HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Photography Forums > General Photography


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #341  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2012, 4:39 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okayyou View Post
Nice, I've had my eye on the 15mm Zeiss . My widest lens currently is 24 which still leaves a lot of room on the lower end. However the Zeiss is a giant lens and at 3K not very justifiable.
This might help.

http://lenshero.com/lenses/wide-angl...-ef-full-frame

Some nice options on there. That tokina 14-28 would be a good option.

I heard a rumor about canon coming out with a their own version of the 14-24 f2.8 too. Maybe it will have AF.

http://www.cameraegg.com/canon-ef-14...hin-12-months/

But if you wanted something inexpensive and good, for now, the rokinon is a nice option but manual only.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #342  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2012, 4:58 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okayyou View Post
Nice, I've had my eye on the 15mm Zeiss . My widest lens currently is 24 which still leaves a lot of room on the lower end. However the Zeiss is a giant lens and at 3K not very justifiable.
I've heard nothing but good things about the 15mm. Have you considered the Canon 17mm TS-E? It's a little cheaper, and just as good, if not better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #343  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2012, 7:01 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
I've heard nothing but good things about the 15mm. Have you considered the Canon 17mm TS-E? It's a little cheaper, and just as good, if not better.
Ive only heard one person ever talk smack about Zeiss lenses and he is a total douche of a photographer. He told me one of the reasons that he hated Sony and its cameras is because Sony made Beta-max. Well that and he has a thing about proprietary equipment. But then he uses nothing but Canon branded equipment.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #344  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2012, 7:21 PM
Tony's Avatar
Tony Tony is offline
Super Moderator / Sr. Committee
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 5,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by diskojoe View Post
IWell that and he has a thing about proprietary equipment. But then he uses nothing but Canon branded equipment.
Perhaps he was referring to the original Alphas that only used Sony Memory Sticks, which were not only more expensive per GB, but also only had one or two manufacturers.

I actually have a couple of older Minolta lenses from a film Minolta SLR I still have, but I didn't go with a Sony DSLR when it was time to get rid of film. I just wasn't interested in buying a Sony brand camera.
__________________
Hunan, China 1 | Hunan, China 2 | Hong Kong | NYC 2 | NYC 1 | Florence | Venice | Rome | London | Paris


Flickr®
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #345  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2012, 10:38 PM
The Chemist's Avatar
The Chemist The Chemist is offline
恭喜发财!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 中国上海/Shanghai
Posts: 8,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by diskojoe View Post
What other lenses do you have?
EF-S 15-85 IS
Tamron 70-300VC
EF 50/1.8 (Mark I)
__________________
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #346  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2012, 7:21 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony View Post
Perhaps he was referring to the original Alphas that only used Sony Memory Sticks, which were not only more expensive per GB, but also only had one or two manufacturers.

I actually have a couple of older Minolta lenses from a film Minolta SLR I still have, but I didn't go with a Sony DSLR when it was time to get rid of film. I just wasn't interested in buying a Sony brand camera.
You are probably right about the memory stick.

I have a few minolta maxxum lenses that I use with my alpha, 50mm f1.7 and a 28mm f2.8. Both good lenses for the price which is what swayed me to Sony. I really like my alpha stuff. The new a580 I have is great. I can hit shots handheld at night that my a200 would never have been able to take.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #347  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2012, 7:25 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chemist View Post
EF-S 15-85 IS
Tamron 70-300VC
EF 50/1.8 (Mark I)
Hmmmm, tough choice. You could get good use out of either of those lenses. For wide angle I really like the sigma 10-20 f3.5. I prefer to have the constant f-stop at my disposal but there is nothing like an 8mm superwide. IQ on either is about the same. Does the 100mm do macro? Do you do macro? I dont do macro so I never really worry about if they can or not. Not really my thing.

I would say go with the 8-16 first since it will complete a crucial part of the range that is really useful for a skyscraper junky.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #348  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2012, 2:04 AM
The Chemist's Avatar
The Chemist The Chemist is offline
恭喜发财!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 中国上海/Shanghai
Posts: 8,883
^Yeah, the 100L is reputed to be one of the best macro lenses going. I do like to do macro - closeups of flowers and insects and the like, so a macro lens would certainly be something I'd use a lot.

