/p/ - Photography » Thread #295573

[81 / 0 / ?]

Gear thread

Anonymous Mon 17 Nov 2008 18:47:00 No.295573 View View Reply Original Report

Am going to buy myself a lens this Christmas. Choosing between the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the EF-S 17-85 IS. Going to be using it on a 40D. Only other lens I have is the EF 50mm 1.8. Getting tired of the narrow FOV which makes great photos but I'm seriously feeling limited by the lack of a wide option. Primes rock, but sometimes you just need the versatility of a zoom.

What does /p/ think I should spend my money on? Other options is the Sigma 18-125 OS and the Sigma 30mm 1.4.

11Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 Windows111Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:17 21:31:39Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width532Image Height2011

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Nov 2008 18:50:00 No.295574 Report

Quoted By:

It's your money. Buy whatever you want.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Nov 2008 19:13:00 No.295576 Report

Quoted By:

from those options.. the tamron 17-50

superior however, grow some balls, make some money, and buy a ef-s 17-55

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Nov 2008 20:21:00 No.295602 Report

Quoted By: >>295603

The only good option is the 24/1.4

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Nov 2008 20:26:00 No.295603 Report

Quoted By:

>>295573
Noted. However, I'd rather spend the money on an 85mm 1.8 or 100mm macro.

>>295602
Hard to run across this in the used market where I live.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Nov 2008 21:18:00 No.295628 Report

Quoted By: >>295647

i own the 17-85... it sucks and is soft on the 17 end

get the 28-105 for a hundred bucks on ebay

unless you need the 17

in which case you should get either the tamron 17-50 or the canon 17-40

tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs

tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs Mon 17 Nov 2008 22:10:00 No.295647 Report

Quoted By:

>>295628

This.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 00:09:00 No.295685 Report

Quoted By: >>295752

17-55 2.8 is @ $960

minus 25% cash back = $720, kapow

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 01:10:00 No.295720 Report

Quoted By:

17-50 2.8 IS

do it, best canon crop lens bar none.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 01:52:00 No.295752 Report

Quoted By: >>295755

>>295685
You can only get back $200 max.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 01:55:00 No.295754 Report

Quoted By:

I also have the EF-S 17-85. It was the first lens I bought. It's a slight step up from the Rebel kit lens but is still pretty soft. Also it is a variable aperture; when set to wide-open it will automatically adjust from 4.0-5.6 depending on the focal length, which is annoying.

Save up a little longer and get the 24-70 2.8L instead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 01:56:00 No.295755 Report

Quoted By:

>>295752

fine $760, kapow

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 02:10:00 No.295767 Report

Quoted By:

17-55 IS is superior - but if you must choose OP, the 17-50 is a fine piece of glass too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 03:05:00 No.295785 Report

Quoted By: >>295801 >>295814

i don't know why anyone would spend $1000 for a crop only lens..

seems kind of a bad investment

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 04:16:00 No.295801 Report

Quoted By:

>>295785
the 17-55 is worth it..

ps. I dont know why anyone would by digital cameras, them film cameras have a much better pixel count

ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA

ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA Tue 18 Nov 2008 04:30:00 No.295814 Report

Quoted By: >>295835 >>295907 >>296082

>>295785
>seems kind of a bad investment
Some people actually use their lenses to make pictures rather than just keeping it pristine in the box while fapping to its MTF charts online.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 05:07:00 No.295835 Report

Quoted By:

>>295814
i thought that /p/ only walked around with their lenses without taking pictars

kinda like when you jog with ankle weights

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 08:06:00 No.295907 Report

Quoted By: >>296033

>>295814

because prices are coming down for full frame?

how long does apsc still have? 3 years? then what the hell are you going to do after your crop camera dies? buy another used one just so you can use your crop only lens?

this is like buying the best amd processor available knowing intel will release something better for the same price, yeah you'll enjoy it you first year then you're pretty much fucked because they're not making processors for your socket anymore

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 08:20:00 No.295911 Report

Quoted By: >>296038

constant aperture standard zooms for crop

canon 17-55 > nikon 17-55 > zuiko 14-35 > pentax 16-50

ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA

ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA Tue 18 Nov 2008 16:19:00 No.296033 Report

Quoted By: >>296381

>>295907
>how long does apsc still have? 3 years?
Based on current evidence, it's unlikely that APS-C will ever totally go away. I'm certainly eager to be proved wrong, but getting full frame across the board will require a fairly significant paradigm shift in terms of sensor manufacturing (and chip manufacturing in general, really). And even if that shift happens and it suddenly becomes reasonably cheap to make FF sensors, it'll likely still be cheaper to make APS-C because the same shifted-paradigm technique can be used.

