• Post your camera gear/gear discussion thread
    2,407 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Trogdon;33278287]probably, i'd just keep them though. lenses are good decorations[/QUOTE] But I have no use for them.
wait here's more info on them [url]http://www.flickr.com/groups/spiratone/discuss/72157627684096664/[/url]
If they are m42 you can get a cheap adapter for at least 6 bucks. The original Pentax brand ones are rare and like 30 bucks but totally worth it son.
apparently it's a T mount, which screws in like an m42 but is not the same threading.
Thinking of picking one of these up as a sort of "permanent disposable", something fun and small I can put in my pocket and forget. I know you guys don't like Lomo so if you know anything better (apart from the Vivitar Super Wide and Slim which this camera is a clone of) for under $50 let me know :) [img]http://www.turntablelab.com/images/content/9/1/91554.jpg[/img] [editline]17th November 2011[/editline] I know it's lomo, don't hate :v:
[QUOTE=The Salmon;33311669]Thinking of picking one of these up as a sort of "permanent disposable", something fun and small I can put in my pocket and forget. I know you guys don't like Lomo so if you know anything better (apart from the Vivitar Super Wide and Slim which this camera is a clone of) for under $50 let me know :) [img]http://www.turntablelab.com/images/content/9/1/91554.jpg[/img] [editline]17th November 2011[/editline] I know it's lomo, don't hate :v:[/QUOTE] does nobody listen to me... the original Olympus XA is a god among cameras.
[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;33311705]does nobody listen to me... the original Olympus XA is a god among cameras.[/QUOTE] Looks pretty good, but the batteries bit is a niggle. A wider lens with lower aperture and smaller size is still looking like a better deal for the same price. Are the batteries hard to find/costly?
[QUOTE=The Salmon;33313417]Looks pretty good, but the batteries bit is a niggle. A wider lens with lower aperture and smaller size is still looking like a better deal for the same price. Are the batteries hard to find/costly?[/QUOTE] they're a standard type of watch battery, just go down to your local dick smith and the have racks of them. [editline]17th November 2011[/editline] got my 28mm :D seems to be really nice
dick smiths and niggles.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Smith_(entrepreneur)]He's a super cool guy[/url] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Dick_Smith.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;33313793][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Smith_(entrepreneur)]He's a super cool guy[/url] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Dick_Smith.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I think I can thank Dick Smith for igniting my love for the natural world. When I was about 7 my parents gave me a Dick Smith microbeast magnifying glass. I spent day after day looking at beatles, skinks, lizards and insects in magnification. It was bliss. And still is. I have it somewhere lying around.
Does anyone know from experience how the Nikon 18-55 VR DX stacks up against the Nikon 17-55 DX? I'm thinking about replacing my kit lens at some point soon.
[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;33311705]does nobody listen to me... the original Olympus XA is a god among cameras.[/QUOTE] I have an XA2, I have like 6 rolls needing to be developed from it. And yes, it's much better as a pocketable film camera than that gimmicky lomo crap. [editline]17th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Blitzkrieg94;33314158]Does anyone know from experience how the Nikon 18-55 VR DX stacks up against the Nikon 17-55 DX? I'm thinking about replacing my kit lens at some point soon.[/QUOTE] Not worth it. For the same price you could get an ultra-wide, a differen't fast normal zoom and a 50/30mm 1.4.
tampon 17-50 f/2.8
[QUOTE=bopie;33313674]dick smiths and niggles.[/QUOTE] made me think of a blacksmith working a red hot sword with a hammer and anvil then I cringed
Ok, so I have a Canon 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 for wide angle and a Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 for telephoto. I need a wider angle lens, but I'm kind of an extreme person. If I want telephoto, I WANT TELEPHOTO. 800mm FTW. I used a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 before, and immediately fell in love with it. I really want it, but I'm afraid that it won't be practical, especially with indoor group shots (I'd be in their face). Should I get it or should I get a less wide lens, such as the Tamron 17-50?
[img]http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox_images/ef35-105.jpg[/img] that?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/upUOn.png[/img] holy shit
[QUOTE=daijitsu;33326088][img]http://i.imgur.com/upUOn.png[/img] holy shit[/QUOTE] wat
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;33327820]wat[/QUOTE] 85mm lens with a max aperture width of nearly 71mm ...strapped to a fucking rebel XT
It's going to eat meee [editline]18th November 2011[/editline] [video=youtube;HyophYBP_w4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4[/video]
[QUOTE=daijitsu;33326088][img]http://i.imgur.com/upUOn.png[/img] holy shit[/QUOTE] How about the opposite? [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/8BVRD.png[/IMG]
im going to jacobs, gonna used an 85mm 1.2 i used the 50 and it just wasn't big enough!
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;33329713]im going to jacobs, gonna used an 85mm 1.2 i used the 50 and it just wasn't big enough![/QUOTE] when I first read that I was like "fuck man, australia is a mighty long plane ride" protip: my flickr name
yeah i know you're jacob haslehurst
[QUOTE=daijitsu;33329533]85mm lens with a max aperture width of nearly 71mm [/QUOTE] yeah my 55mm f1.2 is not big enough i need one of this [img]http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/CanonFDn85mmf12Ld.jpg[/img] hopin to strike it rich at goodwill
[QUOTE=Trogdon;33332510]yeah my 55mm f1.2 is not big enough i need one of this [img]http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/CanonFDn85mmf12Ld.jpg[/img] hopin to strike it rich at goodwill[/QUOTE] You mean this one? [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/5558962095/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5134/5558962095_f4d29a7973_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/5558962095/]Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 L[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/]Leevmeister[/url], on Flickr Yup, i have one.
[QUOTE=frag4life;33332609]You mean this one? [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/5558962095/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5134/5558962095_f4d29a7973_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/5558962095/]Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 L[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/]Leevmeister[/url], on Flickr Yup, i have one.[/QUOTE] [img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luvjjgg74i1qfkoa2.gif[/img]
i was like 90% sure you did lol. how much did you spend on it? How much better is it than a 55mm FL 1.2? Not that i'll ever be able to afford one, i'm just curious. the 55mm doesn't have the exact flange distance it should on my adapter, i need to fiddle with it to add a little bit of length so i can get infinity ON infinity.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;33332737]i was like 90% sure you did lol. how much did you spend on it? How much better is it than a 55mm FL 1.2? Not that i'll ever be able to afford one, i'm just curious. the 55mm doesn't have the exact flange distance it should on my adapter, i need to fiddle with it to add a little bit of length so i can get infinity ON infinity.[/QUOTE] I got it for a steal like your FL 55 1.2, just 150 euros, but also had it given a CLA, so my final price was about 250 euro, and that's still cheap compared to what they go for now-a-days. They go for atleast 500 euro now, and it is really worth it, because optically it's just as good as the modern EF 85L's. The best thing about this lens compared to the older non-aspherical 1.2 lenses is that it has way less CA than any other older canon 55/58 1.2 non aspherical lens. (the 55 1.2 SSC Asperical is a lens i would love to own too, but it's a rare sight to see it for sale for a reasonable price, which is around 400 euros, and it's better than the 50 1.2L newFD).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.