• Post your camera gear/gear discussion thread
    2,407 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Funny;31047153]I'm assuming he got a kit as a present. Nice one![/QUOTE] Yeah I got the kit but some people say the 18-135 is shit. Its performing really well for me.
The 18-135 is a nice lens for a kitlens. Performs as it should be. Ideal walk-around lens for starters as it has much zoom. I had a 17-85 before, and i loved to zooming capabilities of the lens. Other things made me sell that lens, i had real complex distortion at 17mm. But i hear the 15-85 is way better, it´s even sharper than the 17-55 2.8 in image quality. For ppl who don´t believe me; check this then: [URL]http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=675&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2[/URL]
thinking about buying this little combo [url]http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=390328746251&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT[/url] I know that movie lenses only have good focus in the center, but i thought it would be fun, and sitting at 50mm focal would be fun in a nice, small package. The trouble is finding the right one on ebay, there are so many combos, and I can't tell if any sellers are better than the other, being all international. I think this one might be good though, they have the lowest price by about $7.
that looks so bad it's unbelievable
[QUOTE=Trogdon;31051807]thinking about buying this little combo [url]http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=390328746251&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT[/url] I know that movie lenses only have good focus in the center, but i thought it would be fun, and sitting at 50mm focal would be fun in a nice, small package. The trouble is finding the right one on ebay, there are so many combos, and I can't tell if any sellers are better than the other, being all international. I think this one might be good though, they have the lowest price by about $7.[/QUOTE] Just buy an old lens for a film camera...
old helios ones and brag about your bokeh
trogdon, I'm confused why would someone ever want to buy that? no, but really.
It's... probably... the worst piece of 'accessories' I've ever seen. Waste of money.
i've seen a lot of pictures taken with them, c mount lenses are really popular among four thirds and nex shooters. they are sharp in the center and not the outside, i was just looking for a nice fun to experiment 35mm lens. they have groups on flickr and they actually take nice pictures
but if they're movie lenses, why don't you just buy regular ones? I guess these are cheaper, but that's not a reason to buy something.
cheap, wide open, and good focal length. a similar FD mount lens would be like a couple hundred, and not as wide open. so the quality is definitely worth it for the price, plus you get an adapter for more movie lenses. so i think i'll order it, and post some pictures later. it'll be better than you're assuming, i've done my research.
I wasn't assuming anything. I've never heard/seen someone use movie lenses off of a camcorder (is that even what they're called?). but I've also never really cared about the 4.3rds/NEX lines, so idunno.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;31061594]cheap, wide open, and good focal length. a similar FD mount lens would be like a couple hundred, and not as wide open. so the quality is definitely worth it for the price, plus you get an adapter for more movie lenses. so i think i'll order it, and post some pictures later. it'll be better than you're assuming, i've done my research.[/QUOTE] A similar M42 lens would be cheaper.
I have this [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II_with_50mm_1.4.jpg[/img_thumb] Well it's technically not mine, it's my brothers, but he lets me borrow it whenever I like, and he hardly ever uses it himself so its no trouble not having it around him. I really want to get into photography, though
[QUOTE=B-hazard;31063431]A similar M42 lens would be cheaper.[/QUOTE] Probably better quality too, it's what I use on my 4/3rds
why the hell isn't image_thumb working. oh well, i guess you have to go to the link. It's a canon eos 5d mark 2
[QUOTE=B-hazard;31063431]A similar M42 lens would be cheaper.[/QUOTE] m42 35mm f/1.7 < $38 nope
[QUOTE=Sir Tristan;31064345]canon eos 5d mark 2[/QUOTE] If you need to know anything about it, or need ~technical help~ let me know. I know that thing like the back of my hand. <3
do you have one yourself? [editline]12th July 2011[/editline] and yes i would love help not only with the camera but with photography in general. when my brother takes pictures he always pulls up this graph thing on the camera screen and looks at it and determines whether the picture is good or bad, and sometimes he shows me pictures he takes that are bad and they don't look bad to me. he says his iso was set too high or low, or the flash didn't light the foreground correctly, or the colors weren't adjusted for the environment he was taking the picture in, and i really never notice a difference and i would like to be able to notice differences like that, because i don't want to take pictures and look at them and think they're good, then show people that actually know a thing or two about photography and have them laugh at me
