|
|
|||||||
I want two lenses, the Canon 400 f/5.6L and the 100mm Macro. wish I could afford more.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
What I want the most is a tie between the 24-120 f/4 or the 135 f/2 DC (defocus control). Most likely will be the manual focus 50 f/1.2 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I'd like to swap my zooms over to primes, but what's more likely is to upgrade the zooms to the newer versions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I've been eye-balling the Samyang 8mm F3.5 in the Sony A mount. It seems like a lot of people have fun with it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
17mm or 24mm Tilt/Shift |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: flyEX #1 17mm or 24mm Tilt/Shift WHY DOES EVERYTHING LOOK LIKE A TOY????? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
135 f/2L |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: eddie_82 Originally Posted By: flyEX #1 17mm or 24mm Tilt/Shift WHY DOES EVERYTHING LOOK LIKE A TOY????? not the point of a TS dying for a 35 1.4 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Probably the 16-35 or 17-40 for a 5D2 body. I've already got great lens otherwise for FF or crop (100-400L, 70-200IS 2.8II, 100 macro ~ both IS and nonIS) and I have a 17-55 for my 7D. Honestly though it will probably be a 2x EF III extender first. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
been looking for a good legacy wide angle lens (for my Nex 5r). Minolta rokkor 20/2.8 is my ideal choice...but very hard to come by. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Nothing is even close to being on the horizon because broke, but if I was to buy a lens, i'd be looking at the following: Wide --Tokina 16-28 --Tokina 17-35/19-35 --Nikon 18-35 Primes --105DC --135DC I really want the 105 or 135 the most. I loved my 85mm on DX and have been trying to find something to fill its shoes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: salty 135 f/2L You will not be disappointed. It's easily the best lens I own, including the 70-200 2.8 IS II. The images in the POTN lens archive threads are freaking amazing. There are two seperate threads for it. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=105818&page=701 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145005&page=337 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: salty 135 f/2L It looks to be discounted quite a bit right now... http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-135mm-2L-USM/dp/B000053HC5 Those are beautiful pictures Flyex. Back on that Amazon.com page, I don't I've ever seen a product with over 100 five star ratings and ZERO 1 star ratings. wow! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
No idea... Quite possibly a 100-400. Or a 35 2.0IS/1.4 Or an 85 1.2 Or that 135 2.0 above lol I think I got a while before I buy any more lenses though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I'd really dig the sigma 35 1.4. i could use something in that range, or something wider then 20, thought 20 usually covers it pretty well actually... something really long would be good, like the 80-400, but i'm thinking a teleconverter might be next. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
still waiting to pickup the 100L and 17-40L. after that, who knows. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I need a macro. Not sure what to get, don't know if I care if it has IS or not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Fuck me...a guy on nikoncafe is selling BOTH his 105DC and 135DC for great prices. I hate being broke. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: Lafora Originally Posted By: eddie_82 Originally Posted By: flyEX #1 17mm or 24mm Tilt/Shift WHY DOES EVERYTHING LOOK LIKE A TOY????? not the point of a TS |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: chef I'd really dig the sigma 35 1.4. i could use something in that range, or something wider then 20, thought 20 usually covers it pretty well actually... something really long would be good, like the 80-400, but i'm thinking a teleconverter might be next. I'm wary of "off" brands a little, and I'm pretty sure I don't want any more crop frame specific lenses, but that sigma really does seem to be a hell of a deal.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
a buddy has it on his 5d mk3, it's awesome. they're really stepping their game up with the new lines of lenses. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: spotch Originally Posted By: chef I'd really dig the sigma 35 1.4. i could use something in that range, or something wider then 20, thought 20 usually covers it pretty well actually... something really long would be good, like the 80-400, but i'm thinking a teleconverter might be next. I'm wary of "off" brands a little, and I'm pretty sure I don't want any more crop frame specific lenses, but that sigma really does seem to be a hell of a deal.... Trust but verify my friend. Buy shit local and if it's garbage return it. Lately my third party stuff has been great. If I was shooting for money I might shoot all L shit but I'm just a serious hobbyist. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: spotch Originally Posted By: chef I'd really dig the sigma 35 1.4. i could use something in that range, or something wider then 20, thought 20 usually covers it pretty well actually... something really long would be good, like the 80-400, but i'm thinking a teleconverter might be next. I'm wary of "off" brands a little, and I'm pretty sure I don't want any more crop frame specific lenses, but that sigma really does seem to be a hell of a deal.... Don't be. There is a lot of blind hate for 3rd party lenses as if they're somehow subpar. Sure, some are, but so are some "brand" lenses. The sigma 35mm f/1.4 is honestly one of the best lenses out there and i've seen pros (or at least people who get paid for their work) buying it and selling their nikon/canon equivalent. As a hobbyist, I always look for the lens that fits my needs first then provides me the most value (and is what I can afford). I challenged plenty of people to tell the difference between photos taken with my Tamron 17-50 vs. the Nikon 17-55 I had access to and the results were damn near identical. It was my most used lens until I went FX. My point? Don't disregard 3rd party lenses as you'll be missing out on some great glass at great prices. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Will likely buy another body before buying any more lenses. I've got a 24-70 and a 70-200, and that's pretty good for me. Right now, in school for a few years, so the camera's been collecting dust. Maybe it'll come out of hiding in the summer. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Probably a prime and a long zoom, otherwise I'm pretty happy messing with what I have. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I've been contemplating selling my 24-105 in favor of the newer 24-70. I've also got my eye on a Zeiss 50mm but in reality I won't be buying any new lenses for a while. Nate |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Canon 70-300L |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
so, I just got the canon 50mm 1.4.... should be here some time this week.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
24-105 or 17-40, most likely neither. Not ballin |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
EF-S 17-55. I just need to stop buying shit for my boat so I can save up, lol. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I just got the 50mm f/1.4 and 100-400L in the last few months. Saving up now for the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 70-200 f/2.8L. I will eventually get both, trying to decide on which to get first. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
My new Rokinon 8mm F3.5 Fisheye lens will be here tomorrow. I'm glad I waited. They had recently released a newer version with higher quality optics. Should be a fun lens to play with. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
oooo they are fun... the 8mm, which brand camera are you mounting it on? edit: nvm just saw up top sony |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: rusty323 oooo they are fun... the 8mm, which brand camera are you mounting it on? edit: nvm just saw up top sony Yeah, I bought the Sony Mount, I have a SLT-A65V. I got the lens. This Rokinon is identical to the Samyang and Bower versions. They all come out of the same South Korean factory. Some of these 8mm lenses come from the factory with the focus control out of sync with the internals of the lens. It has been like this for years with these lenses. The fix is to pull back part of the rubber and unscrew a few little tiny screws which loosens up the focus wheel. Then to set it so that it is in focus at a pre-measured distance like five feet. I'm still deciding whether mine is one of the defective ones. I've gotten some super super clear pictures within a few feet. But getting clear images of a subject fifteen feet away ore more is difficult. I don't know if it is just a thing with an 8mm 180 degree FOV lens or if it is defective. I was able to get one clear picture so far with the camera sitting stationary on a table. All of the other pictures were handheld with the Steady Shot turned on and using flash and a high shutter speed. Besides that though, I really like it. A friend is having her house gutted and rebuilt, I'm going to be using this lens for the after pictures of the inside of her house when it is done. Should be pretty awesome for that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: rusty323 oooo they are fun... the 8mm, which brand camera are you mounting it on? edit: nvm just saw up top sony I returned that 8mm Rokinon today. This was the second generation. The first generation of them tended to have a defect with the focusing wheel. There is a fix that the end user can do. This lens I got appeared to have a similar problem. Everything past a few feet was out of focus, and it did not matter what the F stop was set at or the focus wheel. I think there is a similar fix that can be done on this version by the end user. But I'm not going to risk voiding the warranty and breaking it. It is silly that the manufacturer would turn out a lens with a known defect for years and years and then have the same defect in the second generation of the lens. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
It's a feature, not a defect. I'm actually looking at selling the 17-40 now and getting a 16-35 instead. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: crimson773 It's a feature, not a defect. I'm actually looking at selling the 17-40 now and getting a 16-35 instead. I love my 10-22, but I'd love it even more if it was a 2.8. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
