[Sumap]

I need more lenses. :/
Nikon D5000 w/AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm

Pentax Z-20(1993)

2 Lenes for the pentax:
28-80mm Pentax
70-120mm Sigma
Argus Seventy-Five(1949)

Kodak Bantam(1935)

All of them work fine and i've taken photos on all of them.

[gaboer]

I have:
D80 with a Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 lens



And an SB-800 speedflash

[Hirouzamaki]

I do a lot of sports photos for school.

For Football (American), I bring 2 cameras:
-Canon 1D MK II with a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and a 1.4x magnifier - Used for the main action
-Canon 5D with a 24-105mm f/4 - Used for shots along the sideline

Basketball:
-Canon 1D MK II with an 85mm f/1.8 lens

These are pretty much the two setups that I use for indoors and outdoors respectively

[bopie]

how does the 1 series feel compared to the 5 series?

(sounds like im talking about fucking bmws)

[Hirouzamaki]

The 1D feel nice in the hands and benefits from having having the 8 FPS burst rate. I don't know if Canon improved the 1D since the MK II, but navigating menus and reviewing pictures is actually atrocious because your have to hold down buttons while using the dial, but you get used to it after a while.

The 5D is nice and also has a nice 12.8 MP full frame sensor, so even if you take a picture and you find your subject to be a bit small, a simple crop can bring it enlarge it without sacrificing and noticeable quality. I can't really think of anything negative to say about the 5D other than it can feel a bit small sometimes.

[bopie]

Hirouzamaki posted:

I can't really think of anything negative to say about the 5D other than it can feel a bit small sometimes.

That's what I thought. I have a 5Dii and as much as it is huge compared to rebels etc, it feels 'unbalanced' sometimes.


Edit:

rode swagger

[DaveP]

Canon 7D
50 1.8
11-16 2.8

Thinking whether to get a speedlite, a 35mm or a cage next

[Adbor]

send me my fucking trigger you fucks :milk:

[mike]

DaveP posted:

Canon 7D
50 1.8
11-16 2.8

Thinking whether to get a speedlite, a 35mm or a cage next

speedlite.

it's just so useful

[squish]

DaveP posted:

Canon 7D
50 1.8
11-16 2.8

Thinking whether to get a speedlite, a 35mm or a cage next

How is the 11-16 doing for you? That'll probably be my next lens.

[DoubleDD]

squish posted:

How is the 11-16 doing for you? That'll probably be my next lens.

I used one at school and it is great.

[squish]

DoubleDD posted:

I used one at school and it is great.

Thanks. I might consider renting one off Borrow Lenses. One week for $50 doesn't seem too bad; I don't think I'll be getting it for 2-3 months though so I might rent it over spring break when I have a full week to go out and take shots with it.

[DaveP]

mike posted:

speedlite.

it's just so useful

Welp I had an sb-600 and I think the idea of the wireless ttl flash is awesome, it's just a bit lame that it's a piece of kit that can't be used for video.

squish posted:

How is the 11-16 doing for you? That'll probably be my next lens.

It's a great superwide, it's just a case of finding situations where a superwide works

[squish]

DaveP posted:

It's a great superwide, it's just a case of finding situations where a superwide works

If I get it it'll mostly be for landscapes; do you have any alternate recommendations fitting for landscapes?

[DoubleDD]

squish posted:

If I get it it'll mostly be for landscapes; do you have any alternate recommendations fitting for landscapes?

The Sigma 10-20 and Canon 10-22 are also great alternatives for landscape photography as you don't need the fast apertures.

[squish]

DoubleDD posted:

The Sigma 10-20 and Canon 10-22 are also great alternatives for landscape photography as you don't need the fast apertures.

Yeah, I'm not worried about aperture, just sharpness is what I'm looking for.

The Canon 10-22 looks good. Maybe I'll look into that. The Sigma is more in my price range, but is the Canon worth it?

Thanks for all the feedback. :)

[DoubleDD]

squish posted:

Yeah, I'm not worried about aperture, just sharpness is what I'm looking for.

The Canon 10-22 looks good. Maybe I'll look into that. The Sigma is more in my price range, but is the Canon worth it?

Thanks for all the feedback. :)

Well between these lenses, the biggest factor will probably be in the price. I think out of the three, the Tokina 11-16 is the sharpest but the others are great options two. I don't think you can go wrong with them but you can always look into them some more with google.

