Thought I'd break this one out of the new perpetual Photography thread.
Have at it, folks!
Have at it, folks!
The *new* Perpetual Photo Accessory thread
- Thread starter Deffexor
- Start date
I got a replacement 6d the other day for the one I killed a few weeks ago.
Took the time to update my records of serial numbers (and an aside, values, OMG ...)
Though stumbled across lenstag, anyone else use it? Will put all my gear on there seems a good idea!
Took the time to update my records of serial numbers (and an aside, values, OMG ...)
Though stumbled across lenstag, anyone else use it? Will put all my gear on there seems a good idea!
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28725941#p28725941:183juddf said:
Jared Polin made a promotional video about lenstag.
GAS is gnawing away, and I'm debating picking up a 70-200 f/4 IS (2.8 is just too damn big, imo) or a 16-35 f/4 IS to pair with my 6D (already have the 24-105 and a few primes). Might be heading to Yosemite in May if that's any help. Any thoughts (including just hold on to your wallet and take more pictures)?
I imagine the 70-200 and 16-35 could be equally as versatile, depending on your shooting style.
24mm on the 24-105 is usable but not the best, its a great lens for pano's though.
I see a mix of images from the location from wide to tele
and to help you more both the 16-35/4 and 70-200f4SIS will murder your 24-105 for quality lol.
24mm on the 24-105 is usable but not the best, its a great lens for pano's though.
I see a mix of images from the location from wide to tele
and to help you more both the 16-35/4 and 70-200f4SIS will murder your 24-105 for quality lol.
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28725941#p28725941:28ck65u8 said:
Any idea how they're making any money?
What's the old adage, if you're not buying the product you are the product?
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28726435#p28726435:384jtq8x said:
What primes do you have?
It's really going to come down to what you primarily like to shoot and were the largest gap in your current coverage is.
That trip makes me think 16-35 but on the other hand EVERYONE shoots landscapes wide so if you want to shoot different you'd get the long lens
It's not as easy to shoot tight landscapes I find though.I was going to jokingly suggest Hawkear go the other way; sell the 24-105/4L and get both. I mean fuck the 35-70mm range anyway — boring.
I mean I love my 24-105/4L it's a great general purpose lens, and it's considerably more flexible than a 24-70 as far as range and reach go. Plus if he's got a 50mm prime, then it's pretty much covered there anyway, as 35 to 50 and 50 to 70 really are a couple of step or a bit of cropping kind of changes in composition. Never mind, the 16-35/4 and 70-200/4 are considerably better lenses than the 24-105/4.
The only place that doesn't make sense is if you use the whole range of the 24-105/4 and don't want to carry two or 3 lenses in its stead.
I mean I love my 24-105/4L it's a great general purpose lens, and it's considerably more flexible than a 24-70 as far as range and reach go. Plus if he's got a 50mm prime, then it's pretty much covered there anyway, as 35 to 50 and 50 to 70 really are a couple of step or a bit of cropping kind of changes in composition. Never mind, the 16-35/4 and 70-200/4 are considerably better lenses than the 24-105/4.
The only place that doesn't make sense is if you use the whole range of the 24-105/4 and don't want to carry two or 3 lenses in its stead.
Continuing my camera strap discussion from the previous thread-- had an OpTech Super Classic Strap that was wearing out, debated just replacing the ends or buying something else. Looked at a bunch, ended up with a Custom SLR Air Strap.
The Custom SLR Air is a bit more bulky than the Op/Tech Super Classic Strap, enough to be annoying, but finally after a month with it I'm pretty used to it. Construction details seem more flimsy than the Op/Tech, but in reality it looks like it's plenty strong and will hold up fine. Not sold on the higher position of the quick disconnects/swivel ability of the quick disconnects-- they claim it lets better alignment/weight bearing, but I haven't noticed.
I finally got a hands-on demo of the Peak Design Slide this past weekend to do a direct comparison. The quick disconnects from Peak Design are pretty slick, but they were definitely bigger and more bulky than I had imagined. Still pretty compact so not a bad thing at all. However, they had their demo strap on a Sony Alpha setup, and after trying it, I'm reasonably convinced that the Peak Design Slide is better suited for lighter cameras like a mirrorless or a more compact APS-C setup. The integrated padded in the shoulder strap is nice, but it's a bit narrow and not the most comfortable with a heavier load.
