Photography Lab THIS SPACE OPEN FOR ADVERTISEMENT. YOU SHOULD BE ADVERTISING HERE!
A place to display digital masterpieces, enhance photography skills, photoshop, and share photo tips with one another... |
 | | 
11-01-2010, 12:00 AM
|
#876 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
|
I think you'll have a tough time focusing manually with the small viewfinder in the D40x unless you focus using the live view.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300. 
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| 
|  | |
11-01-2010, 02:46 AM
|
#877 | | Snapping away
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Richmond
Posts: 1,920
Thanked 97 Times in 84 Posts
Failed 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
is there anyway to remedy this?
from what i gather, not everyone like the focus screens. some ppl swear by just using their eyes and practicing more
| |
| | |
11-01-2010, 03:36 AM
|
#878 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonone  is there anyway to remedy this? | Yes, buy a Leica rangefinder. 
....or buy a full frame body with a high magnification viewfinder and focusing screen. The viewfinders in crop bodies are terrible.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | |
11-04-2010, 11:16 PM
|
#879 | | Work hard, Play Hard - Wiz
Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,415
Thanked 2,011 Times in 368 Posts
Failed 365 Times in 46 Posts
|
Thinking about picking up a Tamron 17-50.
I was wondering though, Who is a recommended seller on eBay for lens and what not?
| |
| | |
11-05-2010, 02:38 AM
|
#880 | | Snapping away
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Richmond
Posts: 1,920
Thanked 97 Times in 84 Posts
Failed 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
prodigital2000
i bought 2 copies of the non-VC from him
| |
| | |
11-05-2010, 02:45 PM
|
#881 | | Ready to be Man handled by RS!
Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 90
Thanked 173 Times in 29 Posts
Failed 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
RCubed,
Have you upgraded the firmware on your NEX? It improves the user interface a LOT, and you will need it to enable autofocus on your adapter.
Having said that, the autofocus with the nex adapter and alpha lenses is really bad. Claimed 2-7 seconds to autofocus, and in my opinion that's pretty much unusable. If you aren't worried about autofocus and are ONLY going to use manual focus, I suggest you stay away from the DT 50mm 1.8 and look for an older Minolta 50mm f/1.7. These may range from $50-100, depending on the condition, and they are also full frame lenses, if you ever decide to go full frame. But there is no built in motor, and thus, you cannot use autofocus with it on the NEX (but you will be able to with alpha bodies).
| |
| | |
11-05-2010, 02:49 PM
|
#882 | | Ready to be Man handled by RS!
Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 90
Thanked 173 Times in 29 Posts
Failed 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
I also need advice on lens options. I have recently acquired an old Pentax film SLR. This body uses the Pentax K mount, and I was wondering if anyone here has experience with the K mount and decent lenses. I'm looking for a faster portrait lens, 35mm or 85mm will do.
Help appreciated!
Last edited by VancouverG88; 06-17-2011 at 11:24 PM.
| |
| | |
11-05-2010, 03:47 PM
|
#883 | | フルコンボ
Join Date: May 2004 Location: YVR
Posts: 5,214
Thanked 3,998 Times in 596 Posts
Failed 23 Times in 8 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverG88 RCubed,
Have you upgraded the firmware on your NEX? It improves the user interface a LOT, and you will need it to enable autofocus on your adapter.
Having said that, the autofocus with the nex adapter and alpha lenses is really bad. Claimed 2-7 seconds to autofocus, and in my opinion that's pretty much unusable. If you aren't worried about autofocus and are ONLY going to use manual focus, I suggest you stay away from the DT 50mm 1.8 and look for an older Minolta 50mm f/1.7. These may range from $50-100, depending on the condition, and they are also full frame lenses, if you ever decide to go full frame. But there is no built in motor, and thus, you cannot use autofocus with it on the NEX (but you will be able to with alpha bodies). | Hmm.
Yeah I upgraded the firmware already. I just want to find a use of the LA-EA1 adapter. Lol.
I already have the a Minolta 50mm 1.4 for the nex. Maybe ill save the money and pick up a Canon FD 55mm f1.2 with the money instead.
Thanks. Posted via RS Mobile | |
| | |
11-09-2010, 09:01 AM
|
#884 | | Need to Seek Professional Help
Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,084
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverG88 I also need advice on lens options. I have recently acquired an old Pentax LX (from the 80's) and it came with a Vivitar Series 1 24-48mm f/3.8 lens. This body is amazing! Everything feels really solid, and the shutter sound is just wonderful =) Anyways, this body uses the Pentax K mount, and I was wondering if anyone here has experience with the K mount and decent lenses. I'm looking for a faster portrait lens, 35mm or 85mm will do. Keep in mind, I will/can only use manual focus with this body.
