Gear Thread

I've got a 6d and I'm going to buy a 85mm prime, which is the best idea: Buy the cheaper f/1.8 from Canon? Buy the Sigma f/1.4 or just wait for a potential release of a Sigma Art version?

>>2729147
Get the Canon. f/1.8 on 85mm will give nice shallow DOF and is sharper than the Sigma.

What's the best decently priced telephoto lens for architecture for pentax k mount?

I've got that DA 50mm 1.8 and I love it for almost everything but in some cases I really cant get any closer

>>2729162
Try the DA 50-135/2.8
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-Star-50-135mm-F2.8-SDM-Zoom-Lens.html

>>2729164
dang that's pretty expensive

guess I'll just deal for now and in the meantime at least look at other options but it seems like that would cover what I'm missing fairly well

File: 20151225_174129.jpg (173KB, 563x1000px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 563x1000px

Got a new panasonic GH4 for christmas today, with a metabone adapter, and a fucking sigma 18-35 canon lens.
I was going to use it to shoot film, and was looking at a tutorial for it when I wanted to put on the new sigma lens and test it out, but it wouldn't fit. I tried twisting it harder, and when I finally gave up, I looked at my lens contacts and

>This happened

I guess my speedbooster was too tight, I'm about to unscrew the face and press down the springs, but any of you had a similar expierience as this?
If so, any tips? Should I use the warranty, or just try and fix it myself?

I made a thread about it over here
>>2729165
then realized I should just post it on the gear thread instead

i'm a beginner photographer with a Canon T5i and kit lens (15-55 IS STM). I'm the 50mm 1.8stm and i need a cheap zoom lens that goes further than 55mm, what should i get? Mind that im shooting mid to large events and sports as an amateur, so i don't get to stand very close to my subjects

File: 1432564780251.jpg (315KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1024x768px

>>2729142
Alright /p/, I'm planning on getting a new camera in time for the new year, something compact, so can't be a DSLR, I can consider a mirrorless if the associated lenses are good and fairly cheap enough but mostly I'm looking for a premium compact under $730. Any suggestions? I'm considering the Ricoh GR but any other cameras in that price range would be handy to check out

I consider trying photography as a hobby. I do not seek for professional result and I'm not even sure I want to spend hours editing my shots.
I just want to have fun manually tuning the camera and enjoy taking shots of daily life.

I want to buy a used camera and maybe two lenses. No more than 3 lenses anyway.
Do you recommended me to lurk for older camera on eBay or should I visit second hand camera shops that professionally cleaned and fix minor problems?.

>>2729275
550D, get some primes with it
24mm 2.8 pancake
50mm 1.8
And it probably will come with a kit zoom

Can't really go wrong with it.

>>2729270
holy fuck what is that lens

>>2729278
I had in mind something older, with just enough electronics to save my pics in a digital format.

File: IMG_2352.jpg (448KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 1000x667px

>>2729284
What ever camera you get, if its canon, get the 24mm pancake.
Can't get better value for money than this

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS Kiss X4
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:22 23:31:40
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2729286
Thanks. I'll keep that as a rule of thumb.

>>2729278
150mm 1.8, as written on the barrell.

File: canon_50f18.jpg (84KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x500px

>>2729297
what?

>>2729299


my post -> >>2729297
was meant for
>>2729282

>>2729282
Can you even read faggot?

>>2729275
>I do not seek for professional result and I'm not even sure I want to spend hours editing my shots.

A hobbyist doesnt spend hours editing; simple tweaks in lightroom are enough.


>I just want to have fun manually tuning the camera and enjoy taking shots of daily life.

What does this even mean?


Juts buy a cheap micro 4/3rds with a crummy kit lens and enjoy

>>2729304
Does the absence of optical viewer in 4/3 removes the fun?

File: IMG_3058scaled.jpg (362KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1000x667px

>>2729302
oh kk

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS Kiss X4
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:24 00:19:06
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2729310
Buy one with one.

Olympus EM-D E-M10 w/ 14-42mm lens is 5 hundo on Amazon.

>>2729319
Thanks. I'll read reviews of it and try to try one in an electronic shop.

Have x100s and x-t1 with 18-55mm and 35mm. Looking to get something telephoto-ish for portraits and skiing action and mountain pics, etc. In lightroom I notice most of my photos with the 18-55mm are are 18mm or 55mm.

Should I get the 56mm 1.2, 55-200mm 3.5-4.8 or spring for the 50-140mm 2.8?

>>2729332
56 isn't going to be good for things that aren't portraits. It's a fantastic lens, but it's very specialized. I'd push the 50-140, or other tele zoom.

>>2729332
I have the 56mm and its a fuckin dream m8

Ive never owned a telephoto zoom
so cant comment, but you will adore the 56

>>2729302
Any sample shots?

anyone have experience taking landscape pictures in snowy places? I'm thinking of renting a tripod for my 2 days trip and I was wonder is there anything I need to look out for. So far I know
>camera underexposes
>put camera in zip lock bag before going into warm place
>bring ND filter
>wide angle len
>extra batteries that keep near my body for warmth

the only thing left I know is about the tripod. the one that I have is really crappy and shit.

File: canon t70.jpg (146KB, 1200x823px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1200x823px

found my dad's old canon t70. i'm new to photography and i figure its a good enough starter camera. thoughts?

>>2729410
I prefer the 50mm 1.8 but the 1.4 is great too

>>2729410
> thoughts ?
It's not digital, so it's an expensive way to start and continue.

>>2729409
Maybe just buy an useful tripod. It's not something you only use once.

>>2729409
>ND filter

Why not a polarized filter? Since they remove 2-3 stops and take the glare off the snow too

Also recommend getting a plastic bag for if it starts snowing onto your camera. It's basically slow rain after all.

>>2729496
>not using a weather sealed body with WR lens

>>2729500
plastic bags are free at the store when u buy tendies m8

>>2729501
My weather sealed kit costs less than your pathetic plastic fantastic toy camera

>>2729502
ehhh wut

>>2729505
Pentax K-50, brah

I have an eos 450d with kit lens (18-55mm) and I'd like to upgrade to something better.
The question is - what should I replace first - the body, or the lens, as I don't have enough money to buy both at once. I've got ~400-500 euro to spend, mainly doing street photog

thanks a lot

>>2729507
Ricoh GR

>>2729508
am I getting memed on?

>>2729507
Either can be better.

An A6000 or something kit could be nice to get a better sensor, faster burst rates and so on, but a good lens also is nice.

I guess you'll have to decide what you lack most and buy based on that?

>>2729509
Not really, You mentioned you mainly do street and that is the best way of upgrade for that.

>>2729510
alright and what's a go-to 'street lens'?
35mm prime? 50mm prime?

>>2729511
I guess, but I wouldn't like to limit myself and I feel like my options are more open with a DSLR

I'm on a budget, so I can't really afford to get a ricoh for street and then a DSLR for something else

>>2729512
Usually it's 35mm for APS-C, and 50mm for Full Frame. It's all up to personal preference though, some people like shooting 28mm or wider.