Considering I was carrying a 5D III and 11-24L during the weekend (crap, the 11-24L is heavy compared to the 14L or 24-70L Mark II), I'd say I was sort of doing a worst-case example for the Peak Design Slide as well.
Also, the 11-24L is pretty awesome. I think Canon aimed right in going for 11mm as an ultrawide, pushing the envelope in that direction lead to a lens that's a great deal of fun to shoot with. The 24mm "tele" end permits a more normal wide angle which is just versatile enough to be useful (yeah, 35mm would be better, but given how big and heavy the 11-24L is, I don't think I'd want it to be heavier!).
That said it's big, very heavy (especially in front with that massive element), not cheap, and if you like to shoot indoors and in low light, f/4 is a limitation. I was running around all weekend at a photography show and didn't want to carry any more weight so I skipped a tripod, but I imagine if you're the kind of shooter who does carry a tripod then f/4 wouldn't bother you as much. I think I personally might go 14/2.8 if I had to buy such a lens, although I was surprised how much I enjoyed the different perspective of the 11-24L...
The Custom SLR Air is a bit more bulky than the Op/Tech Super Classic Strap, enough to be annoying, but finally after a month with it I'm pretty used to it. Construction details seem more flimsy than the Op/Tech, but in reality it looks like it's plenty strong and will hold up fine. Not sold on the higher position of the quick disconnects/swivel ability of the quick disconnects-- they claim it lets better alignment/weight bearing, but I haven't noticed.
I finally got a hands-on demo of the Peak Design Slide this past weekend to do a direct comparison. The quick disconnects from Peak Design are pretty slick, but they were definitely bigger and more bulky than I had imagined. Still pretty compact so not a bad thing at all. However, they had their demo strap on a Sony Alpha setup, and after trying it, I'm reasonably convinced that the Peak Design Slide is better suited for lighter cameras like a mirrorless or a more compact APS-C setup. The integrated padded in the shoulder strap is nice, but it's a bit narrow and not the most comfortable with a heavier load.
Considering I was carrying a 5D III and 11-24L during the weekend (crap, the 11-24L is heavy compared to the 14L or 24-70L Mark II), I'd say I was sort of doing a worst-case example for the Peak Design Slide as well.
Also, the 11-24L is pretty awesome. I think Canon aimed right in going for 11mm as an ultrawide, pushing the envelope in that direction lead to a lens that's a great deal of fun to shoot with. The 24mm "tele" end permits a more normal wide angle which is just versatile enough to be useful (yeah, 35mm would be better, but given how big and heavy the 11-24L is, I don't think I'd want it to be heavier!).
That said it's big, very heavy (especially in front with that massive element), not cheap, and if you like to shoot indoors and in low light, f/4 is a limitation. I was running around all weekend at a photography show and didn't want to carry any more weight so I skipped a tripod, but I imagine if you're the kind of shooter who does carry a tripod then f/4 wouldn't bother you as much. I think I personally might go 14/2.8 if I had to buy such a lens, although I was surprised how much I enjoyed the different perspective of the 11-24L...
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28727409#p28727409:3rxtpzry said:
I find the Peak Design very comfortable for my D610 and various lenses. For example this weekend I hiked 10 miles with the D610 and my Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8D (around 3.3 pounds) without any discomfort while wearing it as a sling. I certainly wouldn't use it as a neck strap with that much weight.
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28727341#p28727341:1x0tl6sn said:NetMasterOC3[/url]":1x0tl6sn]I was going to jokingly suggest Hawkear go the other way; sell the 24-105/4L and get both. I mean fuck the 35-70mm range anyway — boring.
Thats what I do!
I have the 16-35, a 70-200.
Fill the gap with a quality 50 - which tbh is my primary go to landscape lens when I dont require it in one frame (along with a novoflex pano head), though I am happy to go out with the 16-35 on its own and pano at 35mm.
I should change the 70-200/2.8 for an f4 , the amount of use it gets at 2.8 is minimal.
Sp@nky, for primes I have the Canon 40mm 2.8 pancake, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8. I'm also sorely tempted to try out the Sigma 35 1.4 for slightly wider shots (and faster focusing than the pancake) at concerts, but those work (and good lord, the 85 is spectacular).
continuum, renting is definitely an option - especially if I plan in advance. There's a camera shop a block from my house that usually has stuff on hand to rent (just not to buy, unless it's oooold). The 11-24 looks so good, but it's the cost of three great lenses.