Help appreciated! | You'd have to buy used but I'd he looking out for a pentax a* 85 f1.4 Posted via RS Mobile | |
| | |
11-10-2010, 10:52 PM
|
#885 | | HELP ME PLS!!!
Join Date: May 2001 Location: South Central V
Posts: 5,538
Thanked 519 Times in 210 Posts
Failed 55 Times in 21 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonone prodigital2000
i bought 2 copies of the non-VC from him | just wondering why you bought 2?
also, for an everyday lens, is the extra $100 for the VC worth it in your guys opinions? i'm also looking at getting that tamron 17-50 for canon mount
__________________ Visit my food blog! http://jaxandcs.com/ *its not the size of your army that matters; it's the fury of it's onslaught!* █♣█
| |
| | |
11-11-2010, 02:24 PM
|
#886 | | WOAH! i think Vtec just kicked in!
Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yaletown
Posts: 1,603
Thanked 26 Times in 25 Posts
Failed 24 Times in 2 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by carisear just wondering why you bought 2?
also, for an everyday lens, is the extra $100 for the VC worth it in your guys opinions? i'm also looking at getting that tamron 17-50 for canon mount | I'm in the same boat. After reading all the reviews, I'm leaning towards the one without the VC.
| |
| | |
11-12-2010, 12:34 AM
|
#887 | | F**K YOUR HEAD
Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: vancouver
Posts: 8,718
Thanked 8,153 Times in 1,251 Posts
Failed 643 Times in 181 Posts
|
Need a suggestion for a good zoom lens, I'm using the 55-250mm and I do a lot of indoor shooting. Today was probably the 4th time this year I shot pictures at River Rock 
This is a picture I took of my friend tonight @ river rock, The noise performance of the 7D isn't horrible especially @ 3200 ISO (this was uploaded onto facebook, it looks a lot better on my laptop!)
It was hard to keep up with a low shutter speed cause my friend was the only one who did a rock & roll routine -_- So I had to throw it on a 320 speed if I remember correctly as opposed to 120 ish for the other contestants.
Anyways I definitely want a sharper zoom lens with possibly more reach. The only ones I'm more familiar with are the canon L zoom lenses but those are about 4x the price of my current one :/ Any suggestions? Or should I just get an L?
| |
| | |
11-12-2010, 12:47 AM
|
#888 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
|
You will preferably need a 70-200 f2.8. It doesn't have to be Canon - Sigma & Tamron also make them for a bit less money. If you're allowed to get closer, you may want to go with a fast prime like a 100mm f2 or 135mm f2.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | |
11-12-2010, 02:24 AM
|
#889 | | Snapping away
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Richmond
Posts: 1,920
Thanked 97 Times in 84 Posts
Failed 2 Times in 2 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by carisear just wondering why you bought 2?
also, for an everyday lens, is the extra $100 for the VC worth it in your guys opinions? i'm also looking at getting that tamron 17-50 for canon mount | one for myself, and one for a friend that wanted one. you can't beat this lens at this price point ... until you get into another price category and grab the 17-55 and just forget about walk-arounds for crops heh
the tamron lacks corner sharpness in general. and the VC version supposedly is not as sharp as the non-VC. your other option would be the sigma with OS but at that price you mind as well get the canon/nikon one. a lot of people like the sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS too.
| |
| | |
11-12-2010, 03:41 AM
|
#890 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
|
The Canon 17-55 isn't very good.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | |
11-12-2010, 11:11 AM
|
#891 | | F**K YOUR HEAD
Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: vancouver
Posts: 8,718
Thanked 8,153 Times in 1,251 Posts
Failed 643 Times in 181 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever You will preferably need a 70-200 f2.8. It doesn't have to be Canon - Sigma & Tamron also make them for a bit less money. If you're allowed to get closer, you may want to go with a fast prime like a 100mm f2 or 135mm f2. | The problem is I think I will be going full frame in the future and 200 probably won't be enough reach. I guess when you want that kind of range you are sacrificing image quality.
SLR gear just posted the review of the sigma 70-200 2.8, has the least chromatic abberation and seems like less vignetting and distortion too compared to the tamron http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ct/1328/cat/31
The tamron still has a very high image quality rating though but the price is quite high (still over $800 CAD in HK) The canon F4.0 IS is only about $200 more in HK and the older
thttp://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1090/cat/23
Are there any differently ranged lenses you would recommend? (ie. Nikon's 200-400 or Canon's 100-400)?