[DaveP]

Of my research, the Tokina appeared to be the most liked of the bunch

[jadenrosh]

So I got a Canon 550D with the 18-55mm kit lens and I'm thinking of upgrading to a better lens and was wondering if the 55-250mm EF-S lens is a good choice?

[worm]

i feel like i just pulled a knife at a gun fight :saddowns:

[rieda1589]

jadenrosh posted:

So I got a Canon 550D with the 18-55mm kit lens and I'm thinking of upgrading to a better lens and was wondering if the 55-250mm EF-S lens is a good choice?

50mm 1.8 (or 1.4 if you can afford it).

You'll love it.

[FalseLogic]

worm posted:

i feel like i just pulled a knife at a gun fight :saddowns:

We can be Point-n-Shoot buddies


Although I do have my eye on a DSLR when I get the money. Also, this camera belongs to a friend, but he basically lets me borrow it constantly. I usually have it.

[DoubleDD]

jadenrosh posted:

So I got a Canon 550D with the 18-55mm kit lens and I'm thinking of upgrading to a better lens and was wondering if the 55-250mm EF-S lens is a good choice?

It's an entirely different purpose lens. In terms of quality, both won't get you the best. They are really starters lenses so don't expect much. The 55-250 is very tight on the crop-sensor so even the 18-55 would be a better starters lens.
If you really want the best quality then don't get any of those because they are slow and shit. Get a 50mm 1.8 or 28mm 2.8

Edited:

Oh and my camera gear:

Nikon
-Nikon D60
-Nikon 18-55mm f3.5-f5.6

Canon
-Canon 7D
-Canon 50mm f1.8 II
-Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC

Pentax
-Pentax ME Super
-SMC Pentax-M 50mm f1.7
-Tokina 28-85mm f3.5-f4.5

Previously owned
-Nikon D200
-Sigma 70-300mm
-Nikon 50mm f1.8

[worm]

FalseLogic posted:

We can be Point-n-Shoot buddies


Although I do have my eye on a DSLR when I get the money. Also, this camera belongs to a friend, but he basically lets me borrow it constantly. I usually have it.

:respek:

[Xera]

DoubleDD posted:

It's an entirely different purpose lens. In terms of quality, both won't get you the best. They are really starters lenses so don't expect much. The 55-250 is very tight on the crop-sensor so even the 18-55 would be a better starters lens.
If you really want the best quality then don't get any of those because they are slow and shit. Get a 50mm 1.8 or 28mm 2.8

Both are great when stopped down to f/7.1, which is fine in good light(Daylight is just fine, and the 550D handles noise pretty well so up to 1600 iso is usable). You won't get a better pair of lenses for the price, and a 50mm 1.8 is hardly a replacement for a telephoto, much less the 28mm 2.8.

[jadenrosh]

Cheers for the advice, I'll go with a 50mm f/1.8 and stick to my 18-55mm for zooming

[codenamecueball]

jadenrosh posted:

Cheers for the advice, I'll go with a 50mm f/1.8 and stick to my 18-55mm for zooming

:)

[DoubleDD]

jadenrosh posted:

Cheers for the advice, I'll go with a 50mm f/1.8 and stick to my 18-55mm for zooming

Great. All 70-300. 50-250 and those kind of lenses just suck ass. They aren't sharp, they aren't fast, the have ugly bokeh, probably slow auto-focus, color fringing and other shit.
Wether they are cheap or not doesn't matter. You want quality pictures and if you have to sacrifice that much quality just to buy a lens that falls in your budget then you are better off just not buying a shit lens.
And a lens like the 55-250 is just to narrow for a crop sensor so you won't use it a lot anyway. All just wasted money.

The 50mm 1.8 en 18-55mm are a good combo though!

[Xera]

DoubleDD posted:

Great. All 70-300. 50-250 and those kind of lenses just suck ass. They aren't sharp, they aren't fast, the have ugly bokeh, probably slow auto-focus, color fringing and other shit.
Wether they are cheap or not doesn't matter. You want quality pictures and if you have to sacrifice that much quality just to buy a lens that falls in your budget then you are better off just not buying a shit lens.
And a lens like the 55-250 is just to narrow for a crop sensor so you won't use it a lot anyway. All just wasted money.

The 50mm 1.8 en 18-55mm are a good combo though!