NetMasterOC3 - I'm definitely tempted by that option. It's a good lens, but that 105mm just feels half-assed. I was borrowing my brother-in-law's 70-200 f/4 for this peacock shot at a zoo, and it wouldn't have been half as detailed on the 24-105.
If I were on a hike, walking around with a 70-200 feels like it would be more useful than the 24-105, and the ability to switch to the 16-35 for more planned shots is handy.
Strap note: I really like my Peak Design Slide, but I haven't tried a whole lot of straps other than the OEM one. Its integration with the Capture is pretty handy, especially since my backpack has some MOLLE attachments on the front of the straps - that's a handy place to securely throw a camera. Plus the Capture plate works with my tripod's head, so I'm a happy camper.
continuum, renting is definitely an option - especially if I plan in advance. There's a camera shop a block from my house that usually has stuff on hand to rent (just not to buy, unless it's oooold). The 11-24 looks so good, but it's the cost of three great lenses.
NetMasterOC3 - I'm definitely tempted by that option. It's a good lens, but that 105mm just feels half-assed. I was borrowing my brother-in-law's 70-200 f/4 for this peacock shot at a zoo, and it wouldn't have been half as detailed on the 24-105.
If I were on a hike, walking around with a 70-200 feels like it would be more useful than the 24-105, and the ability to switch to the 16-35 for more planned shots is handy.
Strap note: I really like my Peak Design Slide, but I haven't tried a whole lot of straps other than the OEM one. Its integration with the Capture is pretty handy, especially since my backpack has some MOLLE attachments on the front of the straps - that's a handy place to securely throw a camera. Plus the Capture plate works with my tripod's head, so I'm a happy camper.
Awesome start to the new thread. I am currently reevaluating my lens lineup. After lugging about my entire lens on a trip up to Portland this weekend, I've come to the realization that I need to reevaluate my lens selection a bit.
Now, I currently own the following:
135/2L
70-200/4L IS
100/2.8L IS Macro
50/1.4
28-135
And my most used lens of course which is the EF-S 17-55/2.8IS.
Now, I love the first three lens and don't plan on getting rid of them for anything less than their replacements. Got the 50/1.4 to replace the 1.8 that I gave away and because I wanted to try doing some of the flare shots that it is famous for. Otherwise, I don't care for it. The 28-135 came with the first camera and I keep it around for... I dunno why honestly.
I use the EF-S lens the most but for some reason, I can't say that I'm a huge fan of the images it produces. It's just the most versatile range for walking about that I have and as such, it's always on camera. I would not mind replacing it but I can't exactly decide on what to replace it with.
Next acquisition of course is the 100-400mm II. But I want to clean house and maybe get rid of some other lenses and get one or two quality lenses to replace everything else not in the first group.
I'm thinking maybe add the 11-24/4L too and get rid of everything else. But I dunno how well it'll serve as a walk-around.
Bodies btw are the 7DmkII and the 50D. Happy with both and not planning on jumping into FF anytime soon.
Now, I currently own the following:
135/2L
70-200/4L IS
100/2.8L IS Macro
50/1.4
28-135
And my most used lens of course which is the EF-S 17-55/2.8IS.
Now, I love the first three lens and don't plan on getting rid of them for anything less than their replacements. Got the 50/1.4 to replace the 1.8 that I gave away and because I wanted to try doing some of the flare shots that it is famous for. Otherwise, I don't care for it. The 28-135 came with the first camera and I keep it around for... I dunno why honestly.
I use the EF-S lens the most but for some reason, I can't say that I'm a huge fan of the images it produces. It's just the most versatile range for walking about that I have and as such, it's always on camera. I would not mind replacing it but I can't exactly decide on what to replace it with.
Next acquisition of course is the 100-400mm II. But I want to clean house and maybe get rid of some other lenses and get one or two quality lenses to replace everything else not in the first group.
I'm thinking maybe add the 11-24/4L too and get rid of everything else. But I dunno how well it'll serve as a walk-around.
Bodies btw are the 7DmkII and the 50D. Happy with both and not planning on jumping into FF anytime soon.
Good to know-- glad it has its fans. I spent a lot of time considering it, I was just reluctant to fork out that much money for a strap I wasn't (at the time) able to get a demo on.
