REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

Senna4ever · 08-25-2010, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForbiddenX

What do you say about going from an 18-105mm to a 17-50mm?

That's your call. Are you willing to sacrifice the longer reach for a faster lens? Only you can answer that.

ForbiddenX · 08-29-2010, 06:39 PM

^Decided to keep the 18-105mm and get the 17-50mm >.> Won a non VC model on ebay for $350. Not that bad imo.

D90 + 50mm 1.4 + 18-105mm + 17-50mm 2.8 is good enough for me right now. I think I'll get the 85mm 1.8 next for sure or just keep saving for a 70-200mm 2.8.

My wallet received some damage in the past month but it's been worth it!

gilly · 08-30-2010, 11:44 AM

HEY GUYS

I currently have a kit lens 18-55mm and I want to upgrade. I am currently debating on either to get a 18-200VR or 55-200mmVR lens. I take a wide range pictures from macro, portraits and landscape. There is a big price difference between the two and I am not too fond of switching lenses all the time. Will the missing 18-55mm be a big deal if i buy the cheaper 55-200vr lens?

Thanks

gilly · 08-31-2010, 09:35 AM

^ well i researched a lot and picked up a 18-200mm VR lens. Good buy

ilvtofu · 08-31-2010, 09:50 AM

I've used the 18-200 on my friend's d90 he loves it for travelling since he's usually in beijing but goes on many business trips but he complains about the distortion, all in all for a new one seems a little pricey. I would consider the sigma 18-200 with OS HSM and tamron has a 18-270 which has won many awards and long warranty.

EDIT: You certainly don't want your lowest focal length to be a 55 especially on a crop sensor DSLR

Euro7r · 09-16-2010, 09:59 PM

Any recommendations on a macro-lens on the Nikon D80?

Senna4ever · 09-16-2010, 11:43 PM

The new 60mm f2.8 and 105mm VR lenses are great, but my personal favourite is the old 55mm f2.8 Ai-S manual focus lens made in 1979. It is an absolute stunner. It's a bit heavy due to its all metal construction, but that's what makes it feel so good in your hands, and the manual focusing is extremely well dampened. Not too shabby for a 30 year old lens.

I bought it used about 5 years ago at Kerrisdale Camera for $200.

RCubed · 09-17-2010, 10:23 AM

Im looking for a fast MF 50mm for my NEX5.
Ive been looking at the Canon FD 50mm 1.4 SSC and the Minolta MD 50mm 1.4.
But the old FL Canon 55mm f/1.2 caught my eye. Its only a bit more than the 1.4s.
Has anyone used any of these and have any feedback?

m3thods · 09-17-2010, 12:02 PM

Hey Senna I think you have the resources to help me out with this question:

I'm looking into a Canon-mount 70-200 2.8 for myself as a graduation gift this April. There are 3 that I'm looking at- The Sigma OS, and the two Canon IS lenses. After reading the review on dpreview for the Sigma, I've very disappointed at the results. For $100 more I'd probably get the mk1.

My question is: How "tangible" is the difference between the mk1 and mk2? I recall you said that the AF is faster, but I don't remember you saying anything about the colour rendition or the added sharpness.

I'm not a professional, nor do I plan on being paid to take pictures, which is why I'm having trouble justifying a 3k purchase on a single lens. My main concern is the "softness @ 200mm", which several reviews on FM and dpreview say of the mk1. The same is applicable to the Sigma.

If you have the time, are you able to do a comparison shot at 200mm between the two Canons (100% crops as well)? I'd like to see the actual differences, and if it's night and day, I'll just save the extra $700 for the mk2 (and feel terrible about it

) Thanks in advanced!

Senna4ever · 09-17-2010, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m3thods

Hey Senna I think you have the resources to help me out with this question:

I'm looking into a Canon-mount 70-200 2.8 for myself as a graduation gift this April. There are 3 that I'm looking at- The Sigma OS, and the two Canon IS lenses. After reading the review on dpreview for the Sigma, I've very disappointed at the results. For $100 more I'd probably get the mk1.

My question is: How "tangible" is the difference between the mk1 and mk2? I recall you said that the AF is faster, but I don't remember you saying anything about the colour rendition or the added sharpness.

I'm not a professional, nor do I plan on being paid to take pictures, which is why I'm having trouble justifying a 3k purchase on a single lens. My main concern is the "softness @ 200mm", which several reviews on FM and dpreview say of the mk1. The same is applicable to the Sigma.

If you have the time, are you able to do a comparison shot at 200mm between the two Canons (100% crops as well)? I'd like to see the actual differences, and if it's night and day, I'll just save the extra $700 for the mk2 (and feel terrible about it

) Thanks in advanced!

I'll try and do some test shots with my personal 70-200mkI and one of the store's mkII. I know that one of the mkII we have isn't as sharp as my mkI, so I will not grab that one.

m3thods · 09-17-2010, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senna4ever

I'll try and do some test shots with my personal 70-200mkI and one of the store's mkII. I know that one of the mkII we have isn't as sharp as my mkI, so I will not grab that one.

hahah awesome thanks!

it's interesting to hear that your store's mk2 is not as sharp as your mk1. Is there an easy way of testing before buying? I normally just shoot some text and zoom in with the camera lcd screen to inspect. do you suggest a better way?

ddr · 09-17-2010, 09:21 PM

that's something i never understood - how to thoroughly test a lens you buy in a store

this just came out and will help with focusing though

c3m · 10-01-2010, 08:21 AM

Need some advice on a new lens

I'm currently using 24-70z on the A900 and I can't decide on which telephoto lens to get.
I'm looking for at 70-200mm G and the 70-400mm G

Actually I am thinking about selling the 2470z and pick up the 1635z and then one of the telephoto

Need advice.

