off spray all over my lens hood for my 30mm...looks all nasty now. Who knew that insect repellent melts plastic...
Got some nice toys for my nex: [IMG]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-H-RznBrPnSw/T_ySxLfiXiI/AAAAAAAATZU/VKWQVP5_kTo/s1152/LC_20120710_DSCF1827.jpg[/IMG] Ordered a Metabones adapter yesterday. These lenses do need quite expensive adapter because the lack of a MF ring on the lenses themself, so the adapter has a gear mechanism to be able to focus with it. The adapter was 145 USD, but I think these lenses are worth it.
[QUOTE=frag4life;36710025]Got some nice toys for my nex: [IMG]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-H-RznBrPnSw/T_ySxLfiXiI/AAAAAAAATZU/VKWQVP5_kTo/s1152/LC_20120710_DSCF1827.jpg[/IMG] Ordered a Metabones adapter yesterday. These lenses do need quite expensive adapter because the lack of a MF ring on the lenses themself, so the adapter has a gear mechanism to be able to focus with it. The adapter was 145 USD, but I think these lenses are worth it.[/QUOTE] Ah very very nice. I've been trying to get a 90mm for some time now, as it conveniently translates to 135mm. Those lenses are crazy good, they just have focal lengths I already have covered. You'll have to post some example photos from each, I've heard wonderful things about them.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;36710245]Ah very very nice. I've been trying to get a 90mm for some time now, as it conveniently translates to 135mm. Those lenses are crazy good, they just have focal lengths I already have covered. You'll have to post some example photos from each, I've heard wonderful things about them.[/QUOTE] The store I bought them from also had a 90mm for 175 euros, but i've decided to go for these 2 as the 90mm is the most common to find contax G lens around here.
yeah the 90 is pretty common, it has went up in price though in the last year. i remember i was going to buy one off keh for $150, now the cheapest i can find is like $300 :/ there is a mint condition black one near me for $300, but the adapter price has held me off from getting it. i'm going to use my minolta 28-135mm at 135mm before i make the plunge, though it's very soft at the long end wide open :/
[QUOTE=frag4life;36710025]Got some nice toys for my nex: [IMG]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-H-RznBrPnSw/T_ySxLfiXiI/AAAAAAAATZU/VKWQVP5_kTo/s1152/LC_20120710_DSCF1827.jpg[/IMG] Ordered a Metabones adapter yesterday. These lenses do need quite expensive adapter because the lack of a MF ring on the lenses themself, so the adapter has a gear mechanism to be able to focus with it. The adapter was 145 USD, but I think these lenses are worth it.[/QUOTE] Carl Zeiss, like Apple products but with lenses except actually worth it. Can't wait to see some photos taken with those lenses.
Been considering a 20-35mm 2.8 L, despite its somewhat strange focal distance on APS-C, (Been looking for a nice standard zoom range lens, not really looking for super wide.) and its age. Anyone use one? Am I a dumb dumb?
[QUOTE=donhonk;36723425]Been considering a 20-35mm 2.8 L, despite its somewhat strange focal distance on APS-C, (Been looking for a nice standard zoom range lens, not really looking for super wide.) and its age. Anyone use one? Am I a dumb dumb?[/QUOTE] I wanted to get one too as I also own the 28-80 f/2.8-4L Ultrasonic which is a real nice lens but I ended up buying a EF 17-40 f/4L USM which is simply a better lens(optically beter for digital, weathersealed, faster AF). The EF 20-35mm f/2.8L was a nice lens but on digital it does flare more and the optical length as you said is a little bit strange on APS-C. And regarding it's age: if something about it breaks you can't get it fixed. So my advice would be, unless you can get a 20-35L in good condition for considerable less than the 17-40L, go for a used 17-40L. FYI, here is a review of the 20-35L: [URL]http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/182-canon-ef-20-35mm-f28l-lab-test-report--review[/URL]
Thank you sir, I was very much considering the 17-40 first, but I heard about the 2.8 and the decent price. If I can nab it for around 400-500 I might snatch one up, if not the 17-40 is the next choice.
I've sold the OM-D as the lens compability and form factor are negligible to me, especially considering the m43 lenses are way too expensive, and legacy lenses can only get me so far, can anyone recommend an all-in kit for around £800? I'm leaning towards a D3200 /w kit, Nikon 55-200mm f/4, Nikon 50mm F1.8D and an external microphone, I already have a tripod/tablet tripod, pico dolly and flash.
So, for the record I am looking for a Canon 20-35 f2.8L on here, Fred Miranda and eBay. If you have one you want to get rid of, PM me!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.