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

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40247321]The sigma 50mm is an amazing lens. Not sure about focusing issues on canon bodies like their 30mm, but realistically it's the most well rounded 50mm lens for DSLRs IMO[/QUOTE] I've just heard so many horror stories about people getting it, having to send it off, getting it back not fixed, having to send it off again, etc. I would go to a brick and mortar store and try it out, but I'd have to drive a few hours to do that.

Well does your body have AF micro adjust? And what is the MP count? I mean most all of my lenses require AF adjustment including name brand, I think the sigma numbers might be exaggerated. The less megapixels the less likely it is to show up though

The 30D is only 8.2mp, but it unfortunately does not have AD micro adjustment. But hey, I got it with a battery grip for $159.50. I'm still happy with it. Just going to have to make some reasonable compromises. [editline]11th April 2013[/editline] I could get a Carl Zeiss 1.4 50mm, but it does not have AF. I've never done photography before, so I don't know how annoying this would really be. I know people take pictures in manual all the time, but I also see so many people simply relying on AF, as it seems to be so reliable these days.

well if that lens has af confirm then all you have to do is just spin the lens until the beep/blink

I've finally acquired a Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS Will be getting to the zoo at the weekend and give it a whirl

[QUOTE=Funcoot;40247442]The 30D is only 8.2mp, but it unfortunately does not have AD micro adjustment. But hey, I got it with a battery grip for $159.50. I'm still happy with it. Just going to have to make some reasonable compromises. [editline]11th April 2013[/editline] I could get a Carl Zeiss 1.4 50mm, but it does not have AF. I've never done photography before, so I don't know how annoying this would really be. I know people take pictures in manual all the time, but I also see so many people simply relying on AF, as it seems to be so reliable these days.[/QUOTE] Don't get the zeiss, the sigma is a better performer for less. Realistically just get the canon 50mm 1.8, if its not good enough resell it for 90% of what you paid for it and see where to go from there.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40247786]Don't get the zeiss, the sigma is a better performer for less. Realistically just get the canon 50mm 1.8, if its not good enough resell it for 90% of what you paid for it and see where to go from there.[/QUOTE] That is probably what I'll end up having to do. Maybe get the 50mm 1.8 and the 40mm 2.8 pancake.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40245848]To be fair video is a lot more reliant on the body of the camera than the lenses, due to the complexities of video codec. I'm sure if you compared a t2i with a a great lens to a red with a not so great lens the codec from the red would still leave you with better looking video. But lenses are extremely important, but fortunately most lenses have a lot of capability to them.[/QUOTE] well yeah, a T2i will have better video than a T3 (because it's 1080p vs 720p, clearly 1080p wins for this) but then again there would be differences in low light comparing to other cameras like the 7D, 5Dmkii/iii, etc. 5Dmkii/iii will do better due to their full frame sensors.

[QUOTE=Kill coDer;40241707]I'm about to go for a 645 format film system and I want to scan myself, is the v500 still a good scanner for me? I'm in Australia so it's going to be like $300 minimum, $450 from Epson's website, I do not understand why it's double the price.[/QUOTE] ouch dude. Maybe check ebay and see if someone offers international shipping?

[QUOTE=Funcoot;40246171]Here is a hands on video that answers this question with a great example. [hd][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4[/URL][/hd][/QUOTE] Why haven't I watched this yet???

[QUOTE=garychencool;40251553]Why haven't I watched this yet???[/QUOTE] Haha, I love DigitalRev and their reviews. They're always hilarious and I think they treat the specs the right way. They know specs are important, but reviewing and assessing a lens isn't about tons of charts and graphs.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;40253169]Haha, I love DigitalRev and their reviews. They're always hilarious and I think they treat the specs the right way. They know specs are important, but reviewing and assessing a lens isn't about tons of charts and graphs.[/QUOTE] If I had to decide on which lens to buy watching digitalrev would be the last thing I would do. I mean they are fun to watch but they are not very informative.

I finally got some more film [IMG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8247/8642028461_e56b430794_o.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Desuh;40255164]If I had to decide on which lens to buy watching digitalrev would be the last thing I would do. I mean they are fun to watch but they are not very informative.[/QUOTE] How so? I've always thought they were quite informative. They always tell you the specs, do low light tests, look at auto-focus speed, look for problems such as vignetting and color aberration, weather-proofing, and low light performance. I'll admit they're pretty obsessed with bokeh... but BOKEH! Graphs and charts are fine all day long, but they never reflect real world application and use that they test it for. Anytime I go to see a lens comparison on a forum, all people do is start blasting graphs all over the place half the time, they're almost as bad as audiophiles. And at the end of the day, performance is only one part of the equation and I think that is something DigitalRev seems to understand. But then again I'm the noob.