Problem is, I'd also use an ultrawide as well. I'm leaning toward the Macro just because my 15-85 is reasonably wide (24mm in 35mm equivalent) and I think I can wait a little longer to get the ultrawide. None of my lenses are very good at closeup work, so I think the macro lens would be a better first choice.
__________________
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #349  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2012, 4:24 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chemist View Post
^Yeah, the 100L is reputed to be one of the best macro lenses going. I do like to do macro - closeups of flowers and insects and the like, so a macro lens would certainly be something I'd use a lot.

Problem is, I'd also use an ultrawide as well. I'm leaning toward the Macro just because my 15-85 is reasonably wide (24mm in 35mm equivalent) and I think I can wait a little longer to get the ultrawide. None of my lenses are very good at closeup work, so I think the macro lens would be a better first choice.
Either way you can really go wrong. And 15mm is pretty wide and a little bit of pano stitching can make up for lack of a superwide very easily where macro does take a dedicated lens to do.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #350  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2012, 12:42 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,789
every camera i've ever owned and used taken by my current canon...

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #351  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2012, 4:57 PM
Ramsayfarian's Avatar
Ramsayfarian Ramsayfarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,271
It's a little grainy but here's a handheld shot of some fireworks taken at ISO10,000

Fireworks by D-2-C, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #352  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2012, 2:54 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,170
I've been thinking about the pros and cons of full frame lately, since the FX Nikon D600 is rumored to be coming out this fall. I was dead set on FX for the longest time, but now I'm not so sure. It might make sense in my situation to stay with DX.


Advantages of full frame:
-bigger, brighter viewfinder
-lower noise at high ISO
-shallower depth of field
-lower diffraction->better resolution


Advantages of crop sensor:
-longer reach at telephoto end
-smaller, lighter camera and lenses
-more lenses available, and they're cheaper


Not sure if the D600 will have the high ISO advantage. The higher megapixel count (24) works against the high ISO advantage of full frame because the pixels have to be packed closer together. The sensor also may be of a lower quality.

Also not sure if the viewfinder will be better in the D600 than in DX cameras. Packing a full frame sensor into a smaller body may mean compromises in the pentaprism.

The D600 should have an advantage in resolution, but this becomes less important if a DX camera with 24 megapixels comes out.

The D600 is supposed to be about the size of the D7000, which is nice, because I'm finding camera gear to be too heavy to lug around already.

For lenses:

FX does give an advantage at the wide end, but it's pricey. To get the angle of view from the Nikon 14-24mm you would need a 9-16 on DX, so there is no DX equivalent. (The Sigma 8.5-16mm doesn't count because there is no comparison in quality with the 14-24).

Other wide angle zooms for FX start at 16, 17 and 18mm, which give the same view as 10, 11 or 12mm lenses on DX, which are all available for much cheaper. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a bargain compared to the FX lenses.

The other factor is convenience. The standard 24-70 on FX would require a 16-50mm lens on DX to get the equivalent view. I already have a high quality 16-85 on DX, which is equivalent to 24-128 on FX. A very useful range because it extends into telephoto territory, where the 24-70 does not. Longer zoom ranges on FX start to compromise quality.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #353  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2012, 2:28 PM
mr.John mr.John is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,013
Flar you seem to be falling into the old photo money pit,maybe you should wait until they upgrade the D7000 and invest your cash on a lens like the 70-200mm,do you really need to go FX and spend a shitload of cash?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #354  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2012, 2:47 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.John View Post
Flar you seem to be falling into the old photo money pit,maybe you should wait until they upgrade the D7000 and invest your cash on a lens like the 70-200mm,do you really need to go FX and spend a shitload of cash?
That's exactly what I'm thinking. I'm set up really well right now, moving to FX would cost a fortune for minimal benefit.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #355  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2012, 9:41 PM
ChiTownCity ChiTownCity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago, USA
Posts: 1,163
^It really is all about the quality of your lenses. As long as you have a high end DX model and a couple of quality lenses then there really isn't much of any reason to go full frame. Unless you're planning on printing billboards, Lol.