>>2729512
There is no go-to street lens.

Some like the IQ and relative speed of a Sigma Art or Canon L or better Nikkor, others prefer a pancake or vintage lens...

File: 1450692012856.jpg (67KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x900px

What's the cheapest recommendable camera with non fixed lenses?

>>2729517
The final setup I am targeting for consists of 3 lenses
>do-everything pancake
>zoom
>wide angle for quick snapshots on the street.

>>2729366
Should've said pic unrelated, that camera isn't mine, and >>2729302 isn't me.

Anyway, I'd still like an answer to >>2729270 since incoming sales

>>2729517
Depends on the purpose you want to use it for.

But for stills in decent light, some of the cheapest useful things might be a Nikon D3x00 or Pentax K-50 kit.

Not that I actually bought them.

>>2729524
what about some 4/3 or rangefinder?

>>2729525
>4/3
If you mean micro4/3, then there are some options. It's mostly about pocketable, portability stuff. Not very good in low light, lenses are mighty fucking expensive. No real wide option.

Rangefinders are mostly for film or if you are a wealthy nouveau rich chink and want to show off a Leica without actually using it.

There is also Fuji as an APS-C compact MILC but the price is still too high.
Budget-wise your best option is an older DSLR with kit lens and a standard fast prime (35mm f/2.8 or faster) like >>2729524 said. You also get the most camera for your money with Pentax. It's a fact that is also a meme around here.

>>2729531
In fairness to m4/3 their expensive lenses are quite godly

>>2729547
Yes, compared to DSLR lenses the expensive ones are very very good for both. DSLRs have good quality lenses for cheap though.

>>2729531
>No real wide option.

Like Zuiko and Panasonic 7-14 mm?

>>2729560
>not rectilinear fisheye crop

>>2729210

can anyone spare a helping hand?

>>2729583
Get a used 70-200 f/4, if you can afford it then get the f/2.8.
Non IS versions are cheap and with a little practice and a tripod you can shoot without vibration blur.

Fuck, /p/, you're turning me into a film camera collector. How do I get out?

>>2729598
By not collecting gear, sell them and only keep those you actually use.

I have a Canon 6D with a 24mm-105mm kit lens. I am into a bit of astro and landscape. My first buy was a Rokinon 14mm 2.8 which takes awesome milkyway shots. Next I wanted a 50mm so I went for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 DG, and a Sigma 24mm 1.4 DG. Love the Sigmas as they are sharper than the L kit lens. My question is I don't know what to buy next. Now your question is going to be "what do you want to do with it?" and my answer would be IDK....maybe a photography class and go from there?

>>2729531
>lenses are mighty fucking expensive.
>mfw 40-150 2.8 is $1300 but a 14/2.5 is $400
it's some bullshit

>>2729480
That's what i need, but ordering one now will be too late...
>>2729496
Only got a variable nd filter...maybe ill get a polarized filter if i found a one day shipping
Good thing my camera can take on a bit of snow? (D7100)

I'm looking at upgrading from my x10 to something pre owned but generally better. I was mostly in film until my Yashica T3 died, so I'm wanting a digital equivalent. I used to like the pen ep-1 when I had one, but found the lenses too expensive. I'm looking at the Sony a6000 and Ricoh GR at the moment. Any advice?

n00b here.
Wide angles; are these good and versatile?
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF-S 10-18 mm f/4.5-5.6

>>2729506
I'm not sure the wr lenses from pentax are all that great, apart from the super expensive limiteds.

Unless you're saying you're not using wr lenses. Please tell me you're not using non wr lenses

Is pentax really a meme? I quite like the handling of their cameras, and the astrotracer thing in the k3-ii sounds pretty cool, but there's not much of a second hand market near me (UK has fuck all decent camera shops, certainly not where I am). All the decent primes seem very expensive, and there seems to be no fast primes other than the limited ones. Also there seem to be very few wr lenses, which kind of undermines the usefulness of the weather sealed body.

Is their lens selection really as shit as I think it is?

>>2729662
In my country it's the same, you're limited to canon or nikon since it's the only shit they sell gear for.
The cameras are good though, I do like them, but I wouldn't change systems to pentax.

>>2729641
Buy a Samyang. They are cheaper and faster.

>>2729666
faster at missing focus am i rite
>>2729641
10-18 a GOAT
>>2729662
It's the /p/ meme. You're wasting your money if you don't buy Pentax, and if humidity goes above 80%, your camera will die if it's not a Pentax. Pentax is the meme SLR and the A6000 is the memerless camera. The reason these cameras get recommended is because they're decent and have the longest spec sheets. Pentax lens selection really does suck, although the weather sealing is legit.

>>2729673
It's a wide angle lens,you have to be an ape to miss focus with that.
>what is live view?

alright so I'm just getting into photography and i want to buy an entry-level Nikon, so what are the differences between the 3200 and the 3300?
and also what lenses should I get, for like weeding photos and maybe shooting at a concert, festival ect... thanks

>>2729700
google.

File: F-2S_Stuffed-4-Sect-1a.jpg (1MB, 1650x1185px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1650x1185px

since I'm tired of having my stuff just flying around in my backpack I want to invest in a proper bag.
I'm thinking about something like pic related, it should be able to fit two camera bodies and 3-4 lenses and I want the compartments to be easily removable so it can hold a 6x7 instead of the 35mm bodies sometimes

is domke still considered the good stuff? I don't mind the ruggedish appreance, much more to my taste than tacticool lowepro stuff

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1364
Image Height	980
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:06:23 11:06:55
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1650
Image Height	1185

File: 001_helen-levitt_theredlist.png (339KB, 451x546px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 451x546px

>>2729142
I've had my D3200 for about a year and I've gotten a lot of use out of it, but now I want to upgrade.

Should I jump ship and try out the Sony A7 or go for a Nikon D600? I'm looking for something that's cheap used.

I'm also open to Canon if there's any cheap FF near the price range of the other two models.
I only have one FF lens (50mm 1.8 AF-S), so switching brands is still reasonable.

Or, is upgrading to FF not worth it?

>>2729142
>pentax k5
>bro has k3
>shoot it for first time
>better than any canon and nikon ive used
>each shot looks great
and he only got it because he was jealous of my slr, now im jealous

very stupid question, but alas

does eTTL work in M mode? and does FEL work too? or does it stay at the settings I set in M no matter what, and at 1/1 flash strength

>>2729717
for what? why?

>>2729275
ignore the two previous replies. Get the Nikon d3300 or if you're willing to spend a bit more, the d7200. Use the kit lens. Learn with the kit lens. Grow from the kit lens. If you feel like photography is your thing and you can see improvement from when you started, then you can start looking into better lens to better yourself.

>>2729737
What camera? What flash?
M on the camera, yes.
M on the flash, no.

is there a particular version of lightroom I should get as a beginner? should I even get lightroom or would some other editing software be better? thanks

>>2729791
It's a tool. Only you can decide what tools you need.

Also, there is only one version. Get the newest you can afford for the best tools and results.