Thankss

Boostslut · 10-01-2010, 03:08 PM

c3m, doesn't it all depend on what you like to shoot? If you want a nice general lens, the 70-200 would be great, and very useful. If you are looking to shoot some birds, wildlife or planes then the 70-400G might be your thing.

!MiKrofT · 10-01-2010, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senna4ever

I'll try and do some test shots with my personal 70-200mkI and one of the store's mkII. I know that one of the mkII we have isn't as sharp as my mkI, so I will not grab that one.

Hmm I'd like to see that too. Thinking about upgrading my 70-200 F4L Non IS. to the F2.8 L IS Mk1/Mk2 or Non IS.

Senna4ever · 10-01-2010, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c3m

Need some advice on a new lens

I'm currently using 24-70z on the A900 and I can't decide on which telephoto lens to get.
I'm looking for at 70-200mm G and the 70-400mm G

Actually I am thinking about selling the 2470z and pick up the 1635z and then one of the telephoto

Need advice.

Thankss

Are you kidding me? You have a 24-70z and want to get rid of it? Why? You have the sharpest 24-70 on the market, man! It's a great lens to have on the A900 - I would keep it and augment it with either the 70-200G or 70-400G. I think if you get the 16-35, you would miss the focal lengths covered by the 24-70, unless you also pick up a 50mm f1.4and/or the 85mm f1.4. If you need the f2.8 that the 70-200 gives you, I would get it, but the 70-400G is an unbelievably sharp lens, so if the f2.8 aperture of the 70-200G isn't important, I personally would not have a problem with the 70-400G.

Senna4ever · 10-01-2010, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by !MiKrofT

Hmm I'd like to see that too. Thinking about upgrading my 70-200 F4L Non IS. to the F2.8 L IS Mk1/Mk2 or Non IS.

The 70-200 f2.8 IS is not as sharp as the 70-200 f4. The new 70-200 f2.8 IS II is sharper than the f4, it seems.

!MiKrofT · 10-02-2010, 03:12 PM

Hmm maybe I should just upgrade to the is version of the f4 l.
Posted via RS Mobile

Dangerphoto · 10-10-2010, 08:55 PM

Hey guys,

Should I pick up a Sigma 70-210mm f4~5.6 from craigslist for 75$??

I read a bit on the lens, users say its a pretty soft lens but for its price do you think its worth it? Also, I'm on a pretty tight budget and currently without a telephoto lens.

On a side note...the owner doesn't seem to know anything about his own lens...

Any input would be appreciated!

Cheers,

Shin

Senna4ever · 10-10-2010, 09:37 PM

Maybe meet up with him to see if it's worth buying. You should test out the lens prior to buying for sure.

c3m · 10-11-2010, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senna4ever

Are you kidding me? You have a 24-70z and want to get rid of it? Why? You have the sharpest 24-70 on the market, man! It's a great lens to have on the A900 - I would keep it and augment it with either the 70-200G or 70-400G. I think if you get the 16-35, you would miss the focal lengths covered by the 24-70, unless you also pick up a 50mm f1.4and/or the 85mm f1.4. If you need the f2.8 that the 70-200 gives you, I would get it, but the 70-400G is an unbelievably sharp lens, so if the f2.8 aperture of the 70-200G isn't important, I personally would not have a problem with the 70-400G.

I found myself shooting a lot of landscapes and always looking for a wider angle. The 24-70 is nice but it seems like it's not wild enough for me.

I do have a 50mm but it's the old/cheap version it's the F1.7 Minolta. So, that's why I'm thinking going with 16-35Z and then most likely 70-200G or just get the 70-200 or 70-400

I was told the 70-400 is sold in HK for only about 1300CAD vs. 1899CAD + tax here and I saw a few of your 70-400 pictures and loved the sharpness and bokeh from it. I haven't look too much into 70-200 picture quality yet but I like the 2.8.

Senna4ever · 10-11-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c3m

I found myself shooting a lot of landscapes and always looking for a wider angle. The 24-70 is nice but it seems like it's not wild enough for me.

I do have a 50mm but it's the old/cheap version it's the F1.7 Minolta. So, that's why I'm thinking going with 16-35Z and then most likely 70-200G or just get the 70-200 or 70-400

I was told the 70-400 is sold in HK for only about 1300CAD vs. 1899CAD + tax here and I saw a few of your 70-400 pictures and loved the sharpness and bokeh from it. I haven't look too much into 70-200 picture quality yet but I like the 2.8.

Well, I guess it all depends on your shooting style.

I've never posted shots with a 70-400 - I don't have one. I have posted shots taken with my 200mm f2.8G though.

c3m · 10-11-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senna4ever

Well, I guess it all depends on your shooting style.

I've never posted shots with a 70-400 - I don't have one. I have posted shots taken with my 200mm f2.8G though.

Oh I remembered wrong then. But yeah I just can't decide. I'm sure they are both good.

Senna4ever · 10-11-2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c3m

Oh I remembered wrong then. But yeah I just can't decide. I'm sure they are both good.

Get both!

LiquidTurbo · 10-11-2010, 03:03 PM

Nikon 50mm f1.8 - must have lens?