Like you pointed out already, you're really just paying for extra ISO for the most part.

I look through thousands of pics each week on Flickr and so far the only noticeable difference I've seen between DX and FX came from the Canon 5D Mark II and III.

Aside from the extra ISO, you'll definitely notice the difference in depth-of-field in some cases. I wish I bookmarked a couple of pics (I'll see if I can find them later), but I personally don't see that small upgrade being worth a few extra thousand dollars.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #356  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2012, 11:49 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
The d7000 is a monster for a aps-c. My sony has the same chip and the performance is awesome. I can get handheld shots of skylines at night at iso 12,800. With some noise reduction you have very usable photos. Works great at iso 3200 with almost no noise at all.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #357  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2012, 12:18 AM
giallo's Avatar
giallo giallo is offline
be nice to the crackheads
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
I've been thinking about the pros and cons of full frame lately, since the FX Nikon D600 is rumored to be coming out this fall. I was dead set on FX for the longest time, but now I'm not so sure. It might make sense in my situation to stay with DX.


Advantages of full frame:
-bigger, brighter viewfinder
-lower noise at high ISO
-shallower depth of field
-lower diffraction->better resolution


Advantages of crop sensor:
-longer reach at telephoto end
-smaller, lighter camera and lenses
-more lenses available, and they're cheaper


Not sure if the D600 will have the high ISO advantage. The higher megapixel count (24) works against the high ISO advantage of full frame because the pixels have to be packed closer together. The sensor also may be of a lower quality.

Also not sure if the viewfinder will be better in the D600 than in DX cameras. Packing a full frame sensor into a smaller body may mean compromises in the pentaprism.

The D600 should have an advantage in resolution, but this becomes less important if a DX camera with 24 megapixels comes out.

The D600 is supposed to be about the size of the D7000, which is nice, because I'm finding camera gear to be too heavy to lug around already.

For lenses:

FX does give an advantage at the wide end, but it's pricey. To get the angle of view from the Nikon 14-24mm you would need a 9-16 on DX, so there is no DX equivalent. (The Sigma 8.5-16mm doesn't count because there is no comparison in quality with the 14-24).

Other wide angle zooms for FX start at 16, 17 and 18mm, which give the same view as 10, 11 or 12mm lenses on DX, which are all available for much cheaper. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a bargain compared to the FX lenses.

The other factor is convenience. The standard 24-70 on FX would require a 16-50mm lens on DX to get the equivalent view. I already have a high quality 16-85 on DX, which is equivalent to 24-128 on FX. A very useful range because it extends into telephoto territory, where the 24-70 does not. Longer zoom ranges on FX start to compromise quality.
I'd probably still be shooting with a DX camera had I not decided to go 'pro'. If you plan on only sharing your photos digitally, I see no reason to upgrade to a FX camera. Of course, if you're interested in producing very large prints or selling to clients that demand the industry standard file sizes, then a FX camera is a must.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #358  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2012, 1:50 AM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by giallo View Post
I'd probably still be shooting with a DX camera had I not decided to go 'pro'. If you plan on only sharing your photos digitally, I see no reason to upgrade to a FX camera. Of course, if you're interested in producing very large prints or selling to clients that demand the industry standard file sizes, then a FX camera is a must.
Key word: PRO

You can legitimize the expense when you will use it for work on an active basis.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #359  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2012, 2:51 AM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,170
The upcoming D600 is rumored to have a price in the $1600 range, which is not bad at all and definitely a prosumer camera. That's why I was ruminating out loud about full frame. I have a great set of lenses right now, some of which would be amazing on a full frame camera (eg: my PC-Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 would be way more useful). I also have five manual focus lenses, so a big viewfinder is important to me. For now, I've decided that the light weight and convenience of DX is better for me, but I could still change my mind depending on what the D600 actually offers when it comes out.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #360  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2012, 12:21 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,789
picked up the canon 17-55/2.8 and ordered a 7D. cannot wait...
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Photography Forums > General Photography
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:55 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.