>>2729791

Ignore >>2729793 trying to be all PhotoSage

Just get Lightroom 6 and be done with it.

>>2729769
320EX on the 6D.
And it is the M mode on the mode dial, flash is not set to manual.

whats a good sturdy tripod? Preferably under 100$ as well, going to be used for primarily Astrophotography.

File: 1439516526563.jpg (158KB, 604x565px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 604x565px

>>2729740
Upgrade for what?
To keep shooting people, I do a lot of portraits and shoot a lot of people.

Why?
Upgrading for better high iso performance, not having to have cropped lenses, much bigger viewfinder, better dynamic range, and more bells and whistles features too.

I'm interested in upgrading after using a friend's full frame Nikon.

I'm going to Paris in two weeks for entire semester and I was just thinking of getting casually into photography as I'll have lots of free time there. I don't have any prior experience although I'm very sensitive for photography in films and I used to be interested in art history, so I guess I have some kind of visual sense.
I was thinking of getting Holga as it seems quite budget camera and good for debutants from what I've read but would like to hear your recommendations first before purchasing anything. I guess I just like that analog and vintage aspect of Holga from what I've read about it.

>>2729717
The A7 is pretty good, but I'm not sure most of /p/ might consider it cheap used.

>>2729861
I can't relate to the idea of using photography devices that would have been bad in the 60ties or so already. Never mind paying for new ones of those to be made.

I can relate even less to making this not a random novelty thing to try for a few days, but actually making it your only / primary equipment.

But if you feel like doing that is right for you, have fun with it.

I want to upgrade from my first DSLR which is a 60D. I have about 3500 USD to work with. Is the 5DS worth the price or should I go for the 5D mark III? Something else entirely?

I mostly shoot sports stuff for my university if that makes a difference.

>>2729871
I'd personally get a Sony A7 II (or A7S / A7S II if low light shooting was a huge concern). Or a Nikon D750. The rest would probably go to lenses.

But a 5D Mark III is quite okay, too (hated the Mark II). It's just a bit too expensive for how it performs.

>>2729871
wait for that sweet sweet pentax full frame to come out

>>2729876
So what are the specs on that, exactly?

>>2729874
Thanks. I'll look into these.
>>2729876
If there was any indication it was going to come out before March Madness started I might be willing to wait for it.

>>2729871
Nikon D610 w/ 70-200mm (for sports) and 35mm for dinking around doing snapshit stuff.

>>2729869
Then what would you recommend instead? Mind you that I have limited budget.

>>2729299
Best lens 10/10

>>2729715
I'm going to tell you flat out, Dont get a messenger bag. I used one with a d5100 and about 4 lenses and some accessories, and long walks/hikes would be brutal. I'm looking into getting a backpack for my gear now since I'm ff. I had to constantly switch shoulders on long walks. Granted I like traveling with all my gear since I Dont want to miss a shot as a result of being a bitch nigga

>>2729715
get a mf fanny pack, put your lenses in socks, and youre good to go

>>2729923
I'd rather suggest going digital. Either use your phone or get a cheap Sony NEX 5n, maybe an EVF for it.
It is small, somewhat pocketable and has great results while being rather budget friendly.

Guys I have an Olympus E-300 (years and years old) with 14-45mm, 35mm macro and 40-150mm lenses. I recently read that they don't really make DSLRs any more.

Is there any market for the body and lenses? I'd want to make some money off of them.

File: 12431781_1256835851009698_1224554261_n.jpg (62KB, 960x539px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 960x539px

my grandad has a camera in the attic. pic related anyone know the name ?

i would have to drive 3 hours to pick it up is it worth it ?

>>2729977
looks like a Mamiya Press

I got a Nikon D3300. What beginner lens should I buy for portraits?

>>2729270
Sigma dp2 merill. It can outresolve a D810 and beats all bayer sensors for color accuracy.

>>2729673
How does the lens selection suck if K mount lenses from forty years ago will fit right on?

>>2730036
Yes. Might as well buy a Nikon if you wanted to slap film era lenses on. At least the Nikkors are good.

>>2729861
I really don't get toy cameras. Used professional film cameras are literally cheaper than new toy cameras. Would you prefer professional quality results or limiting yourself to, at best, interesting dogshit?

Also speaking from experience take lots of pictures while you're abroad. You may never have subjects that interesting ever again, and you can have something to remember your trip by.

>>2729923
>>2729953
>>2730044

If you want to stick with film you can get an entire Konica film system (Autoreflex TC and 2-3 lenses) for around $60. The limitations on the body (1/8 slowest shutter speed, film advance standoff switch, plastic build) are worth it for the amazing and totally orphaned glass.

>>2730049
>Autoreflex TC
Why would that be your first choice?
>dat t3 weight; smoothness; sexuality

>>2730053
Cause it's small, fucking cheap, and mounts Hexanons? T4 is great if you can fucking find one, FS-1s are generally all paper weights by now, and FT-1 see what I said for T4. T3 and earlier are too big for me personally.

>>2729967
bump, please don't bury me

>>2730049
I just found Konica Autoreflex TC with some Hexanon AR 135 ON eBay for 40$. Would you rec it for beginner then? As I said I don't have any prior experience with photography. Also, I might have an old Zenith in the attic, it would do good too?

File: giphy (1).gif (2MB, 359x202px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 359x202px

Are canon AE 1s decent starter cameras ?

Additionally for messing around what is the best option for polaroids?

Yeah, I was thinking about Polaroids too, mostly because of the new Polaroid Snap but I guess most of you'd call it utter shit. But it seemed alright for my needs like messing around during my free time on scholarship in Paris.

I just need something cheap and simple and preferably analog.

Looking at getting a good 80s film camera, is the Olympus OM2 Spot Program a good choice?

>>2730059
I just found that T4 that you've mentioned and it comes with some Hexanon 1.7/50 lens. It doesn't ring me a bell as I'm new to all of this but it's for 60$ - is it worth it?

>>2730066
>for messing around what is the best option for polaroids?
Instax Mini

>>2730030
I've heard the camera's output is problematic when it comes to software such as Lightroom, the software bundled with the camera is awful, and that the Foveon sensor is only useful in really specific circumstances, which, considered with the price, really doesn't sit well with me.

Any other suggestions?

>>2730083
Get the GR, you will love it.
Maybe if you need more zoom you can consider the RX100 (III or IV?) but the larger sensor in the GR will be more useful.
If you are willing to trade pocketability and quick use, then maybe a mirrorless like the A6000, Panasonic GF7 or one of the latest Olympus Pen cameras are worthy to check out.

I say go for the GF7 with the kit lens and get a fast 14mm prime to have the GRs wideangle. You will love it.

>>2730089
Panasonic's fastest 14mm is only f/2.5, the better option would probably be getting Rokinon's 12mm f/2 in mft mount

>>2730104
f/2.5 is plenty fast. My 35mm f/2.4 is more than I need for everything. Anything faster than that is just bokehwhoring.

>>2730113

Sour grapes, nigga.