My wish list looks like this: 50mm f/1.2 L 16-35mm f/2.8L II 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto But in reality, I'll probably buy the pancake lens next because it looks cool and it's only $150. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: spotch Originally Posted By: crimson773 It's a feature, not a defect. I'm actually looking at selling the 17-40 now and getting a 16-35 instead. I love my 10-22, but I'd love it even more if it was a 2.8. SOOOOOO true. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
10-22 @ f2.8 would be epicness. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
So would a 8-400 f/1.4 but it's going to be a bigger lens. I haven't seriously thought about getting a new lens this year. I need to use the ones I have. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: MetalheaD My wish list looks like this: 50mm f/1.2 L 16-35mm f/2.8L II 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto But in reality, I'll probably buy the pancake lens next because it looks cool and it's only $150. I want the 16-35 2.8 II next. And a macro. From what I've read, the 50mm 1.4 is better than the 1.2. Don't waste your money on it. I want the 85 1.2 also. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: flyEX #1 8-400 f/1.4 This guy needs to work for Canon. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: crimson773 Originally Posted By: MetalheaD My wish list looks like this: 50mm f/1.2 L 16-35mm f/2.8L II 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto But in reality, I'll probably buy the pancake lens next because it looks cool and it's only $150. I want the 16-35 2.8 II next. And a macro. From what I've read, the 50mm 1.4 is better than the 1.2. Don't waste your money on it. I want the 85 1.2 also. Seems like the 50 1.2 vs 1.4 always boils down to a heated debate, and I'm not sure how much of it is people with the 1.4 trying to feel smug for 'outsmarting' everyone else, and how much of it is people with the 1.2 trying to justify their expense lol. My amateur take is that a 1.2 would be great for letting the light in, but in my long list of 'lenses-to-buy' it's toward the bottom. I'd rather do the 85 1.2, 24 or 35, macro, 24-70, pretty much everything else first, and stick with my 50 1.4 until the end, when all my other significant lens upgrades have been realized. just my .02 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Looking to cop one of these next time it's on eBay http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: spotch Originally Posted By: crimson773 Originally Posted By: MetalheaD My wish list looks like this: 50mm f/1.2 L 16-35mm f/2.8L II 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto But in reality, I'll probably buy the pancake lens next because it looks cool and it's only $150. I want the 16-35 2.8 II next. And a macro. From what I've read, the 50mm 1.4 is better than the 1.2. Don't waste your money on it. I want the 85 1.2 also. Seems like the 50 1.2 vs 1.4 always boils down to a heated debate, and I'm not sure how much of it is people with the 1.4 trying to feel smug for 'outsmarting' everyone else, and how much of it is people with the 1.2 trying to justify their expense lol. My amateur take is that a 1.2 would be great for letting the light in, but in my long list of 'lenses-to-buy' it's toward the bottom. I'd rather do the 85 1.2, 24 or 35, macro, 24-70, pretty much everything else first, and stick with my 50 1.4 until the end, when all my other significant lens upgrades have been realized. just my .02 I will say that the top two on that list are neck-and-neck in my "if I just land this gig I'll buy that lens" fantasy. I use the 50 1.4 I have a LOT, and I love L lenses, so I've always wanted the 1.2. On the other hand, I really want to shoot some wide angle landscapes with the 16-35. One thing anyone on this list should agree to: before dropping hundreds of dollars on ANY of these lenses, I think it'd be smart to rent one first and try it out. I fully plan on doing that before I buy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: eddie_82 Looking to cop one of these next time it's on eBay http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx Good luck with sale. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I want a 24-70mm 2.8 Then decide between the 85mm 1.2, 100mm 1.2 macro, and 135 Which L prime is the best? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: salty 135 f/2L Picked it up yesterday! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: jon! I want a 24-70mm 2.8 Then decide between the 85mm 1.2, 100mm 1.2 macro, and 135 Which L prime is the best? do you mean 100/2.8 macro? this is best for you b/c it has IS for video |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
85 1.2 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: busfare Originally Posted By: jon! I want a 24-70mm 2.8 Then decide between the 85mm 1.2, 100mm 1.2 macro, and 135 Which L prime is the best? do you mean 100/2.8 macro? this is best for you b/c it has IS for video For me the 100 2.8 IS and the 135 F2 are the most attractive/realistic. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I want to say the 100mm becsuse of the tech. But the 135 seems to be lauded as one of the if not the best portrait lens around. I'm not to concerned w the IS because at 100 mm you would never hand hold anyway and a tripod is always better than any IS system. Should I skip the 24-70 2.8 if I already have my trusty tamron? Fuuu |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
