Gear discussion thread v. "I got some new gear and I got to post it here" - General

I think im just gonna settle with the tokina 11-16 f/2.8 since I dont really need the extra range of the 12-28 and if I do then kit lens exists for a reason. also i want bigger aperture and the f/2.8 is generally really sharp. they all have pretty bad CA but I use the money left over from not buying something like a 28mm f/1.8g to buy DXO optics pro 9

[QUOTE=Desuh;43047600]The inability of my Mju ii to focus properly makes me want to smash it against a wall.[/QUOTE] I had this same problem with the Mju I. I ended up selling the damn thing because it was so annoying. Now using a Contax T2. Never misses its focus.

so ive decided to get the a7, but now i gotta decide what lens to get I cant get the 35mm zeiss intill i get my tax returns :v: What should i get in the meantime? For cheap, i might add. Some rangefinder lens, so the adapter is shorter, preferably.

[QUOTE=notlabbet;43048705]so ive decided to get the a7, but now i gotta decide what lens to get I cant get the 35mm zeiss intill i get my tax returns :v: What should i get in the meantime? For cheap, i might add. Some rangefinder lens, so the adapter is shorter, preferably.[/QUOTE] The rangefinder lenses are pretty pricey up front, just buy an adapter for your minolta lenses for now. I plan on mostly just using Canon FD lenses, then the contax ones just because they were a good deal.

why is it that all my underexposed dark film shots come out with the blacks clipped into grey? is it just the auto print machine trying to auto fix the image or (idk how the negative is probs ok if what i said above is right)

The Konica 40mm 1.8 is a small lens, the adapter is small as well. Not the best performer but a cool lens overall.

[QUOTE=Eltro102;43048995]why is it that all my underexposed dark film shots come out with the blacks clipped into grey? is it just the auto print machine trying to auto fix the image or (idk how the negative is probs ok if what i said above is right)[/QUOTE] Digital blows out easily in highlights, film 'blows out' easily in the shadows.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;43048993]The rangefinder lenses are pretty pricey up front, just buy an adapter for your minolta lenses for now. I plan on mostly just using Canon FD lenses, then the contax ones just because they were a good deal.[/QUOTE] its just that the minolta adapter is so huge...its longer than my 45mm

[QUOTE=notlabbet;43048705]so ive decided to get the a7, but now i gotta decide what lens to get I cant get the 35mm zeiss intill i get my tax returns :v: What should i get in the meantime? For cheap, i might add. Some rangefinder lens, so the adapter is shorter, preferably.[/QUOTE] sell all valuble possessions buy 50mm f/0.95 noctilux

[QUOTE=notlabbet;43049156]its just that the minolta adapter is so huge...its longer than my 45mm[/QUOTE] it's really not that bad. i used my nex 5 and Canon FL 55mm 1.2 for a large majority of my shots and never found it to be a burden in handling. it seems worse than it really is.

I should probably give old lenses a try, especially since my school has a bunch of FD lenses. Just need to find an adapter for cheap. I have idea what to look for with adapter. Any guides and tips?

unless you have a mirrorless cam don't even bother

Live view and video mode Oh do I still need an adapter if I'm using a recent Nikon DSLR for old Nikon glass?

[QUOTE=garychencool;43050433]Live view and video mode Oh do I still need an adapter if I'm using a recent Nikon DSLR for old Nikon glass?[/QUOTE] glass adapters still cause the image quality to go to be quite bad because they need to refocus the lens as the flange is shorter than all DSLR cameras. The glass is usually not good quality and reduces all qualities of the lens, and also adds a teleconverter at times. For reference, the Minolta MD (technically SR) mount, Canon FD, and Konica AR mounts cannot be mounted onto a glassless adapter and then onto a DSLR, while some other mounts can. They do make glassless adapters for these lenses, but they can't focus to infinity and will only be decent for macro working distances (flange distance matters quite a bit). Canon EOS can adapt Nikon, Contax Yashica, Pentax, Leica R, and M42 mounts with glassless adapters, while other companies can take M42 glassless adapters (Sony, Pentax, and I think Nikon). Some older lenses are adapted to newer mounts by rebuilding the back of the lens, and Leitax is the most common place where people purchase the conversion kits from. Pentax and Nikon cameras can take older lenses because they choose to keep their old bayonet mounts, so you would not need an adapter. Nikons can use AI-S lenses (none of the older AI except for the Df), but Pentax should be able to take any of their K bayonet lenses. Just check if your old nikon lenses are AI-S and they should mount with no problem.

ugh fuck me and my pickyness if I get enough $$$ should I get the nikon 10-24 instead of the tokina 11-16 [editline]2nd December 2013[/editline] and then I can get a 24-70 and i will have every MM covered from 10-300

In my experience it's better to spend money on good lenses rather than covering every mm. Art photography is about composition rather than getting it all in the frame.

the only thing the 11-16 has going for it is the aperture (2.8 vs 4) and it is arguably better build quality [editline]2nd December 2013[/editline] im just really bad at making up my mind

[QUOTE=dwt110;43050903]ugh fuck me and my pickyness if I get enough $$$ should I get the nikon 10-24 instead of the tokina 11-16 [editline]2nd December 2013[/editline] and then I can get a 24-70 and i will have every MM covered from 10-300[/QUOTE] That's a good range

which one?

I'm sorry I thought you wished for a 10-300mm or something :v:

oh lol, i was like "what is he saying" and i started speed googling sample pictures from the 11-16 and 10-24 checking for vignetting and distortion [sp]the 10-24 has pretty bad distortion at 10mm but whatever[/sp]

[QUOTE=dwt110;43052253]the 10-24 has pretty bad distortion at 10mm but whatever[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/eXciNaY.jpg[/img] yay software

ugh i hate this i want a new lens, but I also want to move up to full frame already (but i love my flippy screen), but I really need a new computer if I plan on post-processing my images any decent bit and at a rate greater than 10 an hour.

Get an X-E2 and 35 1.4 and realise what you were missing out on :D On another note, the distortion in the 10-24 isn't that bad. I'm guessing it'll mostly be landscapes you shoot with it, and nature rarely has straight lines. If you're shooting the coast then just do what Bope says.

that costs $200 more than my camera with kit lens was [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] also i dont like mirrorless for some reason [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] i like the sound DSLR shutters make [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] im fine with mirrorless but I just cant see myself using one for some reason

I would really miss the optical view finders

what happens if i use a non full frame e-mount lens on the a7?

purely out of interest, what focal lengths do yous all generally prefer? just kind of realised that ever since I started using film I've stuck with a 50 pretty much permanently, and never feel like using anything longer despite owning a couple of longer lenses. sometimes a 28, but to me anything longer than a 50 just feels really weird to use

I have 28-300 covered with my lenses but I never use anything but my 50 [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] that said though, I did shoot with my 28-80 in Venice and got some nice shots with it, surprised at how shallow the depth of field was at 28 3.5

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;43054875]purely out of interest, what focal lengths do yous all generally prefer? just kind of realised that ever since I started using film I've stuck with a 50 pretty much permanently, and never feel like using anything longer despite owning a couple of longer lenses. sometimes a 28, but to me anything longer than a 50 just feels really weird to use[/QUOTE] I found the exact same, 50 1.8 was all I had on my Nikon FE2 and it was great. Its why I was struggling to decide between a X100s at 35mm equiv or an XE-1/XE-2 with 35 1.4 (52ish equiv). Money being the deciding factor, I figure I'll work with the X100s for so long and see how I get on, takes me out of my comfort zone and that's only a good thing when it comes to creative endeavours.