Gear discussion thread v. "I own more nifty fifties than cameras they fit"
2,522 replies, posted
Well I'm just saying its a hefty investment, and aside from better AF and video features it's not really much different from the mk2. Just suggesting an alternative. Personally it doesn't seem worth the dramatic price difference, especially if you are just doing stills.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;37578689]Well I'm just saying its a hefty investment, and aside from better AF and video features it's not really much different from the mk2. Just suggesting an alternative. Personally it doesn't seem worth the dramatic price difference, especially if you are just doing stills.[/QUOTE]
I agree, it is a big investment and it's one I'm taking very seriously. I feel that it will open up new opportunities for me and give me an incentive to take more pictures and to improve.
I know it sounds silly but when I upgraded from the 1000D to the 550D, the number of photos I took went up dramatically (not just for the short period after I bought the camera, but ever since I bought it).
Okay just making sure! I trust you, just wanted to present alternatives. Just want to help match people with the right camera
Thanks!
If I had a budget then I'd probably go for the Mk2 or maybe a 7D, but the very fact I have near enough unlimited funds (big inheritance) means I can get anything.
[QUOTE=Bengley;37578885]
I have near enough unlimited funds (big inheritance) means I can get anything.[/QUOTE]
hello, my name is zach, and i need a sugar-daddy.
I have a sick grandmother who needs a new D800.
Anyone have any experience with the 17-85 USM? Heard it's a tad slow and has some CA issues but other than that it's a solid jack of all lens.
The 15-85(?) is significantly better. Enough to disregard the former entirely.
Better wide angle, less distortion, better resolution and corners, improved IS, better build, and better wide open performance.
Only thing not better? Fully extended to 85mm, and the price.
I was caught in a storm and my lenses sat in a pool of water for about 12 hours.
What's the best way to get rid of water in a lens, that's also gotten between the aperture blades?
Think putting it in a bag of rice for a few days will do it?
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;37581676]I was caught in a storm and my lenses sat in a pool of water for about 12 hours.
What's the best way to get rid of water in a lens, that's also gotten between the aperture blades?
Think putting it in a bag of rice for a few days will do it?[/QUOTE]
i think that, or leaving it in the oven at a low temperature while moderating it could also work. my friend did that with his ps3 once when it got very wet, seemed to work for him.
I would think the rice would be good. I don't advise for heating it because I believe that would cause the oil from the gears leak into the aperture (where oily apertures come from). That's just based on thought though. I've heard rice working well with a lot of things though, you might have to get them repaired to get rid of all the moisture from inside
yeah, actually, disregard my idea. rice sounds a lot more safe.
[QUOTE=Bengley;37578885] have near enough unlimited funds (big inheritance) means I can get anything.[/QUOTE]
I sincerely hope a parent or some other relative has control over this inheritance of yours. Your financial illiteracy will lead you to develop a taste for luxury goods that outlasts your money.
£3800 is a lot to blow on a sudden jump to pro-tier equipment you don't really need and won't see a jump in quality with. Just saying.
Put it in savings or something, ready for the future.
Looking at your Flickr, I don't get what your need a mark 3 for.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;37581676]I was caught in a storm and my lenses sat in a pool of water for about 12 hours.
What's the best way to get rid of water in a lens, that's also gotten between the aperture blades?
Think putting it in a bag of rice for a few days will do it?[/QUOTE]
Get as many silica gel packets as you possibly can and put them with the lens inside a black plastic box and leave that out in the sun for the sunny portion of a day.
If there's any moisture left in it after that, just go and pay to get someone to disassemble it and do a full service. It's expensive to do the latter, so hopefully the silica fixes it.
[QUOTE=bopie;37582929]I sincerely hope a parent or some other relative has control over this inheritance of yours. Your financial illiteracy will lead you to develop a taste for luxury goods that outlasts your money.[/QUOTE]
I'm 19. Why should they?
If you, as a 19 year old have no money management skills before inheriting whatever amount, will you suddenly understand how to handle your finances when you have that money? No. You suddenly feel financially indestructible and would buy/invest on something without really thinking about it. Invest wisely. That advice applies to everyone.
Someone who makes a fortune on their own knows what they had to do to build that fortune. They learned about wealth-building through experience. While they may lose the fortune they built, they have the knowledge in their arsenal to be able to build it again (hopefully without making the mistakes that caused them to lose it the first time). The average person who runs into an inheritance does not have that knowledge, so the mistakes they make are often permanent. You only get that money once, treat it as if you had worked every hour for it.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with treating yourself to a little something in light of new money, but you've demonstrated that you haven't really thought about it. You're drunk on the 'free' money. You'd be trading financial security for a new toy that you don't even need, and maybe don't even fully understand [i]why[/i] you would want it. At least settle on a mark ii.
~easy come easy go~
[sub]I'm just dispensing advice, you can take it or leave it.[/sub]
[QUOTE=Trogdon;37580035]The 15-85(?) is significantly better. Enough to disregard the former entirely.
Better wide angle, less distortion, better resolution and corners, improved IS, better build, and better wide open performance.