As much as I love my 100 2.8 IS L macro... my 100 2.8 marco non-IS takes just as good of photos... The IS though is terribly nice to have, again, for photos. Fuck video. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I dunno jon I hand hold at 100mm all the time, even on my crop t3i.... My biggest reason for leaning 135 is that i already have the 24-105 f4 IS, and granted the 100 2.8 has better image quality and 2x the light, I almost feel like the bit of overlap that does exist justifies bumping up to the 135 2.0, which would make a *significant* light difference as well as a little more reach and more DOF options. My thoughts on this are constantly evolving, but the 135 f2 does seem pretty awesome. It helps that I've gotten better at hand-holding lately. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
the only other lense i want is the canon 100mm F2.8L macro. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
What's presently fucking with my head are the 35 2.0 IS and the 24 2.8 IS. The IQ on these is pretty goddamn good, and they're so much cheaper than the L versions, that even if IS doesn't matter at all to you they seem like attractive alternatives. I'd probably have to rent/borrow the 24's back to back to figure that one out. Seems like a fucking tough decision (unless video is super important, in which case I guess you'd want the IS regardless). Good thing I'm not ready to buy one yet. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
i have the new 35/2 IS. it is the new design that has a great build to it. everything feels tighter and more precise compared to the older generation lenses. (the new 24 and 28mm are also of the same build). the IS is awesome for video work. takes practice, but you can hold it at length and the footage will look like it's on a tripod. you will need external sound though as you can hear the IS motors in quiet situations. it's more noticeable on the longer lenses. compared to the old 35/1.4L? i do miss the 1.4 aperture for video work b/c it's much easier to tell whether you're in focus or not w/ such razor thin DOF. otherwise, i don't miss the chromatic aberration and larger size. they're both equally weatherproof (ie not very). both are pretty much the same sharpness. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: busfare i have the new 35/2 IS. it is the new design that has a great build to it. everything feels tighter and more precise compared to the older generation lenses. (the new 24 and 28mm are also of the same build). the IS is awesome for video work. takes practice, but you can hold it at length and the footage will look like it's on a tripod. you will need external sound though as you can hear the IS motors in quiet situations. it's more noticeable on the longer lenses. compared to the old 35/1.4L? i do miss the 1.4 aperture for video work b/c it's much easier to tell whether you're in focus or not w/ such razor thin DOF. otherwise, i don't miss the chromatic aberration and larger size. they're both equally weatherproof (ie not very). both are pretty much the same sharpness. Yeah, you're one of the reasons this decision isn't as simple as "just buy the L" Really though... that 35 2.0 looks pretty awesome. I wish the 24 was a 2.0 also. Interesting (if you give a shit about DXOmark's numbers) enough, the 35 1.4 is rated at 1.6T on a full frame and 1.8 on a crop, while the 35 2 IS is 2.0T on both. I'm not sure if you've done enough low light stuff with both to know, but do you get the feeling that the light coming through isn't exactly 1/2 as much on the 2.0? (the 24 1.4 and 50 1.4 apparently exhibit this too, while the 24 2.8IS and the 40 2.8 STM are 2.8T on either frame) /spends too much time on dxomark.com lulz |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Anyone have /use the 28-70mm 2.8 L? It's the predecessor to the 24-70, some even seem to prefer it. Any downsides I should know of? Seem they are a lot more affordable. $7-800. Thinking of this. I'd like the extra width bit not for $400 extra. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: spotch Really though... that 35 2.0 looks pretty awesome. I wish the 24 was a 2.0 also. Interesting (if you give a shit about DXOmark's numbers) enough, the 35 1.4 is rated at 1.6T on a full frame and 1.8 on a crop, while the 35 2 IS is 2.0T on both. I'm not sure if you've done enough low light stuff with both to know, but do you get the feeling that the light coming through isn't exactly 1/2 as much on the 2.0? (the 24 1.4 and 50 1.4 apparently exhibit this too, while the 24 2.8IS and the 40 2.8 STM are 2.8T on either frame) /spends too much time on dxomark.com lulz no gym for home? lol...but seriously...explain the 1.6T thing? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