So I've seen a few people talk about the Sigma 50mm 1.4 but only for canon. I have a Nikon D750 and want to buy a new 50mm prime. I'm stuck between the AF-S FX Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM. Is there anyone with personal experience with both? And if so which one has a sharper image in your opinion?

>>2730113
>My 35mm f/2.4 is more than I need for everything.

I have Pentax too and I second this.

>Anything faster than that is just bokehwhoring.

STFU

>>2730113
Read >>2730121 and >>2730130
faster apertures are alkso good for letting in more light, ISO and shutter speed can only go so far before your shot becomes a shaky, blotchy, soft mess that makes Lomo shots look sharp by comparison

Is the canon 35mm 1.4 better or worse than the sigma 35 1.4 art?

>>2730143
what is "better"?

Canon
>better build quality
>weather proofing

Sigma
>cheaper
>subjectively better color rendering

So currently I have a beginner Sony. I've been doing some research and am really interested in the Pentax models, particularly the K3-II, can you guys give me any suggestions or recommendations on this as a new line/ upgrade?

I really like what I see, but I'd rather hear facts from people with genuine experience using them or whatever.

Thanks!

>>2729923
Digital.

Or if you must, an used film camera that was not designed to suck. It's not like even *good* film cameras are expensive these days.

> Mind you that I have limited budget.
More firmly a digital camera. I don't know how much you intend to shoot, but film is expensive. A few rolls + having them developed and you've amortized an entry-level DSLR.

A few thousand photos + having them developed and/or scanned and you can pay for an enthusiast MILC / DSLR.

>>2730027
There are no beginner lenses. But I guess lenses with great sharpness, AF and maybe VR (IS) can make things easier for everyone including beginners.

If you can afford a Sigma Art or some good Nikkor prime lens with built-in AF motor somewhere between 50-90mm, those would surely be good portrait lenses.

>>2730067
> Polaroid
> cheap
Polaroid is *extremely* expensive to shoot, even more so than film.

>>2730127
Get the Sigma *Art* 50mm, not the EX.

The Ex is okay, but what really created the buzz around Sigma + 50mm is the Art version, which has much better sharpness / resolution, more controlled Bokeh, and quite a few more things.

>>2730163
That's the one that's like 900$ right? Price isn't a issue I just wanna make sure.

>>2729951
messenger bags are only good if you buy small ones. bringing more then a smaller camera and 2 lenses will kill you

>>2730169
Should be around $700 (global market price, dunno how they regionally price them), but yes, that one. There's only one Sigma Art 50mm.

>>2730168
if your Camera got that fucking dusty, sell it. You shouldn't have to worry about destroying your camera because you want to clean the dust off of it.

Sell it. Invest the money in a Photography trip and some nice walking Boots. You don't need that Leica.

>>2730184
Little faggot deleted his comment.

>>2729804
Thanks mate

File: maxresdefault.jpg (157KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1920x1080px

I don't need expensive F1,4 apertures since I'm mostly an F5,6 shooter, so this lens is perfect for me.
Really good size, good lightweight, and good lens cap design. I like this lens so much, except for its price.

Zeiss, why you do this to me? Why this price?
Why can't Zeiss just be like the other manufacturers and make their bucks on large volumes of affordable pricing instead of low volumes of insane pricing?

ZEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

File: sig.jpg (27KB, 500x329px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x329px

i got an old pentax k-x with a couple of lenses. and it's a lot of fun, and i don't think i need a newer/more expensive cam yet as i only started with manual photography earlier this year.

now i need a new zoom lens, as my Samsung (Schneider Kreuznach) 50-200mm has a lot of dust inside, and i don't think fixing is worth it (right?).

now there's a 70-300 by Tamron for about 100€ and a 70-300 by Sigma for 140€. how would i go about finding out if there are any real differences between them? how do i decide which to buy?

http://www.amazon.de/Tamron-70-300mm-4-5-Macro-digitales/dp/B000HP7L6E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451231656&sr=8-1&keywords=pentax+70-300

http://www.amazon.de/Sigma-70-300-Makro-Objektiv-Filtergewinde-Objektivbajonett/dp/B000B8T6E2/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1451231368&sr=8-10&keywords=sigma+pentax

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Felix
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2730268
Get the DA 55-300, much better than the kit 50-200.

>>2730282

this one doesn't seem available in my area (amazon doesn't even carry it) so i didn't include it.

now im sad.

>>2730284
>>2730282

it's also 2-3 times as pricey if i find it somewhere. so i think nah ..

>>2730284
Try ebay, I got a lens earlier this month for less than half price in "like new" condition.

>>2730268
Sigma is as sharp as a blunt butter knife, Tampon is better but not by much. Your 50-200 will be still better.

>>2730193
nice foreskin lens hood faggot

>>2730321
I'm not sure what you mean, but compact and low weight lens hood is a good thing.
That style is optimal for small aperture F2.8 lenses.

>>2730326
He's just mad he can't afford the lens

File: birdy.jpg (2MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4288x2848px

>>2730287

it has more than 3 clearly visible dark spots.

see the ones here in the top right corner or a bit left of the bird. i fucking hate it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-x
Camera Software	RawTherapee
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	300 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4288
Image Height	2848
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:12:17 17:22:25
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2730332
Easy to fix in post, also get that lens cleaned, shouldn't be too much compared to those shitty lens.
Also those spots can be dust on the sensor. I have a very very dusty Sigma and it doesn't show up as spots on the image. It's another question it has so much dust it does noticeable diffraction on wide aperture.

>>2730344

it's not sensor dust, i used the cleaning tool and checked it visually, there's nothing on it. also, it doesn't show up on other lenses.

how expensive can a lens cleaning be on average? i don't dare to do it myself.

>>2729862
I've seen them go for $ 450-500 on occasion, which isn't so bad. Used from a reputable place, they're not cheap haha. But I'm talking about eBay.

>>2729717
Bump

My mother always uses the popup flash on her eos 60D and does no post processing of any kind (she only shoots auto, JPEG only, no manual camera control of any kind), so her photos always end up with reflections all over and generally look really washed out.

Obviously the best thing to do would be to convice her how to control her camera, but I've tried that in the past with little success. You all know how moms are.

Is there a shoe mounted flash that I could buy her that would be incredibly easy to use for someone who has very limited camera expertise? I am thinking that giving her a flash with a diffuser would help her photos without her needing to take any additional steps when she shoots.

I own no flashes of my own, so I don't know if it's even possible to use a flash in auto mode that would still only trigger whenever the camera senses low light conditions like how the popup flash works.

My budget is $50-100.

>>2729717
>I'm also open to Canon if there's any cheap FF near the price range of the other two models.

There sure is a cheap Canon FF - 5D and may be some 1Ds.

Interesting thing is that ANY Canon camera will give you less base dynamic range than Nikon D3200.

A7 is a compromise - small grip, small battery and maybe some other problems too (dig it yourself). Many of D600 have oil problems but otherwise D600 is a very good camera.