That said I am carrying a lot more than 3.3lb, the 5D III + 11-24L is 4.6lb so more than 40% heavier.
And having done a side-by-side, well, I don't need to repeat myself again.If you're on crop then I personally think the 11-24L would be silly, you're paying an exorbitant amount of money and a very heavy lens for a 17mm angle of view equivalent, there's significantly cheaper and lighter ways to get 17mm equivalent if you're staying crop. The EF-S 10-22mm is only 36% of the weight (14.8oz w/hood vs. 41.1oz (!!!).
I think you need to think about what focal lengths you like shooting at first and then go from there? There's some excellent APS-C lenses from 3rd party makers if you're open to that...
This. If you're sticking with crop, don't waste your money on the flagship wide-angle for full-frame. Stick with the Canon EF-S 10-22 or something like the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. I had a Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 for a while, and it was a champ (and I got it at a steal for $350 used, mismarked as the f/4-5.6).[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28728061#p28728061:27gopkfz said:
My most used lens is currently the 17-55/2.8. It does the job but its output when compared to say, the first three lenses I mentioned is not the same. I'm talking about colour rendition, micro-contrast... that kind of shit. Even so, it is my most used lens by far. Now, I do run into limitations with it in that I usually want wider often wherein the 17mm end on crop is not wide enough. I'd post sample pictures of examples where I've wanted wider but I'm at work. Last week, I saw this church that I wanted to get the whole facade of in one frame while not getting the cars on the street. At 17mm, it wasn't happening. 11mm may have given me that extra leeway I needed. Little crap like that.
Rob, are you talking 11mm on FF or crop? I'm shooting crop so I'm accounting for the FoV change that makes the 11-24/4L not as wide as it'd otherwise be.
All in all, I'd get rid of everything I mentioned, pick up the two L zooms and then spot pick an L prime or two to fill in the gap between 24mm and 70mm (thinking the 40/2.8 pancake and an L in between those two extremes).
As for why I'm looking at the more expensive options, I do plan on picking up a FF in a year or two. Either the 5DmkIV or the 6DmkII depending on which one has better dynamic range and low-light performance at the time. And I'm not going to run out and get the 11-24 off the bat. The 100-400 is the next lens I'm getting at which point I'll start looking to get rid of everything else. I also only got the EF-S lens because it went wider than the 24-70/2.8 and had IS at the time. Knowing myself, I'll probably get it serviced and keep it around anyway. Damn wordy.
Rob, are you talking 11mm on FF or crop? I'm shooting crop so I'm accounting for the FoV change that makes the 11-24/4L not as wide as it'd otherwise be.
All in all, I'd get rid of everything I mentioned, pick up the two L zooms and then spot pick an L prime or two to fill in the gap between 24mm and 70mm (thinking the 40/2.8 pancake and an L in between those two extremes).
As for why I'm looking at the more expensive options, I do plan on picking up a FF in a year or two. Either the 5DmkIV or the 6DmkII depending on which one has better dynamic range and low-light performance at the time. And I'm not going to run out and get the 11-24 off the bat. The 100-400 is the next lens I'm getting at which point I'll start looking to get rid of everything else. I also only got the EF-S lens because it went wider than the 24-70/2.8 and had IS at the time. Knowing myself, I'll probably get it serviced and keep it around anyway. Damn wordy.
I might need to check what gear I have left when I get home, but the above is what I use as well. Although when I got my 20D a long time ago, I sold my 28-135 in favour of using a EF-S 10-22 + 24-105/4L IS. When I got the 5D mk2 I switched up my 10-22 to a 17-35.[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28727653#p28727653:398tn7k2 said:
I would say that the above would be a very decent setup on a full-frame 135 camera, but for a crop-sensor, nothing wide. The choices are from my perspective, generally sound. I had the 70-200/2.8L IS Before and switched down to the 70-200 because of weight, and the fact the mk1 2.8 wasnt that sharp from full opening.
I'm trying to stop myself from picking up the EF-S 10-18. I rarely need to shoot that wide, but when I do, I don't know in advance, so it'd be nice to have around. Trying to take shots of the furniture we have setup in our nursery to share with friends was a real pain in the ass when my widest lens is my kit 18-55. It worked, but I'm not happy with the pictures.