I'm looking to buy a Pentax ME Super as my first proper camera, and I was told an f/1.7 lens would be good to start with. However, I found one on ebay with a "35mm auto super paragon lens" : [url]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Pentax-ME-Super-35mm-auto-super-paragon-lens-/230644722259[/url] The lens sure does look pretty but will it be okay? Thanks
[QUOTE=Sir Tristan;31064525]do you have one yourself? [editline]12th July 2011[/editline] and yes i would love help not only with the camera but with photography in general. when my brother takes pictures he always pulls up this graph thing on the camera screen and looks at it and determines whether the picture is good or bad, and sometimes he shows me pictures he takes that are bad and they don't look bad to me. he says his iso was set too high or low, or the flash didn't light the foreground correctly, or the colors weren't adjusted for the environment he was taking the picture in, and i really never notice a difference and i would like to be able to notice differences like that, because i don't want to take pictures and look at them and think they're good, then show people that actually know a thing or two about photography and have them laugh at me[/QUOTE] Yep. Here's my 'loadout': [quote][img]http://i.imgur.com/td04I.jpg[/img][/quote] 5D2 + EOS 3 - 50 1.4 - 24-70 2.8L Pentax 67 - Takumar 105 2.4 [editline]july 12[/editline] The graph he pulls up is called the histogram. I personally don't believe in following it, but it is useful to check and make sure you don't have any blown highlights (areas that are so bright the camera just 'says' its white) in bad viewing conditions. The camera's LCD can be misleading in direct sunlight. It's there as more of a second opinion than anything else. The beauty of this section is that we don't judge you on your skill level. don't be afraid to post - infact that's probably your best bet, because then we can walk you through the learning process much better than just handing you down some tips.
I would say nice or something but I literally have no idea about any of that stuff :v: I wish I did though
[QUOTE=Alcapwne;31064562]The lens sure does look pretty but will it be okay?[/QUOTE] It's only 2.8, you might find it limiting compared a fast (1.8 or larger) 50mm.
[QUOTE=bopie;31064771]It's only 2.8, you might find it limiting compared a fast (1.8 or larger) 50mm.[/QUOTE] Ah okay, well do you know anywhere I can get K mount lenses cheap, because on ebay the lenses by themselves cost £30 - £40 and the ME Super costs £40 - £50 with a lens and sometimes a flash gun included
you can try KEH.com.
[QUOTE=adam1172;31045767]My day bought me a 7D for my birthday :dance: Can't wait to buy a Sigma 30 f/1.4.[/QUOTE] 7D and sigma 1.4 bros (although mine is a 50mm bUT STILL)
I want to get a Canon EOS 3... how much should I be expecting to pay for a body only. and I have some old lenses that would fit on a Canon AE-1, would these fit on the EOS 3? Or can I just use my regular canon EF mount lenses?
[QUOTE=Barnhouse;31066637]I want to get a Canon EOS 3... how much should I be expecting to pay for a body only. and I have some old lenses that would fit on a Canon AE-1, would these fit on the EOS 3? Or can I just use my regular canon EF mount lenses?[/QUOTE] I am interested in one too but sadly I can't find them. And I believe the AE-1 uses the FD mount and the Eos 3 uses the EF mount so it will only accept the EF mount lenses
[QUOTE=Barnhouse;31066637]I want to get a Canon EOS 3... how much should I be expecting to pay for a body only. and I have some old lenses that would fit on a Canon AE-1, would these fit on the EOS 3? Or can I just use my regular canon EF mount lenses?[/QUOTE] The AE-1 uses the FD mount, witch is incompatible with the EF mount, so they wont work... what lenses are they? If they're anything good I might consider giving you an offer for them...
[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;31066974]The AE-1 uses the FD mount, witch is incompatible with the EF mount, so they wont work... what lenses are they? If they're anything good I might consider giving you an offer for them...[/QUOTE] 50mm 1.4 30mm 2.8 I think and some long ass one they're all a bit hazy, the colours get washed out and they're basically blurry at low aperture. They're really not that great. I'm so glad an EOS 3 will take my EF mount lenses [editline]12th July 2011[/editline] £130 with a battery grip would be alright for an EOS 3 right?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.