Uh.. the 55-250 is sharp, it may not be fast and it may have slow auto focus, but for the price the image quality is great. "Too narrow on a crop sensor"? That depends on what you're shooting. If you're buying a telephoto chances are you want.. a telephoto. If you want to take pictures of birds and other wildlife the 18-55 and 50mm 1.8 are practically useless.

You won't find a better telephoto for £154.

[codenamecueball]

DoubleDD posted:

Great. All 70-300. 50-250 and those kind of lenses just suck ass. They aren't sharp, they aren't fast, the have ugly bokeh, probably slow auto-focus, color fringing and other shit.
Wether they are cheap or not doesn't matter. You want quality pictures and if you have to sacrifice that much quality just to buy a lens that falls in your budget then you are better off just not buying a shit lens.
And a lens like the 55-250 is just to narrow for a crop sensor so you won't use it a lot anyway. All just wasted money.

The 50mm 1.8 en 18-55mm are a good combo though!

disagree. the 55-250 is a great bit of glass for the price. the af is not amazing, but it kicks shit out the 70-300. sharp, good enough speed outdoors.

[bopie]

Xera posted:

You won't find a better telephoto for £154.

That's because you won't find another telephoto under £154.

[Xera]

bopie posted:

That's because you won't find another telephoto under £154.

Uh.. exactly? The next step up is twice the price.

[Killerelf12]

Xera posted:

Uh.. exactly? The next step up is twice the price.

Just because it's the only lens you'll find for that price doesn't make it better.

[Xera]

Killerelf12 posted:

Just because it's the only lens you'll find for that price doesn't make it better.

What? That makes no sense. If it's the only lens you can find for the price then it can't be better because there is nothing to compare it to. It's a good, cheap telephoto lens and if you don't want to spend out £400 it's your best option(The Tamron 70-300 is £50 cheaper, but it's utter garbage)

[bopie]

[B-hazard]

I don't have much gear at the moment
-Olympus OM-10 with Zuiko 50mm 1.8.
-Canon EOS 1000d with 18-55mm (non-IS) and Helios 44m 58mm f2.0.




Edited:

Wait I just remembered I posted on page one, oh well this includes images.

[squish]

DoubleDD posted:

Well between these lenses, the biggest factor will probably be in the price. I think out of the three, the Tokina 11-16 is the sharpest but the others are great options two. I don't think you can go wrong with them but you can always look into them some more with google.

Going back on this; what exactly does the 11-16 look like in terms of field of view? I may actually be considering the 17-40 now just for the better focal length, despite the fact the Tokina looks sharp as a tack. Aperture is nice with the Tokina but doesn't really matter as F4 is good enough for outdoor shots.

I still will probably rent one of them to try out.

[ijyt]

Try this, it'll show you what the FOV looks like at what focal length, crop and fullframe.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/im...ens/simulator/

[squish]

ijyt posted:

Try this, it'll show you what the FOV looks like at what focal length, crop and fullframe.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/im...ens/simulator/

Thanks, that definitely helps a lot. If I get the 17-40mm L it's still really sharp, and the focal range would probably give me a lot of options for regular out-and-about shooting such as in the city and stuff.

However, the Tokina is even sharper, faster, and wider. The thing is though, if I get the Tokina, I'll still be using my kit lens for mid-range stuff, unless I stick with the 50/11-16 combo for now. That's also $200 cheaper than using the 17-40/50 combo.

To fund this anyhow I'm probably going to have to sell my 55-250.

[DoubleDD]

squish posted:

Thanks, that definitely helps a lot. If I get the 17-40mm L it's still really sharp, and the focal range would probably give me a lot of options for regular out-and-about shooting such as in the city and stuff.

However, the Tokina is even sharper, faster, and wider. The thing is though, if I get the Tokina, I'll still be using my kit lens for mid-range stuff, unless I stick with the 50/11-16 combo for now. That's also $200 cheaper than using the 17-40/50 combo.

To fund this anyhow I'm probably going to have to sell my 55-250.

Though choice. You could even consider the Tamron 17-50 which is a lot cheaper but still pretty good. And it is an f2.8 lens.
You should find out first if the 6mm difference is too much to give up or not. Then you could look into lenses like the Canon 17-40 or Tamron 17-50 to compare them with each other.
The reason I bring up the Tamron lens is because it has 10mm more than the Canon, is cheaper, is faster(f2.8 vs f4) and it still is a pretty sharp lens.