I also setup this monstrosity while testing, because the wife wanted a panorama, so at least I got some entertainment out of it:
I truly despise my S4's camera, for what it's worth.
I also setup this monstrosity while testing, because the wife wanted a panorama, so at least I got some entertainment out of it:
I truly despise my S4's camera, for what it's worth.
EF-S 10-18 is such a bargain for crop, it's hard to resist...
Ashe, if you do plan on going FF (which isn't what you said earlier ), then yeah, the 11-24L makes sense-- but honestly alternatives for the year or two or whatever you're staying crop are so cheap and so much more lightweight and practical in terms of portability, picking up something like the EF-S 10-18mm or 10-22mm or one of many third party UWA's in the meantime is still a better option IMHO. In a year or two there will probably be a plentiful supply of 11-24L's on the used market as well, you could pick up both a 10-18mm and then later an 11-24L for less money than an 11-24L will be in the next couple of months...
Ashe, if you do plan on going FF (which isn't what you said earlier
), then yeah, the 11-24L makes sense-- but honestly alternatives for the year or two or whatever you're staying crop are so cheap and so much more lightweight and practical in terms of portability, picking up something like the EF-S 10-18mm or 10-22mm or one of many third party UWA's in the meantime is still a better option IMHO. In a year or two there will probably be a plentiful supply of 11-24L's on the used market as well, you could pick up both a 10-18mm and then later an 11-24L for less money than an 11-24L will be in the next couple of months...[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28727563#p28727563:c4nys0yn said:
I'm not sure half-assed is the right word.
The 24-105/4L has the second widest zoom range (second to the 28-350/3.5-5.6L IS) of any of Canon's L zooms. That inherently compromises a lens when it comes to IQ, but makes it a much better jack of all trades kind of deal when it comes to range and flexibility.
It's also a wide, or at least isn't a pure telephoto, which has historically been Canon's weaker area in lens design. And it's a decade old lens at this point, which predates the really good wides Canon has started releasing in the last 2 or so years, and given lead times, probably a lot of the really sophisticated computer modeling and design that's clearly being used in the last 5-7 years or so.
I got a pair of Phottix Mitos speedlites for my Nikon after my original SB600 died. I'm really, really impressed with them! Functionality and specs equivalent to the SB900, at about the price of an SB600. My only regret now is I didn't get the Mitos+ with the built in RF TX/RX. I am hoping to either sell these off adn replace with the Mitos+ or get the external recievers and an Odin trigger.
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28732705#p28732705:3hufhixe said:continuum[/url]":3hufhixe]EF-S 10-18 is such a bargain for crop, it's hard to resist...
Ashe, if you do plan on going FF (which isn't what you said earlier
My apologies. In my mind, anytime soon equates to whenever the replacement for the 5DmkIII and the 6D hit the market. Actually, I should rephrase that and say that it more accurately refers to when the replacement for the 6D hits the market as that would most likely be released later.
Anyhoo, I'll send the 17-55 in for service and see what I think when it gets back. Maybe I'll get the time to actually calibrate all my lenses to my bodies too in a few months when I cut back down to one job and have the time to actually start exploring this hobby again.
Dropped into my local store for some printer paper (just been gifted a canon pixma pro 1).
Left with a sigma 50mmf1.4 Art....
Left with a sigma 50mmf1.4 Art....
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28726435#p28726435:16iuvty3 said:
I went to YNP and GTNP a couple years ago. Had the 7D combined with 10-22, 17-55 and 70-200F4is lenses. What I missed the most was reach - 200mm isn't enough even on a 1.6 crop. If I went again I would probably rent (or buy and tell my wife I plan to sell it later...) the 100-400mm.
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28737039#p28737039:2vkiunbd said:
Oh crap I was thinking of Yosemite as being a great place for landscape and totally forgetting the potential for wildlife.
Yeah you'd want a 300mm+ for sure even on a crop sensor. I was used to shooting wildlife with a 300mm f4 manual focus lens and getting some decent stuff with it. I was really excited about my 80-200mm when I got it but quickly realized it just didn't compare to the 300mm that stuff. Sports sure but not wildlife. A 100-400 would be great. If not even more reach. Now I want the 300mm f4 autofocus
orionquest
Ars Praefectus
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28728061#p28728061:3alo8wz3 said:
I have the EF-S 10-22 and it is fantastic. But if I was considering a ultra wide today I would really consider the Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS. The IS is something I wish the 10-22 had. It is such a small compact lens you just have to walk around with it and the IS would have been great to have. Now if you have the EF-S 17-55 the 10-18 makes a perfect fit.
orionquest
Ars Praefectus
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28737039#p28737039:1ft7x7ee said:
Huh really the 200 is not enough? I will soon find out I guess. I have the exact lens setup as you have. I just picked up the 70-200 F2.8 =) recently and will be putting it through it's paces on vacation next month.