So even if we get to the point where the $900 price-point Rebel has a full-frame sensor, they could still stick APS-C in the $500 price-point Rebel. Similarly, maybe they'll have a 70D and 70Ds at slightly different price points.

Feel free to screencap this and show it to me again in 2011 if the low-end Rebel of the day has a full-frame sensor.

>this is like buying the best amd processor available knowing intel will release something better for the same price
This is actually a fantastic illustration of my point. Intel will ALWAYS be releasing something better for the same price. Moore's law. Computing power for a given amount of money doubles every ~18 months, and that timespan has been slowly shrinking. So do you never buy a computer because you know there's going to be something better in 18 months? No, you buy what you need now and actually use it. Doesn't matter if it'll be obsolete in a few weeks--and in fact it definitely will--because it's a tool and the value of a tool is in the use you get out of it, not in the potential future resale price.

Same with lenses. Even if tomorrow Canon announces free full-frame sensor upgrades to all past xxD-series and Rebel owners, I won't regret the $200 I spent on crop 18-55 IS because to my eyes, I've gotten over $200 worth of good shots from it over the past year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 16:41:00 No.296036 Report

Quoted By:

get a proper wide angle. like the 12-24 sigma, or the 10-20 canon. if you buy the 17 to whatever, you'll be pissed off for when you need true wide angle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 16:50:00 No.296038 Report

Quoted By:

>>295911
canon 17-55 > nikon 17-55 > zuiko 14-35 > pentax 16-50

Lol wut? Zuiko 14-35 is about as sharp as it gets even wide open at f/2. It also costs OVER NINE THOUSANDDD

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 19:11:00 No.296082 Report

Quoted By: >>296087

>>295814Some people actually use their lenses to make pictures rather than just keeping it pristine in the box while fapping to its MTF charts online.

Thank you. So many people online and at places like dpreview need to be reminded of this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 19:35:00 No.296087 Report

Quoted By: >>296089

>>296082
So very, very true. Conversely, a truly horrible performance in a chart can (and sometimes should) push you away from a lens. If you compose significantly off-center, you may want to avoid the Sigma 30 1.4 due to edge softness.

I'm probably buying a 70-200 F4L IS over a 70-200 F2.8L IS at least in part due to MTF charts. The thing is quite simply godly sharp. I want the sharpness about as much as I want the extra stop, so having it save me money/size/weight as well pretty much clinches it.

Actually, I just want the 70-200 F2.8L IS updated to be as sharp as the F4 versions...like that's going to happen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 19:43:00 No.296089 Report

Quoted By:

>>296087

There are reasons that this is not possible with current tech, available designs and pricing. Not that there is anything wrong with the 2.8 to almost anyone but those who masturbate to charts and pixel peep at 100%+ on their screen all day as the 2.8 has been and still is used professionally. I'm sure Joe Average's shots of a cat, his kids or the local newspaper doesn't even need what it already provides, and most of the whining online seems to come from such sources.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 19:46:00 No.296090 Report

Quoted By: >>296096 >>296101

There is an unhealthy obsession with "OMG TACK SHARP" to the point of madness. The idea that "sharpness is all that matters" in making a good photo. Urgh.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 19:47:00 No.296091 Report

Quoted By:

Sharpness is all that matters in photography. If your photo is not sharp then no one will like it or remember it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 19:49:00 No.296092 Report

Quoted By:

It doesn't matter what the subject is, sharpness is what makes a photo memorable and art.

(this reminds me of that great thread we had a while ago with people commenting like this on classic shots)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 19:58:00 No.296093 Report

Quoted By:

the moment technology changes all photography equipment made before that technology ceases to function and can no longer take the pictures it did before. also, all the images that were taken with it suddenly become bad and people simply clear out and burn those archives of classic images.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 20:03:00 No.296096 Report

Quoted By:

>>296090
This is true. However, all other things being equal, I'll still take the sharper lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 20:13:00 No.296101 Report

Quoted By: >>296107 >>296109

>>296090
You can always make a sharp lens soft, if that is what you choose to do, but you can't make a soft lens sharp.

When considering which lens to buy, it is a valid to use sharpness as one of the deciding factors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 20:20:00 No.296107 Report

Quoted By: >>296110 >>296112

>>296101

It gets to a silly point though where the differences no longer matter. We're at that point today for most people. There are people who never print or never about 6x4 worrying about sharpness from their L lens.

These people are idiots, just as most people are who fret about gear online.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 20:22:00 No.296109 Report

Quoted By: >>296113

>>296101

Do you really think all those classic images are garbage then? Would they be better if they were ever so slightly sharper using more modern tech?