>>2730402
This is the nearest thing to what you are asking for.

http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-YN-565EX-E-TTL-flash-Canon/dp/B00D8635BY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451244091&sr=8-1&keywords=Yongnuo+ettl

just copped this for 40 bucks. looks decent enough for a walking around lens. anyone know how the IQ is? anyone have/used one?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/231366482900?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

>>2730417

>copped
>supertelephoto

Supertelephotos are trash lenses that are blurry as fuck at all apertures, zooms, and positions within the photo.

>>2730163
Is the EX still a good option if you can't afford the Art lens?

Anyone know of some interesting cheap and quirky radioactive russian lenses I can adapt into my A7?

I heard some good things about the Helios 44-2 58mm f/2, are there other old lenses like that around maybe the 35mm focal length?

>>2730417
you'll have fun with it, but don't expect amazing results. anything that zoomes that far doesn't do it without drawbacks.

>>2730471
For the 50mm, sort of. The AF on it is really bad. Usually has front focus and back focus, depending on your distance to the subject. Image quality is better than anything Canon offers though.

>>2730493
thats what i figured, i just want something with more flexibility
i have a 50mm 1.8 thats really sharp and a 35-105mm 3.5 this will kind of be replacing

>>2730471
Yes and no.
The lens itself is amazing. Great IQ, great build quality.
The AF is a russian roulette experience.

I had one for years, it has quite a long story actually as it was lost by gypsies in Rome a long time ago, but I found it again, and I currently use it on a 5d2. But its been on many cameras:

On a 450d, where it misfocused heavily and could be used at 1.4 only in live view - it was accurate from 2.8-4 onwards.
On a 7d, same thing, a little worse maybe.
On different 5d2's where it never was really spot on accurate

And finally on my current 5d2 where by some fucking miracle it's my most reliably focusing lens after my Canon 100 2.8 macro. And it really is a joy to use since it now works.

>>2730472
get normal lenses, and in stead, look for interesting, cheap, quirky photos to take with them. Shitting up your image quality isn't going to do anything to make your boring snapshots any better. The best thing you can do is accept that fact, and try to avoid gear-centric behavior.

>>2730500
But what about all those crazy old lenses with radioactive bokeh? ;_;

>>2730501
>Shitting up your image quality isn't going to do anything to make your boring snapshots any better.

>>2730502
>you can never experience deadly doses radioactivity from secret weapon KGB camera lenses of Soviet era
Depressing ;_;

Whats the best website to buy cheap lenses? Used or otherwise.

>>2730524
keh.com

>>2730524
>>2730525
What's the best site in Canada for cheap used lenses?

[spoiler]Cause KEH's shipping is a fucking bitch[/spoiler]

>>2730449
Superzooms, not supertelephotos.

>>2730532
[spoiler]Living next to the border[/spoiler]
Kerrisdale Camera in Vancouver is the only store that I know of that even keeps a used inventory. I don't think anybody else bothers.

File: image.jpg (98KB, 640x754px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 640x754px

What the catch?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	754

>>2730551

Superzooms and supertelephotos are effectively the same given how shit their image quality is.

Thinking about selling my Linhof 617 and buying one of the newer models. I'd get the lenses and the tilt shift stuff, but I don't know if it's smart to invest in film. I own my own scanner but probably need to upgrade. Spent the last three hours cleaning dust off of scans.

>>2730556
>>2730551
I live on Vancouver island, one of the other offerings is Victoria Camera Traders, there's sometimes some good deals on Craigslist as well

>>2730564

Literally just buy on ebay or on amazon.

>>2730578
>not knowing that ebay and Amazon are more expensive due to exchange rates

I got my Canon 55mm f/1.2 SSC for $290 plus taxes up hyere (about 320 altogether) on ebay that lens sells for at at least $350, and can sometimes go for as much as $600

>>2730554
when you go to pick it up they're going to hit you over the head with a baseball bat and sodomize your asshole

>>2730589

Better pay more than get some piece of shit lens just because that's your only choice.

>>2730626
It's actually not bad, even wide open the shots are nice and sharp, I don't care much about contrast as I usually shoot with a flat color profile and correct it in post anyway

sup /p/hags.

i'm going to be getting a canon 7 pretty soon and i was wondering if you guys could share your thoughts on the lenses available for that mount type.

>>2730668
M39 lenses. Pretty easy to find out on your own.

>>2730556
>Super telephotos
>shit quality
>the $10000 lenses professional wildlife and sports photographers own or are issued to capture some of the best pictures in their respective fields when long focal lengths are required
>the lenses that all companies put their latest and greatest technologies into first and come in great big hard cases
>shit quality

>>2730747

>look at an MTF chart
>it's shit
>look at sample images
>they're shit
>both the center and edges of an image are soft as fuck at all focal lengths and apertures
>vignetting out the ass
>bokeh is shit
>CA out the ass
>max aperture is shit

Boy, I'm sure glad I spent >$1000 on an 18-300 nikkor/canon/sigma that performs worse than a kit 18-55 and a $200 55-200 both designed 10 years ago.

Top of the line lenses indeed.

They're shit.

>>2730754
i dont even think you understand what you're arguing about
did you come from /pol/ or something you dumb fuck

>>2730755

>hurrrrrrrrrrr ur retarded

And yet you provide no refutation of anything that I said.

I'll be waiting.

>>2730754
Superzooms and super telephotos are not the same thing, dumbass!

>>2730756
see:
>>2730757

dumb fucking idiot

>>2730757
>>2730758

The terms are used interchangeably.

>>2730757
>>2730758

the guy who started this whole convo was talking about a superzoom

>>2730760
no, they are literally completely different

>>2730762

Not saying they are the same, saying people use the terms interchangeably.

I made a thread about this, but this might get more replies.

Monitor suggestions for photo editing? I'm not going to be dropping $1k on one, but I need something better than this like 2007 acer I'm using.

>>2730763

No they don't.

>>2730764

Buy an IPS.

I would specifically recommend a dell IPS since I own a 1440p one that I quite enjoy.

The monitor offers a lot of control over color / brightness / tilt / height etc.

You can have it 'professionally' calibrated for color if you want to go that far.

>>2730765

Yes they do :^)

#rekd

>>2730768

One fucking idiot does. I've never seen anyone else in my 20 years of photography and eight years on this board with who knows how many tens of thousands of posters passing through fuck it up.

>>2730769

You must not have very much social contact then, I see it all the time on ken rockwell fan forums :^0

>>2730766

Honestly I would prefer to not have to do much calibrating. is 1440p enough resolution you think, or should I try for 4k?

>>2730771

It depends on how rich you are. I dont know if 4k IPS monitors exist yet but personally I wouldn't buy a new monitor in 2016 at 27" or above without it being 4k.

If you're working on 1080p right now either resolution will be a big improvement, but you might as well get a 4k monitor since they can be had at large sizes for relatively cheaply right now.

With a 4k monitor you could just about fit a 23 MP photo across the entire screen without any scaling which would be really nice, especially if you love pixel peeping.