[QUOTE=Desuh;40255164]If I had to decide on which lens to buy watching digitalrev would be the last thing I would do. I mean they are fun to watch but they are [B]not very informative.[/B][/QUOTE] False. I learned not to trust Kai with disassembling and/or painting a camera.

I learned that Sigma lenses are good (and bad depending on which one you get). They had a bokeh test on them and Sigma beat the nikon or canon lens that costed more.

Every digitalrev concludes with "this lens is a good lens. It has good things about it and bad things about it. Whether or not you need it is up to you" Which is true, but sometimes definitive answers are needed. I would look at multiple sources that review the lens, sites where individuals review a lens, and then browse Flickr to see what the lens is capable of edited. There are a lot more to lenses than just sheer image quality.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40256817]Every digitalrev concludes with "this lens is a good lens. It has good things about it and bad things about it. Whether or not you need it is up to you" Which is true, but sometimes definitive answers are needed. I would look at multiple sources that review the lens, sites where individuals review a lens, and then browse Flickr to see what the lens is capable of edited. There are a lot more to lenses than just sheer image quality.[/QUOTE] I have noticed that from their reviews too. I've been looking for multiple sources as well. Often DigitalRev, DPReview and Flikr all make suitable sources. DigitalRev for real world performance, DPReview for specs, charts, and fanboys, and Flikr for proof.

real world use is all I really care about actually, besides some specs stuff such as the aperture and the focal lengths

lenses have gotten so good that practically all the comparisons about them are more to reassure the buyers of the winning lens that they made the right choice instead of objectively saying this lens is much better than the other (i'm not talking about a sharpness dx0 of 0.9 instead of 1 that's just dumb and pixel peep-y, if you really want that then why not just buy a view camera?? you obviously don't live in the real world)

hey i'm not sure if this is entirely true but will a 50mm f/1.4 do f/1.8 better than a 50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8? Does this apply to all/most lenses? Like the 24-70mm f/2.8 will do f/4 better than the 24-70mm f/4 at f/4?

most of the time yeah a lens stopped down does better than one wide open but realisticly you'll never notice this on Lenses (might do on lenses)

[QUOTE=garychencool;40259411]hey i'm not sure if this is entirely true but will a 50mm f/1.4 do f/1.8 better than a 50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8? Does this apply to all/most lenses? Like the 24-70mm f/2.8 will do f/4 better than the 24-70mm f/4 at f/4?[/QUOTE] Typically yeah, but it depends. I've researched the canon 50mm line. I've read in multiple places that the 50mm f/1.8 isn't as sharp as it should be until stopped down to about f/2.4. Yes, the f/1.4 version does perform better than the f/1.8 version at 1.8, but a lot of people say it's not worth the extra $200 - $250 bucks you're going to be paying. Might be better off buying the 1.8 version and putting the $200 towards something else, like the f/1.2 L lens, if you're using Canon of course.

You don't buy the 1.4 lens for mildly better performance at 1.8, you get it for the better autofocus system, much better build quality, more aperture blades, and having 1.4 instead of 1.8. All of those things can make it worth the extra price, if those are things that you want/need. And the 1.2 lens is not directly comparable with the other two. It is an incredibly specialist lens, and is more difficult to use than the other two, due largely to the curved field plane. I would not recommend that lens unless you really know what you are getting into.

A friend of mine got the 50mm f/1.4, the AF is so much better and it's USM

Quick tip: Honestly if you're looking for direction about gear, ask/find out what the [i]photographs you ALREADY like[/i] are being made with. [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] unrelated: scooped a zeiss 35 1.4 // haven't put it through the paces but damn i'm tempted to switch over. the only tangible drawback is no AF but I think it'll 'build character.'

[QUOTE=bopie;40262114]Quick tip: Honestly if you're looking for direction about gear, ask/find out what the [i]photographs you ALREADY like[/i] are being made with. [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] unrelated: scooped a zeiss 35 1.4 // haven't put it through the paces but damn i'm tempted to switch over. the only tangible drawback is no AF but I think it'll 'build character.'[/QUOTE] What do you like about it?

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;40262324]What do you like about it?[/QUOTE] The bokeh

The bokey is noticeably smoother, but this thing is rendering subtle colors much better than the L. It's intangible and probably sounds like designer-item-buyer-bias, but seriously theres just 'more' color.

i want the ability to shoot video like Utopia, i.e. wide angles whilst keeping shallow depth of field. i got in touch with the director and he told me they used zeiss superspeeds (T 1.3) at 18mm. problem: i can only use these on a PL mount camera and they cost a mint. soultion: use a full frame camera with a 24mm f/1.4 problem: that costs a lot of money