The truth is that it doesn't matter. These images are great art. That is what has been lost sight of by people who are more concerned about gear than art or photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 20:23:00 No.296110 Report

Quoted By: >>296114

>>296107
their life is better than mine if they have money and time to waste on such things.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 20:24:00 No.296112 Report

Quoted By:

>>296107
Oh, jeez. Yeah. For 4X6s it's crazy how little you need. Hell, two or three megapixels is enough for 4X6s.

I print at 12X18 minimum as standard (some oddball cutdown sizes as well like 9X15 equiv as well) and 24X36s aren't uncommon.

If you're just printing small or viewing the images on standard monitors, it's not such a big deal. Large prints and high end monitors will show a difference though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 20:27:00 No.296113 Report

Quoted By:

>>296109
you get the same sort of idiots involved in other arts and crafts.

in wood turning i've seen morons buying "special" extremely expensive tools with all manner of promises of special steel or rosewood handles. none of that matters a damn if you can't turn out a decent bowl or something. people have been making them without all that overpriced garbage for centuries, but now i see people debating these gimmicky extras and forgetting it's really about the craft and skill and that money can't buy you that or magically make your pieces any better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 20:28:00 No.296114 Report

Quoted By:

>>296110

LOL! I know what you mean. If that's the biggest worry in your life then you're doing okay, no?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 22:04:00 No.296144 Report

Quoted By: >>296146 >>296152 >>296180

Alright. But let's talk sharpness for a second.

Is there any comparison chart for f vs. length vs. shaprness vs. price?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 22:09:00 No.296146 Report

Quoted By: >>296177 >>296179

>>296144

No. Get to it and create it. It's one more thing neckbeards can use to argue about endlessly on forums instead of using their cameras to take pictures.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 22:19:00 No.296152 Report

Quoted By:

>>296144
you forgot to add barrel distortion and vignetting

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 22:44:00 No.296177 Report

Quoted By:

>>296146
I'm only neckbearding here because I'm in the process of going from a low end consumer camera to a pro rig.

When I'm done learning and window shopping I don't intend to jack off about gear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 22:53:00 No.296179 Report

Quoted By:

>>296146It's one more thing neckbeards can use to argue about endlessly on forums instead of using their cameras to take pictures.

because there's no real right or wrong when talking about art so it's a pointless debate

but when talking about hard numbers like resolution, there can be a clear winner

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 22:54:00 No.296180 Report

Quoted By: >>296183 >>296188

>>296144

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 23:02:00 No.296183 Report

Quoted By: >>296188 >>296191

>>296180
what do those bars mean?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 23:07:00 No.296188 Report

Quoted By:

>>296183
Thank you.

>>296180
Line Widths/Picture Height
http://www.gpsinformation.org/jack/photo-test/pics/lens-tests.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 23:08:00 No.296189 Report

Quoted By:

TAMRON ALWAYS TAMRON
I have a tamron macro lens and it's the best thing i've ever bought in so many ways

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Nov 2008 23:11:00 No.296191 Report

Quoted By:

>>296183

higher is better

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 04:07:00 No.296329 Report

Quoted By: >>296332

if Canon made their full frame cameras take EF-S like every other company does, we wouldn't have this problem of "lol @ paper weights"

i'd be more than happy to use a 5D II at half resolution with the 17-55

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 04:12:00 No.296332 Report

Quoted By: >>296337

>>296329
Do you understand what you're saying?
I don't think there's a company out there that makes 1(one) full frame 17-50. There's a reason for that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 04:17:00 No.296334 Report

Quoted By: >>296383

i have no idea what you just said.

sony DT works on full frame, nikon DX works on full frame

it's half resolution and crop factor is still applied, but at least you can keep on using your crop lenses

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 04:18:00 No.296337 Report

Quoted By:

>>296332

Have a full frame 17-40

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 05:24:00 No.296381 Report

Quoted By: >>296385 >>296509

>>296033And even if that shift happens and it suddenly becomes reasonably cheap to make FF sensors, it'll likely still be cheaper to make APS-C because the same shifted-paradigm technique can be used.

i don't know, man

maybe the process is different for camera sensors but take computers for example

why would they keep on trying to add more cores and reducing the size of stuff

dual core used to be a luxury out of reach of most people back then, now you can go to walmart and buy an honest to god dual core laptop (not even a celeron, a true core duo) for like $500. and they completely stopped making single core processors, why bother anymore?