I got a canon t5 and its my first step into the world of photography, Im looking for a good lens for night photography/dark indoor use.

So far Ive noticed that fast shutter speeds and poor lighting do not mix, but it makes it hard to take pictures of people at parties and such (unless I use the flash, which Ive found really destroys colour and depth).

what would be a good lens for this? Ive been looking at the ef 50mm f/1.4 usm but not sure if it will suit my needs and Im having a hard time finding night samples online. Or perhaps my kit 18-55mm will do the trick if I learn to use it better. It also came in a bundle with a 75-300mm lens, but it is only f/4.0-5.6 making it pretty bad for indoor/low light use from what Ive found.

Thoughts?

>>2730787
Night photography you'll definitely want a fast prime

that 50mm 1.4 might be good but for indoor stuff you'll probably want a fast 28-35mm prime

>>2730791

any reccomendations? I would think the 50 would be better for outdoor and the smaller one for indoor no? since you often get closer to subjects than you do landscapes

>>2730803
Yep

You can get away with using a 50 indoors but you'll have to move back

Honestly I'd probably recommend just getting a 28-35mm and going with that since the t5 is crop sensor

>>2730806

Im not going to lie, I have no idea what a crop sensor is, Im going to google that.

canon makes a 35mm f2, but its $650 cdn. yikes.

>>2730807
The size of the sensor depends on what field of view you're going to get

If you use a 35mm on a full frame you get a wider field of view than if you used that same lens on a crop sensor

>>2730806

so I just found out what a crop sensor is. Knowing that, wouldnt canon take that into account when numbering their lenses? so that a 300mm is actually a 300mm on a crop frame camera? or is it still multiplied?

>>2730812
You really cant go wrong though. The t5 is a decent camera and with a nice 35mm prime on it you'll do fine. Try setting the kit lens to 35mm to get an idea of what your field of view would be

It is still multiplied. That being said you really wouldn't run into that many problems but it's definitely something to consider if you're shooting indoors a lot as getting a wider field of view for indoors

You should definitely thing about planning lenses for the future though. If you get a decent lens that you really like further down the line it could be worth it to upgrade to a full frame body and you can still use the lenses you own

>>2730816

So canon makes decent enough cameras that I could buy a "better" one when I get there and get a really good camera?

I am looking at the sigma 30mm f/1.4 right now, its cheaper than the canon offerings and its got a better aperature than the canon prime lenses.

Im a slow learner, so Im going to ask if this is a good lense for indoor as well as outdoor landscape shots/night

>>2730818

Don't buy full frame lenses for use on crop bodies.

You'll actually get worse image quality than equivalent lenses designed for crop sensors.

Also full frame lenses are expensive as fuck, heavy, and large.

Just buy lenses designed for APS-C and if at some point you REALLY want a full frame, you can just sell your lenses for some depreciation if you really want to since good lenses will keep a lot of their value.

>>2730819
>You'll actually get worse image quality than equivalent lenses designed for crop sensors.

wew lad

>>2730819

wow, so I guess that really limits my options to basically only canon lenses?

>>2730818
Yeah sigma is decent and 1.4 is pretty fast. I'm not 100% familiar with canon lenses but it probably won't have as good image quality as the native lenses so read some reviews and look at some example images first. You'd be able to do night stuff well with it. Honestly though your best friend for night landscapes is a good tripod. At least try using the standard kit lens with a tripod to at least before you get a new lens so you can give it a shot

>>2730822
Not entirely. Sigma is alright but make sure to read up on reviews specifically for your manufacturer but yeah if you have canon you're limited to canon lenses

>>2730821

I'll look up that video from that DxO mark guy in a second, you're misinformed though.

>>2730822

No, many companies make lenses for APS-C sensors. Most camera companies make both FF and APS-C camera bodies as well as lenses for both classes.

>>2730821

well fuck. now Im confused.

not to mention the sigma lens is cheaper than the canon, so thats also confusing, if ff lenses cost that much more than cropped.

>>2730828
sigma is always going to be cheaper

apparently the sigma Im looking at is designed for aps-c bodies

http://www.amazon.ca/Sigma-Canon-Digital-Cameras-Black/dp/B00BQXL8BU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451278352&sr=8-1&keywords=sigma+30mm+1.4

>>2730824

Why are you outright lying to a guy who's new to photography? You can use many manufacturers lenses on APS-C bodies.

Hell, I think you can even mount nikon lenses on canon bodies with a converter.

>>2730834
>nikon lenses on canon bodies with a converter

are you serious

>>2730602
He's probably not even interested in the lens

>>2730832
>>2730828
>>2730826
>>2730822

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc

The video in question.

>>2730836

As far as I remember I read a long time ago you can do this due to flange distances working out the right way.

Could be wrong though.

>>2730836
Well it's a bit ridiculous, but it's entirely true...

>>2730836
the 14-24mm 2.8 is useful with no AF

>>2730838

>Tony Northrup

wew lad.

>>2730848

The guy who asked for advice here. Cant tell if youre trolling, if hes trolling. fuck.

>>2730848

>get blown the fuck out
>cannot refute what I or he said
>shitpost instead

What's the pleb life like?

#rekd

>>2730850

Watch the video I linked.

That guy is a real photographer, the guy who's shitposting could just be some chucklefuck from take snapshits with his iphone for instagram.

Also he can't refute what that guy said, so until he can you should believe me / youtube guy.

>>2730851

I knowyou're new at this whole photography thing, but Tony Northrup is a disreputable source that no one takes seriously.

>>2730855

Still waiting for you to prove it.

>>2730853

That seems like a solid enough argument to me. alot of the stuff he said in the video makes sense to me too.

It looks like that sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens will be my best bet, as it is designed for aps-c cameras.

Thank you very much for pointing that out to me, or I probably wouldve been ignorant to the cropped/full lens issue for quite sometime

>>2730838
>this fucking shilling faggot
stop pushing your shit book in every fucking video you cunt

>>2730857

I'm still waiting on Tony Northrup to prove it.

>>2730773
4k is around 8 pickles. Your math sucks.

>>2730865

Yes apparently it does.

It's been a long day. Why the fuck did I think that?

>>2730862
This guy is an idiot, he thinks that sensor size affects light transmission, because light meters are the devil and even dedicated ones are never accurate

File: image.jpg (23KB, 400x266px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x266px

44-2 8blades, 30USD, how did I do?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	400
Image Height	266

>>2730891
You bought a vintage lens and posted a photo OF it. How about posting a photo WITH it and tell us how it performs?

>>2729142
Bae looks so good all wet

>>2730902
Please be a nigger somewhere else >>>/b/

>>2730819
>You'll actually get worse image quality than equivalent lenses designed for crop sensors.
Not sure where you "learned" this, but it's flat out wrong for most lenses.

In reality, FF lenses often perform better on crop sensors than crop lenses of the same focal lenght. Like so often, the center of a lens is sharper than the edges (even for overall very good lenses), and the center of the lens is exactly what is used when you put a FF lens on a crop sensor.