turbo lens, duh. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: busfare Originally Posted By: spotch Really though... that 35 2.0 looks pretty awesome. I wish the 24 was a 2.0 also. Interesting (if you give a shit about DXOmark's numbers) enough, the 35 1.4 is rated at 1.6T on a full frame and 1.8 on a crop, while the 35 2 IS is 2.0T on both. I'm not sure if you've done enough low light stuff with both to know, but do you get the feeling that the light coming through isn't exactly 1/2 as much on the 2.0? (the 24 1.4 and 50 1.4 apparently exhibit this too, while the 24 2.8IS and the 40 2.8 STM are 2.8T on either frame) /spends too much time on dxomark.com lulz no gym for home? lol...but seriously...explain the 1.6T thing? It's a measure of how much light actually gets through the lens. So while the 35 1.4 has twice the aperture size of the 35 f2, it doesn't actually let 2x the light through to the sensor (assuming dxo mark's measurements are right). If the 35 1.4 is rated at 1.6T and the 35 2.0IS is rated at 2T, then the 1.4 is actually only letting 65-70% more light through... i.e. its biggest (really only?) advantage over the f2 IS is the extra stop, but even that advantage isn't a full stop's worth of light because it's less efficient at letting the light through. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/Light-transmission IIRC it's mostly for filmmakers, since it makes it easier to switch lenses without having a huge lighting difference show up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
/photon peeper |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
bought it! What that red ring do? Finally found one for under $600. Def not mint on the outside but glass is in great shape, focuses super fast and quiet. Took a few practice shots and liking it so far. Its the 28-70mm 2.8L (The precursor to the 24-70mm 2.8). Couldnt afford the current version but hopefully this will do ok. Took a few pics outside and the colors are amazing. Only down side is its still to long on a crop body! Was hoping to replace my tamron 17-50mm 2.8 but might need to upgrade to FF first. I did notice its a little tight to put on and take off compared to any of my other lenses, but not really a big deal. dumb test photo |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I recently read that this apparently has similar or better IQ compared to the first 24-70. *shrug*. Seems like a great kill imho. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I don't have $4K to burn right now but this new Zeiss 55mm might be worth trading in a red ring or two.. or three or four. http://petapixel.com/2013/10/07/zeiss-ne...formance-price/ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Zeiss zeiss baby? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Got the Canon 100mm 2.8L Macro last week :giddy: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: flyEX #1 I don't have $4K to burn right now but this new Zeiss 55mm might be worth trading in a red ring or two.. or three or four. http://petapixel.com/2013/10/07/zeiss-ne...formance-price/ That's rad, although honestly it's kind of a lens without a buyer. The price is so much higher than both Zeiss 50mm lenses currently available, and those standard Zeiss 50mm's are already VERY good. Pretty much all Zeiss 35mm/DSLR prime lenses produce better images than top level Canon or Nikkor lenses, but you lose AF, and there are no Zeiss zooms. I'm seriously considering buying this kit, the 135mm and a D800E towards the end of this year if work continues to pan out as it has been. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818446-REG/Zeiss_410951_0000_033_ZF_2_SLR_5_Lens_Bundle.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909191-REG/Zeiss_1999_676_135mm_f_2_0_Apo_Sonnar_ZF_2.html Nate |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Yeah. No way I'd actually buy that 55mm, but switching over to Zeiss primes is something I have been seriously considering over the last year. I never use AF anyway and the focus rings on the best canon lenses leave a lot to be desired. One day. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
After ebaying some lenses that I really don't use, I picked up a lens that I've been wanting for a while: Leica-R Summicron 50/2 I have a Sony NEX 6 and shoot with mainly legacy MF lenses. Should be here tomorrow and the adapter on Thr or Fri. Can't wait to shoot with it! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Originally Posted By: jon! bought it! What that red ring do? Finally found one for under $600. Def not mint on the outside but glass is in great shape, focuses super fast and quiet. Took a few practice shots and liking it so far. Its the 28-70mm 2.8L (The precursor to the 24-70mm 2.8). Couldnt afford the current version but hopefully this will do ok. Took a few pics outside and the colors are amazing. Only down side is its still to long on a crop body! Was hoping to replace my tamron 17-50mm 2.8 but might need to upgrade to FF first. I did notice its a little tight to put on and take off compared to any of my other lenses, but not really a big deal. dumb test photo WTF under 600? i paid $1100cdn about 4 years ago for mine. nice deal. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Just bought a EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 last week. Will be selling my EF 70-200 F4L and upgrading to the IS version or a used 70-200 f2.8.. Who knows. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Well on the super non-baller side of the spectrum, I'm pretty happy with the Sigma 28mm f/2.8 and Tamron 80-210 Adaptall-2 I bought on ebay last week for $20 total. Legacy lenses on an almost dead platform ftw? |