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28738801#p28738801:1idvl64v said:
It all depends on how close you can get to the wildlife but no not really. :/
I haven't shot much wildlife since getting my 80-200. Even though it's autofocus and quicker to use then the 300mm manual focus and a tripod it's still more challenging without that extra reach. Here's two I've gotten with the 200. I wouldn't mind if if they were bigger in the frame. Specially the moose family.
DSC_6920 by vergesc, on Flickr
DSC_0268 by vergesc, on FlickrWith a bit of luck and the 300mm I get stuff like this.
DSC_0407edit by vergesc, on Flickr
DSC_0329_02edit by vergesc, on FlickrBoth of those little guys would have skittered away with a 200mm I find.
orionquest
Ars Praefectus
Nice shots, as always. I guess you could crop the moose. I would be curious to see how it would impact detail if you did.
BTW since they restarted the thread, you could always re post that bohek example you had
BTW since they restarted the thread, you could always re post that bohek example you had
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28744907#p28744907:f8ny1xxa said:orionquest[/url]":f8ny1xxa]Nice shots, as always. I guess you could crop the moose. I would be curious to see how it would impact detail if you did.
BTW since they restarted the thread, you could always re post that bohek example you had
I rarely crop. I don't think I've ever cropped wildlife. I find the quality suffers too much for my liking.
If I could find the damn thing in my crazy assortment of folders I'd give it a try but don't count on it. HAHA
A guy posts on a facebook group about concert photography. Asking if a D7000 and the 35mm f1.8 DX lens would be a good affordable starter setup for a friend of his who want's to try her hand at music photography. Shooting a band that she's friends with initially.
I say yeah it should work out pretty good, it's affordable and capable and I share a few of my shots with that lens so he can get an idea of the quality she'd be able to expect and how that sensor performs at high ISO.
Then some guy comes along and bashes the lens, bashes the DX lineup in general and says she should get a D610 and 50mm 1.8G. Undoubtedly a more capable setup but the OP has already mentioned that cost is a factor and she's brand new to photography.
I'm I crazy for thinking this guy is insane for suggesting she spend $1800 just to try out a new hobby?
I say yeah it should work out pretty good, it's affordable and capable and I share a few of my shots with that lens so he can get an idea of the quality she'd be able to expect and how that sensor performs at high ISO.
Then some guy comes along and bashes the lens, bashes the DX lineup in general and says she should get a D610 and 50mm 1.8G. Undoubtedly a more capable setup but the OP has already mentioned that cost is a factor and she's brand new to photography.
I'm I crazy for thinking this guy is insane for suggesting she spend $1800 just to try out a new hobby?
Yes the guy is insane.
IMo a modern crop with a good 1.8 prime is enough to get going with and more.
IMo a modern crop with a good 1.8 prime is enough to get going with and more.
I just discovered the Tokina 11-20/2.8. I think I just found my wide-angle lens
Weird stuff, I think I remember reading about them updating the 11-16 2.8 but for some reason I guess I didn't catch where they were adding a bit more to the long end. No actual reviews yet though?
It does sound pretty cool from what I've been reading though.
It's a shame about the 82mm filter ring :/ It would have been nice to have just 2 filter sizes for all my lenses.
Either way it's definitely on my radar now as I still need a wide angle and a fast one preferably.
It does sound pretty cool from what I've been reading though.
It's a shame about the 82mm filter ring :/ It would have been nice to have just 2 filter sizes for all my lenses.
Either way it's definitely on my radar now as I still need a wide angle and a fast one preferably.
orionquest
Ars Praefectus
[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28745009#p28745009:35evmlw0 said:
No prob.
Ah I understand, I guess, the wildlife shots. Lots of access to nature up in North Bay.
I've mostly the human wildlife in the concrete jungle directly south of you in the big smoke.
Curious, what gear do you shoot with?