> Also full frame lenses are expensive as fuck
That is very relative. These days, very high end lenses can be had for $800-1500 (especially primes in the most used focal lengths), which is really rather easy to afford more than an once a year for some westerner with a salary. Sorry if you happen to be unable to afford it, but it's not really a huge expense or for the rich only.

>>2730910

Follow the comments. He got it from a tony northrup video lmao.

>>2729286
What benefits are there to having the 24mm pancake vs the kit lens other than the change in maximum aperture value?

>>2730922
More light, small size, compact, has better IQ than the kit zoom, relieves you of thinking of the zooming so you can just frame and shoot. Also piss easy to keep most things on the photo in focus.
The camera also looks nice with that lens so you get more pussy factor.

>>2730928
Would the 24mm or 50mm lens be a better first prime lens?

>>2730931
The 50mm translates to 75mm on APS-C, more of a portrait focal length.
I'd go with the 24 for a first prime. My system doesn't have budget friendly wide so I went with a 35mm and it is so good. So much different shooting with it than the kit zoom. You'll see.

>>2730933
Thanks for the advice anon.

File: 1325958963205.jpg (28KB, 467x528px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 467x528px

>>2730933
>mfw no cheap 18mm for pentax k

>>2730940
>doesn't know about the 18-55mm

>>2730943
Is it that much better than the 18-55 kit lens?

>>2730945
He's talking about the 18-55mm kit lens

>>2730951
theres a different 18-55
the DA is better than the DAL kit lens

>>2730953
Is it actually good because the kit lens is alright but it isn't particularly sharp and doesn't really have that great of image quality

>>2730940
There is the HD DA 16-85 which is kind of decent throughout the range, much better than the kit lens and that funky reverse barrel DA 16-45. Not as good as a dedicated wide angle prime like the 21mm Limited.

File: 1445359288234.jpg (11KB, 201x199px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 201x199px

>>2730957
>260 dollars for 21mm limited

>>2730960
>260 dollars
Wat. The cheapest I've seen is $630 on ebay. Or are you talking about a used one?

>>2730962
whoops it was used

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/441869/?gclid=CKGNkvOJ_skCFZY0aQodKZwAhA

sorry im a faggot

>>2730963
Still, that's cheap as chips mate

>>2730963
Too bad it would be around $600 when it gets here. I don't want to live on this continent anymore!

>>2730966
It's like just outside of what I can afford to spend right now

>>2730968
what continent?

>>2730970
Europe

>>2730971
Wat? Shipping will be $40 or so, then like ~20% taxes.

>>2730992
25% import tax, 27% tax plus shipping which will be twice for... Hungary. Because retarded politics.
Oh, those taxes are calculated from the new full product price (!!!) including shipping costs.
As I said, I don't want to live on this continent anymore.

>>2730186
What was it?

>>2730634
Are you shooting raw or jpeg? Because color profiles do nothing for a raw image.

>>2730996
Some faggot complaining his Leica got dusty on the shelf and some dust getting on the shutter.
Also being too scared to clean his unused shit.

File: 61VfZLM5n9L._SL1120_.jpg (93KB, 881x1120px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 881x1120px

Should I sell my DA ltd 35mm f/2.8 macro and buy an FA 31mm f/1.8? I recently picked up a D FA 100mm f/2.8 macro, and mainly just want a faster normal prime for low light. Is there anything wrong with the 31/1.8? I really want a weather-sealed lens, but I don't think there's anything equivalent that fits the bill.

>>2730994
> As I said, I don't want to live on this continent anymore.
I'm on the same continent, and but you seem to pay definitely a lot more.

We'd pay regular VAT on the actual purchase price including shipping. Plus then the postal services provider usually charges another 3% + a fixed processing fee (on most shipments) of something around 10 Euro. The postal services clearly charge too much for their import services, but it's not like it'll spoil any deal...

>>2731004
The national tax agency doesn't take the invoice included with the product, no matter how respectable the seller is. They look for a price online, usually ebay and if they find a higher price, no matter if it's for a new product, they calculate the taxes on that price.
Fucking scumbags.

>>2731002
The FA 31mm is also a limited lens. If the difference in aperture is worth it for you then buy it. The focal length doesn't give a vastly noticeable difference.

>>2731002
I mean, there's the new Sigma ART lenses which are 30/35mm and f/1.4, but if you have to have Pentax brand stuff, then go for it.

>>2731009
I'm not crazy about Sigma. The focusing is always weird. Either the auto-focus is over-traveling, or the manual focus operation is non-functional while the lens is in auto-focus mode, or the front lens element is rotating during focusing... I understand that the new Sigma lenses are better than Sigma of the past, but I'll never trust the company to make a solid product.

Whats a good place to look for a large variety of camera bags? Most places I see are designer websites with a specific style.

>>2729952
Why is that that no one in US uses fanny packs. My grandfather had one, those things are fucking amazing. I wish I could wear one without looking like I own a fedora.

if i put blu tack over the lens mount, will it make it weather sealed?

>>2731116
Yes. Absolutely. You can test it by putting it under the tap.

>>2731116
Yeah I've done this before and it seemed to work fine

I just got myself a nikon F-mount to E-mount Adaptor from Metabones.

any suggestions for a good and affordable manual f-mount lenses? Im looking for zoom lens well somewhere below F4 would be great.

Thoughts on Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM? (Not the pancake 24mm).
I shoot mainly architecture and such, and (currently) on an APS-C body so it'll only really be 38mm~.

>>2730900
Mfw hasn't even shipped yet. Relax

>>2731155
Then why do you ask? Wait for it to be delivered and try it out.

>>2731125
Uh oh. I hope that thing didn't cost you 400 dollars.

There are currently 2 electrical adapters that supports Autofocus that are in development.

>>2731162

nah i bought the manual ones.. the F-mount autofocus looks pretty shit on low light so nah.

Im looking for those old vintage Ai or Ai-s zoom lenses..

any lens filter recommendations? never was interested until now

>>2731166
>buying manual focus film era zooms
I shiggy diggy
only the 70/80-200 designs are good. and they still have CA out the ass. the rest are shit. this applies to all zooms of the era until the 35-70/2.8 came out.

I've around £200, looking for a lens that will do good for landscape and wildlife, the former more so. Currently using kit lens and entry level 200mm for a eos 70d. Any susgestions on a lens?

File: inkdfs.jpg (30KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x450px

Alright people. 2.5k USD budget. WHAT DO I DO.


Looking for a FF camera, Preferably Nikon. Will consider other brands of course.
Looking at the Nikon DF just due to its aesthetics, as well as not needing video. It's useless to me.


This is only 1850 on Adorama. No lens included. If I pick this up, what lens should I be getting to fit the FX body?


TLDR ; What FF and Lens to get for 2-2.5k USD?

>>2731343
If you don't want video you could always try getting a Sony a850 or 1900, it's got better ergonomics and the same sort of retro VF hump

>>2731343
I'd get an A7 II, with probably the Zeiss 55mm.

Or a D750 if I went with Nikon, with a Sigma Art.