it's just advancement, $1000 dslrs, $500 now, full frame at $2700, at some point, one segment is going to eat into the other, i think it's inevitable

not troll by the way

Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s

Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s Wed 19 Nov 2008 05:26:00 No.296383 Report

Quoted By: >>296386

>>296334
You can use DT lenses on film bodys too with no problem. My 11-18 is useable from 13mm and lomoshit at 11.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 05:28:00 No.296385 Report

Quoted By:

>>296381

Moore's law does not apply to the size of a sensor. You'll get more features and the quality of the same size of sensor may get better, but the sensor itself will be the same size as the law and your example does not apply.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 05:29:00 No.296386 Report

Quoted By: >>296390

>>296383

Watch for the the mirror hitting the back of some of these lenses. It can be a risk at times.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 05:32:00 No.296389 Report

Quoted By: >>296393

i don't even know what moore's law is lol

but i mean, at some point, something's gonna give no? we're getting $500 super high resolution point-and-shoots, the first point-and-shoot with a CMOS sensor, entry level dslrs are now under $500 with a kit lens, full frame is now $2700

sooo i mean.. are we just going to keep on seeing entry level dslrs at $500, semi pro at $1000-1500 and then anything higher will be full frame and kept a luxury? something's going to change at some point :/

Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s

Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s Wed 19 Nov 2008 05:33:00 No.296390 Report

Quoted By: >>296396

>>296386
Ive used it at 11mm already without shattering the lens and its the only crop lens i plan on keeping.

Also Sigma 20-40/60/70 for those wanting a walkaround, f2.8 and weighs a tonne.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 05:35:00 No.296393 Report

Quoted By: >>296409 >>296483

>>296389

See the problem for us now is that the prices for the raw materials for the sensor and chip manufacturing has remained steady for years. That is what is holding it all back. We need someone to come up with a new manufacturing method or way of sourcing material. When that happens we'll all be doing barrel rolls and enjoying giant sensors. Unfortunately there isn't a whisper of such a thing yet.

Until then we'll get more features and software and everything else but the sensor change.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 05:38:00 No.296396 Report

Quoted By:

>>296390Also Sigma 20-40, 24-60/70 for those wanting a walkaround at mediocre to horrible quality, f2.8 and weighs not that much.

fixed

if you think any of these sigmas weights a lot, i sure as fuck hope you never use the nikon/canon/zeiss 24-70

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 05:55:00 No.296409 Report

Quoted By:

>>296393

oh, so we'll see (hopefully) better noise control and dynamic range for a while until they can make full size sensors for cheap?

oh well.. so much for rocking full frame next year

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 10:34:00 No.296483 Report

Quoted By: >>296484

>>296393
>enjoying giant sensors. Unfortunately there isn't a whisper of such a thing yet

not exactly...

11Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh111Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:13 11:13:46Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height12141

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 10:36:00 No.296484 Report

Quoted By:

>>296483

that's such a dslr killer

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 10:45:00 No.296493 Report

Quoted By: >>296496 >>296511

WHY does Canon not make EF-S compatible with full frame?

do they just want to protect the higher end products or what? it's not like there's like 10 million EF-S lenses anyway.. they might even sell more of them if people have the peace of mind that they will work on a future upgrade to full frame. why they gotta be so gay about it

Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM

Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM Wed 19 Nov 2008 10:48:00 No.296496 Report

Quoted By: >>296502

>>296493
My understanding is that the mount wasn't designed to be compatible from the beginning...Iono if they can change it now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 10:56:00 No.296502 Report

Quoted By: >>296511

>>296496

yeah, so i guess when Nikon made their crop lenses they designed them with the full frame D3 in mind years before it came out

oh, and Sony did the same thing too with their mount, it just magically works way before they ever planned to have full frame.

and Canon just completely forgot about their full frame cameras which appeared before anyone else. what a fiasco!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 11:04:00 No.296507 Report

Quoted By:

The tamron 17-50 2.8 is your best choice
the 17-85 is slow as balls if it says 2.8 jump on it.
best in low light
best iq

ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA

ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA Wed 19 Nov 2008 11:08:00 No.296509 Report

Quoted By:

>>296381
>why would they keep on trying to add more cores and reducing the size of stuff
>dual core used to be a luxury out of reach of most people back then, now you can go to walmart and buy an honest to god dual core laptop (not even a celeron, a true core duo) for like $500. and they completely stopped making single core processors, why bother anymore?
That's a slightly different situation. With APS-C vs. Full Frame, you're talking about making the chip bigger. With the advancement of processing power in CPUs, you're talking about adding more transistors to the same chunk of silicon.

