Post your gear thread! - Page 12

glowrock · #**221** Posted **Feb 29, 2012, 1:52 PM**

Finally picked up a SB-800 Speedlight on eBay yesterday for a fairly reasonable cost. I swear, it wasn't easy to find one for less than $325! Can't wait to play with it once I receive the package in hopefully a day or two!

Aaron (Glowrock)

MayDay · #**222** Posted **Mar 3, 2012, 11:13 PM**

Guess I haven't posted in this thread - I don't have a lot of gear and nothing high-end, just enough to get the job done and well, I like it that way

I don't want to need a backpack to tote everything around, especially if I'm on vacation. I'm also a really right-brain oriented photographer - I know the basics for the settings I need for different shots, but I don't get hung up on the technical stuff*.

Canon XSi

Lenses:
Sigma DC 18-50mm
Canon EF-S 55-250mm

Flash:
Speedlite 270EX II

*That said, I'm turning 40 less than two months and I'm considering treating myself to an upgrade. I feel like both lenses work for me and I've taken some great photos with both but I know there's better stuff out there. The dilemma is - my ballpark budget is $1,000USD, so I know that really limits my options. If you were me, would you upgrade the body or go for something like the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM? Or, should I just save up until I can really upgrade?

bulliver · #**223** Posted **Mar 4, 2012, 12:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock

Finally picked up a SB-800 Speedlight on eBay yesterday for a fairly reasonable cost. I swear, it wasn't easy to find one for less than $325! Can't wait to play with it once I receive the package in hopefully a day or two!

Aaron (Glowrock)

Congrats, I've used one, and it is a nice unit. Pretty much in the middle between a 600 and 900.

diskojoe · #**224** Posted **Mar 5, 2012, 7:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MayDay

Guess I haven't posted in this thread - I don't have a lot of gear and nothing high-end, just enough to get the job done and well, I like it that way

I don't want to need a backpack to tote everything around, especially if I'm on vacation. I'm also a really right-brain oriented photographer - I know the basics for the settings I need for different shots, but I don't get hung up on the technical stuff*.

Canon XSi

Lenses:
Sigma DC 18-50mm
Canon EF-S 55-250mm

Flash:
Speedlite 270EX II

*That said, I'm turning 40 less than two months and I'm considering treating myself to an upgrade. I feel like both lenses work for me and I've taken some great photos with both but I know there's better stuff out there. The dilemma is - my ballpark budget is $1,000USD, so I know that really limits my options. If you were me, would you upgrade the body or go for something like the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM? Or, should I just save up until I can really upgrade?

That lens is decent but you could get the sigma 70-200 f2.8 for canon for the same price. I would go 2.8.

flar · #**225** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 3:17 AM**

My current lenses

Back row (left to right):
Nikkor 200mm f/4 Ai-S, AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED VR, AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tokina AT-X 124 AF 12-24mm PRO DX, Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 macro

Front row (left to right):
PC-Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 Ai-S, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S, AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 Ai-S

diskojoe · #**226** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 2:58 PM**

Really nice collection you have going there. Seems like you have just about everything covered for focal length.

flar · #**227** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 4:58 PM**

The only thing I'm really missing is speed at the long end and a long telephoto. But I don't really do much at the telephoto end so it's not a big deal. And a fisheye, which I also don't really want or need. The dedicated macro lens was the last one that I "needed."

I could eliminate some of these lenses with two really good fast zooms, but that's a big investment. Most of these lenses are used and were super cheap.

mr.John · #**228** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

My current lenses

Back row (left to right):
Nikkor 200mm f/4 Ai-S, AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED VR, AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tokina AT-X 124 AF 12-24mm PRO DX, Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 macro

God I still have nightmares of using that plastic piece of junk ( no offence) I gave it to my brother who lets his little dog (the shredder) play with it

flar · #**229** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.John

God I still have nightmares of using that plastic piece of junk ( no offence) I gave it to my brother who lets his little dog (the shredder) play with it

No offence taken, it's totally outclassed by the other lenses. I barely use it because the 200 f/4 is faster and sharper. But I keep it because it's worthless on the used market and I may have a situation where I could use the VR or autofocus.

mr.John · #**230** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 5:42 PM**

aren't you a little disgusted with the quality of Nikon's consumer lenses ? I know I am,I remember the old manual focus lenses which were build to last at least 20 years,you couldn't break those bad boys if you tried, nowadays if you drop a lens your lucky it doesn't explode in flames

flar · #**231** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 5:56 PM**

Today's build quality is definitely inferior. The old metal lenses have a nice weight to them, they all have big clear glass and the focus rings turn so smoothly and have just the right amount of resistance. They will probably last forever if you take care of them. Some of the lenses in the photo above are over 30 years old and function perfectly.

I don't mind the feel of the 16-85, which is the kit lens for the D300 and D7000. The 16-85 feels solid and has a metal mount and big glass. The 35 f/1.8 DX feels too light, almost like it's hollow, but it's a great lens and I use it a lot.