Looking for a 4K video camera under 300 dollars

>>2731353
You're missing a zero.

Settle for what might count as semi-adequate Full HD, that's what you get in that price range.

>>2731343
D750 or used D800(E).
The Df has a nice sensor as well (from the D4) but 'only' 16 megapickles. On the other side, that 16mp sensor tends to be an ultra low noise beast.

>>2731368
Wouldn't you think that 16 megapickles would be perfectly fine for 300Dpi prints at 13x19? I feel like it would be.

Honeslty I'm not interested in Resolution, rather than sharpness, and like you said, Low noise.

I think I'll get the DF. What's my best bet for a lens? Would the older nikon lenses work? Say 50mm Series E 1.8?
Oogle is being no help with that one.

>>2731352
I'd do sony, but I have a ton of F mount lenses at the moment. It's always an option though.

>>2731373
>50mm Series E 1.8?

shit tier lens. don't drop 2 grand on a body if you're going to mount that garbage.

>>2731373
>fine for 300Dpi prints at 13x19?
Oh, absolutely. I am not a pixel peeper myself (rocking a 16mp Ricoh GR for example) but the amount of mp should be more than enough for prints at a scale like mentioned above.

And yes, you can use older lenses on it. Any Nikon starting from the D7xxx series and up (Df, D610, D750, D810 and D4s) allows you to use old lenses with a Nikon mount.

>>2731381
Alright, here's the glass I've got. I'm just looking to upgrade from my crop sensor.

16mm 2.8
50mm 1.8 E
105mm 2.5
43-86 3.5
18-55 Shit lens
70-200 Tamron

That's what I'm working with currently.


>>2731384
Thanks mate.

>>2731385
Found this aswell.

DR has a DF with the newer prime for 2K.
That'd leave me 500 to another lens.

>>2731377
I'd do Sony myself with the adapters that exist and are upcoming... but eh, a D750 or something will also be quite fine.

>>2731389
I seriously blow that this thing

http://www.digitalrev.com/product/nikon-df-with-special-edition/MTEwMjkzNg_A_A

>>2731389
Sounds like a good choice to me.
Don't be afraid of getting the Df. /p/ will always hate on it just as they (we) did back when the Pentax K-01 emerged. Both are great cameras with very nice specs.

>>2730193

I love this lens. It was the first thing I purchased (before I even purchased my a7) when I was getting a camera system.

The sharpness is excellent and its portability is second to none.

I'm considering purchasing a new lens and am conflicted between a wider lens or a short tele.

>>2731396
The Df has no niche that justifies its cost.

If you need a low light shooter, get the better A7S.

For everything else, a D750 is better. Hell, an A6000 is usually better.

File: Canon_EOS_5D.jpg (746KB, 2000x1667px) Image search: [Google]

746KB, 2000x1667px

is pic related a good camera to pair with a 60d? Been looking to go full frame and these are getting cheap.

I mean they can't of aged that poorly no?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2731422
>I mean they can't of aged that poorly no?
Yes, they can have aged very poorly. Let's just take Nikon / Sony / Pentax entry level camera's basic spec sheet to show this:

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D-vs-Nikon-D3300/detailed

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D-vs-Sony-Alpha-A6000/detailed

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D-vs-Pentax-K-50/detailed

Looking to buy my first camera (been using my iPhone 5) I will mainly be shooting landscapes to begin with and will try to do some videography of landscapes too. What camera would be better a6000 or 700d w/ magic lantern and what lenses?

>>2731430
None of these are full frame doe.

Which is the entire reason to buy one. It is even in similar price range.

Cheapest full frame you can get. which is what draws me.

>>2731435
id go 700d, more lens choices. Typically a common kit lens you'd get with it I.E. 18-135 or so. is great to start out, most other wide angle zooms will be far out of your price range

I know nothing about photography but I'm a pilot so I get these amazing views and get to travel often. I'm looking to spend around 220 give or take

>>2731492
Plz help

>>2731492
220 pounds or us dollars?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-Digital-Rebel-T3-1100D-12-2-MP-DSLR-Camera-Kit-EF-S-18-55mm-IS-II-Lens-/371519684354?hash=item56804c7f02:g:DnwAAOSwSHZWcqJp

Barebones camera all you need. If you are just doing it for fun. 12mp is more than enough

>>2731040
Bump niggas

>>2731554
bags for camera+lenses accesories or just pouches for the camera?

>>2731556
bags for camera and lenses. like something I could walk around in public with

>>2731558
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Camera-Bags/ci/168/N/4075788797


B&H has quite a selection

>>2731440
> Which is the entire reason to buy one
Everything including low light performance on the sensor itself is worse, so actually there is just no reason to buy one.

Has anyone tried to make a focal reducer from a teleconverter? I don't care about how IQ is affected, I just want to know if such a thing has been done or is even possible

>>2731637
Well it has better Color depth than my 60d, better low iso noise performance and slightly better image quality+ full frame. And the one im looking at comes with a 1.4 50mm for under 300 quid, so double whammy will be nice to have a 50 be 50, and not a 75m

>>2731649
You mean like extension tube focal length reducer? for macros?

Help me pick a DSLR. I've used Nikon D3300s in school but everyone in my photo club recommends Canon so I dunno what to do.

>>2731660
Should mention, I have a $620 budget but I can get more if I have to.

>>2731659
No, I mean like the opposite of a teleconverter, a telecompressor, apparently you can do this by reversing the elements in the converter but I'm not sure whether it's that easy

>>2731660
fuck canon. clunky fat pieces of shit

http://www.adorama.com/IPXK3.html

better than any apsc sensor canon and a sweet 50mm prime. or if u can swing the k3 ii it has internal gps for astrophotography

>>2731661
Sony A6000. Pentax K-50. Nikon D3x00 - D7x00, ... something like that is what I'd get.

Canon's APS-C lineup isn't really hot right now, and even the high-end FF lineup (while still pretty good) is rather pricey for how it performs, so I personally wouldn't get a Canon.

>>2731660
iunno i'm more pro canon, and just find the common body/button layout on canons Easier to use.

d3300 does have a meme megapixel count. But canon has it's own benefits Typically better lenses and Aftermarket UI's like Magic Lantern are great things to play with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5PqLl30o18

Keep in mind this is 3 years ago. For higher end large buffer In the Canon line they have unlocked things like RAW video recording. If given the similar price range something like that you would use would be good reason to move over imo

>>2731662
impossible, lenses are machined to focus on their set distances with light coming front to back, you'd have to reverse each element. Just turning it backwards fucks with the focusing distances, but it can be a cheap way to do macro photography, especially on crop sensors with crop zoom lenses

>>2731656
Well, if you like the deal 'cause of the lens, feel free to do it.

Personally, I can't see the point in getting a FF that is really just worse than an entry-level APS-C.

Even if you had a collection of FF lenses, it'd be far more interesting to just stick a focal reducer if necessary on one of the better APS-C, as far as I'm concerned. But it didn't sound like you have too much in the way of such gear yet.