Last edited by ilvtofu; 11-12-2010 at 11:20 AM.
| |
| | |
11-12-2010, 11:45 AM
|
#892 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
|
The Nikon 200-400 costs $6000+, but it's bloody amazing. The Canon 100-400 is way too slow for concert use. Do you really need FF for your work though? A crop body with good lowght capability like the 7D is probably best for you. Posted via RS Mobile | |
| | |
11-12-2010, 11:47 AM
|
#893 | | I am grateful grapefruit
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,094
Thanked 831 Times in 392 Posts
Failed 83 Times in 11 Posts
|
the thing with lenses, is that you can always sell off the lens. You do lose a bit of money if you got the lens new - but if you get it second-hand, you can always sell it off for around the same price assuming that you've kept it in good condition.
| |
| | |
11-12-2010, 12:44 PM
|
#894 | | Rs has made me the man i am today!
Join Date: May 2008 Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,148
Thanked 1,053 Times in 595 Posts
Failed 21 Times in 13 Posts
|
i agree with senna that you need a 2.8 or faster. if budget is an issue the non-is version of the sigma 70-200 has some decent reviews, and with hsm it'll be more helpful than the tamron in low light.
gars is also right in that you get more return out of lenses compared to bodies, so if it's what you need now, it's not too difficult to move along as you can still get good dollar for your lens.
if you do this often, get what you need now and worry about the FF issue when/if it comes.
| |
| | |
11-12-2010, 10:00 PM
|
#895 | | Snapping away
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Richmond
Posts: 1,920
Thanked 97 Times in 84 Posts
Failed 2 Times in 2 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever The Canon 17-55 isn't very good. | what's better for a canon crop? i don't really like the wide end to be 24mm if i was to carry one lens out.
| |
| | |
11-12-2010, 11:36 PM
|
#896 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
|
The 15-85 is fantastic, although not a f2.8 lens.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | |
11-12-2010, 11:40 PM
|
#897 | | F**K YOUR HEAD
Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: vancouver
Posts: 8,718
Thanked 8,153 Times in 1,251 Posts
Failed 643 Times in 181 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever The Nikon 200-400 costs $6000+, but it's bloody amazing. The Canon 100-400 is way too slow for concert use. Do you really need FF for your work though? A crop body with good lowght capability like the 7D is probably best for you. Posted via RS Mobile | Quote:
Originally Posted by m3thods i agree with senna that you need a 2.8 or faster. if budget is an issue the non-is version of the sigma 70-200 has some decent reviews, and with hsm it'll be more helpful than the tamron in low light.
gars is also right in that you get more return out of lenses compared to bodies, so if it's what you need now, it's not too difficult to move along as you can still get good dollar for your lens.
if you do this often, get what you need now and worry about the FF issue when/if it comes. | Good points I think I will get rid of my 17-40 and get the sigma with the OS, for that amount of zoom I think OS is a good idea
| |
| | |
11-12-2010, 11:51 PM
|
#898 | | Snapping away
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Richmond
Posts: 1,920
Thanked 97 Times in 84 Posts
Failed 2 Times in 2 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever The 15-85 is fantastic, although not a f2.8 lens. | hhhmm... i read the review that your coworker wrote when you posted it, i didn't expect it to be sharper than the 17-55, if that's the aspect you were talking about ... maybe i should ask what don't you like about the 17-55?
but the constant aperture and IS has let me take shots that would have been impossible when i didn't have a flash or tripod.
| |
| | |
11-13-2010, 12:22 AM
|
#899 | | Rs has made me the man i am today!
Join Date: May 2008 Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,148
Thanked 1,053 Times in 595 Posts
Failed 21 Times in 13 Posts
|
^ i hear the new Sigma 17-50 os hsm performs just as well as the 17-55 in most situations.. but hearing that the 17-55 isn't that good kinda extends to the sigma.
oh well food for thought (and another lens to research  )
| |
| | |
11-13-2010, 12:28 AM
|
#900 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
|
We had three customers who bought the lens, and all of them brought the lenses back because each one was not very sharp. Now admittedly, these guys are hard core professional commercial shooters who charge $10,000/day or just picky wedding shooters - they can't afford or want to have a lens that's not up to their standards. The Canon 17-55 is not as sharp as the Nikon one for sure, but I guess it's ok for most people.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:37 AM.
|
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