Only thing not better? Fully extended to 85mm, and the price.[/QUOTE]
It is more than double the price though, and £160 is my absolute limit at this point unfortunately, I can just about get the 17-85 or 18-50/2.8 Sigma. But thanks for your input.
[QUOTE=bopie;37587502]If you, as a 19 year old have no money management skills before inheriting whatever amount, will you suddenly understand how to handle your finances when you have that money? No. You suddenly feel financially indestructible and would buy/invest on something without really thinking about it. Invest wisely. That advice applies to everyone.
Someone who makes a fortune on their own knows what they had to do to build that fortune. They learned about wealth-building through experience. While they may lose the fortune they built, they have the knowledge in their arsenal to be able to build it again (hopefully without making the mistakes that caused them to lose it the first time). The average person who runs into an inheritance does not have that knowledge, so the mistakes they make are often permanent. You only get that money once, treat it as if you had worked every hour for it.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with treating yourself to a little something in light of new money, but you've demonstrated that you haven't really thought about it. You're drunk on the 'free' money. You'd be trading financial security for a new toy that you don't even need, and maybe don't even fully understand [i]why[/i] you would want it. At least settle on a mark ii.
~easy come easy go~
[sub]I'm just dispensing advice, you can take it or leave it.[/sub][/QUOTE]
This amount is less than 10% of the entire inheritance and it is going to be the only large investment I make with it. The rest is going to be saved/spent very wisely and only when necessary (car repairs etc)
I'm not as dumb with my money as it may seem, honest!
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;37581676]I was caught in a storm and my lenses sat in a pool of water for about 12 hours.
What's the best way to get rid of water in a lens, that's also gotten between the aperture blades?
Think putting it in a bag of rice for a few days will do it?[/QUOTE]
definitely go for rice
Going to for my first lens purchase. Don't really know much about it
My camera is a Canon EOS 500d
-Good for all around photography
-Good in lower light/night shots
Thinking of going for the Canon 50mm f/1.4
Suggestions?
[editline]9th September 2012[/editline]
or the sigma 50mm 1.4
[QUOTE=AshMan55;37588940]Going to for my first lens purchase. Don't really know much about it
My camera is a Canon EOS 550d
-Good for all around photography
-Good in lower light/night shots
Thinking of going for the Canon 50mm f/1.4
Suggestions?
[editline]9th September 2012[/editline]
or the sigma 50mm 1.4[/QUOTE]
17-50mm 2.8 Tamron?
50mm 1.4, from what I know is a great lens but does hinder your focal range to 80mm which might be a bit tight in some cases, you can always get a 50mm 1.8 II which is similar to the 1.4 with ever so slightly worse optics (negligible?) and worse construction, but it's much cheaper and you can decide if you like 80mm fixed for general shooting and then upgrade.
[QUOTE=AshMan55;37588940]Going to for my first lens purchase. Don't really know much about it
My camera is a Canon EOS 550d
-Good for all around photography
-Good in lower light/night shots
Thinking of going for the Canon 50mm f/1.4
Suggestions?
[editline]9th September 2012[/editline]
or the sigma 50mm 1.4[/QUOTE]
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 would be a better choice if you really must have a f/1.4.
Sigma 50mm f/1.4
Personally, I think 50mm looks better on a crop than 30mm, as 85mm looks better than 50mm on a full frame.
Well it depends, if you want a standard crop lens 50mm is indeed tight and I would go for a 28 / 30mm.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;37589864]
Personally, I think 50mm looks better on a crop than 30mm, as 85mm looks better than 50mm on a full frame.[/QUOTE]
But why does a 50mm look better than 30mm? In what way exactly?
Less perspective distortion.
True, I was wondering about that. 50mm is closest to the human eye perspective-wise, but the perspective isn't the same as a 30mm lens which is [I]effectively[/I] 50mm, right?
[QUOTE=Raygen;37593129]True, I was wondering about that. 50mm is closest to the human eye perspective-wise, but the perspective isn't the same as a 30mm lens which is [I]effectively[/I] 50mm, right?[/QUOTE]
Well since its the center portion of the lens, it's effectively the same as that is the middle portion where distortion occurs the least. So whatever the crop equivalent will be, will have the same distortion plane as the initial focal length. That's why compacts aren't distorted to hell and back.
I'm like 90% sure of this, as I use a 30mm equivalent and it doesn't distort the plane. The lenses are designed differently.
But 85mm compresses the background more than a 50mm. The 50mm is considered "normal" because it isn't any more or less zoomed than the eye (depends on viewfinder coverage as well to see the effects, 70mm will look normal in an APS-C viewfinder). 43mm (or 40mm) is the true "normal" because it covers the diagonal of a film plane. And 55-58mm used to be there instead of 50mm because it was easier to manufacture, but people clamored for 50mm as it was more normal.
History of the day
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;37593092]Less perspective distortion.[/QUOTE]
But you can fix it in five seconds, and 30mm on a crop is closer to human eye perspective, like 50mm on a full frame is.
[QUOTE=Legend286;37593766]But you can fix it in five seconds, and 30mm on a crop is closer to human eye perspective, like 50mm on a full frame is.[/QUOTE]
No you can't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.