Adding more transistors to the same size wafer is not the problem. Adding more wafer is the problem. Larger surface area of a chip means fewer chips per wafer of silicon. And not just for the obvious reason--also because it drastically increases the chance that an individual chip is going to have a defect that makes it not work. If you can fit 20 chips in a given space and there's a tiny flaw somewhere in there, it'll take out 1/20th of the chip yield. If you can fit 1 big chip in the same space and there's the same flaw somewhere in there, it'll take out 100% of the chip yield.

So it's one of those weird cases where it's actually a lot more cost effective to cram more components into a smaller amount of space than it is to put the same amount of components on a larger space.

ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA

ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA Wed 19 Nov 2008 11:13:00 No.296511 Report

Quoted By:

>>296493
>WHY does Canon not make EF-S compatible with full frame?
Physical limitations. Unlike ever other manufacturer's designed-for-APS-C lenses, EF-S lenses actually stick further back into the camera than regular EF lenses, which means that a full-frame mirror will smack into the back of the lens if you could mount it.

To make EF-S lenses work on full frame, they'd have to come up with a whole new system for moving the reflex mirror than the tried-and-true "flip it up" method, and that would add a lot of complexity, cost, and possibility of failure.

(One way I could think of is they could slide the mirror sideways out of the way and then close a second shutter over the viewfinder. That would be slower and a lot more complex than just flipping up the mirror, and would add another potential point of failure. Another way would be to do the EOS RT or EOS 1 RS method and have a non-moving mirror, but that costs you a significant amount of light and dims your viewfinder)

And, well, they'd rather people moving up to full frame just bought new lenses. So there's not a lot of incentive for them to go through that hassle.

>>296502
The idea was that Canon could get better image quality for cheaper by pushing the rear element a bit closer to the sensor. But yeah, the other manufacturers (including the third-party lens makers who make 1.6x-crop lenses for EF mount) seem to get along fine with their default focusing distances, so in retrospect it seems like Canon probably would've been fine without making the EF-S standard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 11:16:00 No.296516 Report

Quoted By: >>296530 >>296556

so pretty much, they're being gay about it

ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA

ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA Wed 19 Nov 2008 11:28:00 No.296530 Report

Quoted By:

>>296516
>so pretty much, they're being gay about it
In the same way that Nikon was being gay about it by taking out the focus motors in the latest low-end bodies and aperture rings in the latest lenses, and the same way that the Four Thirds consortium was being gay about it by making the sensor with a 2x crop, and the same way that Sigma's being gay about it by using a Foveon sensor instead of a normal bayer-based sensor, yes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 11:30:00 No.296533 Report

Quoted By:

yes would've sufficed

but cool story bro

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 11:39:00 No.296537 Report

Quoted By: >>296548

lol @ people buying crop lenses

enjoy your $1000 paper weights when everyone will be rocking full frame next year

ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA

ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA Wed 19 Nov 2008 11:55:00 No.296548 Report

Quoted By: >>296554

>>296537
Anyone got a screencap from when this was first posted? I'd be interested to see the datestamp on it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 12:06:00 No.296554 Report

Quoted By: >>296555

>>296548
ten bucks says between 10 and 24 months after the 5D came out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 12:10:00 No.296555 Report

Quoted By:

>>296554

wow, with the ballpark range you give yourself, i don't see why anyone would bet with you

Serenar !m827jEgWi.

Serenar !m827jEgWi. Wed 19 Nov 2008 12:13:00 No.296556 Report

Quoted By: >>296657

>>296516
Well, there is a precedent for smaller lens-to-sensor distances being a good thing. That's why rangefinder users get to enjoy tiny little fast lenses.

Of course that doesn't really work with digital because of how sensors react to angled light, but Canon wasn't completely out of their minds when they came up with EF-S.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 12:15:00 No.296557 Report

Quoted By:

Serenar is one of the best posters on /p/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 15:26:00 No.296657 Report

Quoted By:

>>296556

For the price, performance and size the EF-S lenses seem to be a winner to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Nov 2008 16:17:00 No.296674 Report

Quoted By:

>>295573

I have a Tamrom 17-50 2.8 with AF-S It's a really good and sharp lens. very little vignetting on lowest diafragma.

I actually traded my prime in for this one...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Thu 20 Nov 2008 18:54:00 No.297432 Report

Quoted By:

.skcirb tihS .

?? .4

.devas uoy elif et nepO .3

sj.nahc4 sa ti evaS .2

.egeami siht nepO .1

n5

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Thu 20 Nov 2008 20:29:00 No.297558 Report

Quoted By:

.skscirb tihS .5

??? .4

.devas uoy elif eht nepO .3

sj.nahc4 sa ti evaS .
..egami siht tnepO .1

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Gear thread