The optical quality of today's lenses is excellent though, you can't complain about that too much. Most of the modern lenses beat most of the older lenses. Even the cheapest kit lenses give excellent results.

diskojoe · #**232** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 9:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.John

aren't you a little disgusted with the quality of Nikon's consumer lenses ? I know I am,I remember the old manual focus lenses which were build to last at least 20 years,you couldn't break those bad boys if you tried, nowadays if you drop a lens your lucky it doesn't explode in flames

I feel you on this. My Rokkor lens is like a rock. All metal inside and out. Pictures come out super sharp. Much better then the Minolta Maxxum that I use for my sony now. I thought about getting a converter for it but most people say it would not work real great.

glowrock · #**233** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 10:03 PM**

So which means more? Optical quality or "build and feel?" My vote goes for optical quality, though I do understand that durability can certainly be an issue.

Of course, how many of us have dropped lenses on hard surfaces? Have any of us killed a lens in that way?

Aaron (Glowrock)

diskojoe · #**234** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 10:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock

So which means more? Optical quality or "build and feel?" My vote goes for optical quality, though I do understand that durability can certainly be an issue.

Of course, how many of us have dropped lenses on hard surfaces? Have any of us killed a lens in that way?

Aaron (Glowrock)

Both are important when thinking long term. I have actually never dropped a lens before. Of course I only have one I would realy be worried about dropping the rest all cost less then $100.

Take my kit lens for example: Sony 18-70mm f3.5-5.6. Takes great pictures when I have it on a tripod and is okay optically but it is really nothing more then a plastic toy. The body is plastic and the lens is polycarbonate. It feels and looks like a piece of crap.

Okayyou · #**235** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 10:12 PM**

I'd go with optical quality. My 17-55 2.8 has great optics but isn't weather sealed and has plastic housing. It feels cheap and dust gets on the inside of the front element. I've had to take it apart and clean the internals which I've never had to do with some of my better built lenses. I would be more frustrated if it was built like a rock and produced sub par images. I've dropped a few lenses but only from a few feet. I think most would survive that height.

flar · #**236** Posted **Mar 6, 2012, 11:21 PM**

Dropping lenses is never good. That said, I dropped my Nikon 18-55 kit lens onto a road and it rolled about 20 or 30 feet (I was on a hill). I chased after it and luckily it survived without any problems. I later sold it to some guy in Laval for $40.

The one thing where build quality comes into play is with focusing. The focus action on newer lenses is crap. While the better lenses have manual focus override, there isn't enough focus throw to manual focus precisely. There's no hard stop at infinity focus (useful for things like fireworks or taking shots out airplane windows). For some reason Nikon puts a distance scale on their higher end lenses, but no depth of field markings

Illithid Dude · #**237** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 12:37 AM**

See, this is one of the reasons why I love Zeiss so much. I have a canon 24-105L and it just doesn't compare. All Zeiss lenses are, and I say this objectively, the best built lenses you can buy. All steal. Focus ring is buttery smooth. Distance scale. Even the lens hood is steal. My Canon lens feels like a toy compared to the Zeiss lenses.

Ramsayfarian · #**238** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 12:59 AM**

I've dropped my Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS from about 4' up onto concrete. Shattered the UV filter and bent the lip of the lens, but works fine. Can't put a lens cap on it, but that just makes it look meaner. I've also dropped the same lens on my barefoot. Thought I broke my foot, but the lens was fine.

About a year ago, my then 80lb puppy managed to get a hold of my Canon 10-22 and chewed the crap out of it. I had to clean about a gallon of saliva off it, but it still worked. Looked like death warmed over. Unfortunately, I lost that lens this summer and like an idiot replaced it with a Tonkina 11-16 F2.8. Lens turned into a lemon. Freezes constantly, except when I'm at the Camera store or when the lens is in the shop, then it works fine.

Here's a pic of my 10-22 after the carnage. For those of you don't know of this lens, they're normally all black.

IMG_0884 by D-2-C, on Flickr

glowrock · #**239** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 2:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by diskojoe

Both are important when thinking long term. I have actually never dropped a lens before. Of course I only have one I would realy be worried about dropping the rest all cost less then $100.

Take my kit lens for example: Sony 18-70mm f3.5-5.6. Takes great pictures when I have it on a tripod and is okay optically but it is really nothing more then a plastic toy. The body is plastic and the lens is polycarbonate. It feels and looks like a piece of crap.

Really? Interesting that the lens is polycarbonate. Is that a standard for kit lenses?

Either way, I still go for optical quality. After all, what's the point of a well-built, heavy, smooth-focusing lens if photos taken with it are worse than a plasticy kit lens?

Aaron (Glowrock)

diskojoe · #**240** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 2:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock

Really? Interesting that the lens is polycarbonate. Is that a standard for kit lenses?

Either way, I still go for optical quality. After all, what's the point of a well-built, heavy, smooth-focusing lens if photos taken with it are worse than a plasticy kit lens?

Aaron (Glowrock)

Most kit lenses are polycarbonate. This is why they give them to you. Also as a general rule you will have a hard time finding good build quality with poor image quality. No one would waste the money to manufacture them if they werent going to put some decent glass in them.