That's a no brainer imo, not due to sharpness like the Sony, it's just a great portrait lens.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I think that's a safe statement at this point with the firmware updates. It's not going to be as good as native glass, but it's still probably going to autofocus better than on a lot of systems... Some exceptions aside, of course.
You made me look it up and, man, that's not a bad price...
I wonder if it's worth getting the Canon 24-70 2.8 II over the Sony GM and adapting it to a third gen body.
I would never use adapted glass for paid events, but that's just me
It's sealed then, just get the GM. I do nothing but low light indoor events for work 90% of the time. If I'm not doing photography when a video shoot is done for b-roll purposes my next outdoor thing isn't till one of our graduations takes place outside. Guess I'll probably stop at 3 GM lenses.
The MC-11 won't AF in video with Canon lenses either, need a Metabones for that.
So pretty much I spend back the cost saving buying adapters then? That whole thing only seems like a viable option if you're an ex Canon owner.
Oh, wow. I had no idea since I hadn't tried it before. OK, that definitely dampens my enthusiasm for getting some more Canon lenses, even though I don't do much video.
I do enough. I had to do some handheld stuff with my X-T3 last year and I got a key shot just holding it low, keeping it wide and just letting the video AF do it's job. That segment was not manual focus work.
Yes if that's all that you do. I'm an indoor event photographer. Slow and really bad AF is pretty much a no go for me. I also am a corporate head shot photographer. I pretty much buy stuff that does everything I need to do and not just one out of the four things I need to do, plus stuff good for video work.
Just weighing my optionsmy options for the future. Thanks!
Yeah you can afford to buy an adapter since you're stuff is more predictable and staged than mine. I do way too much indoor event photography work for my job and freelance to do adapted glass. Not to mention that you already have the glass. I also do video work and these days I'm really starting to hate video work on DSLR's these days. Also photographing a person that is giving a speech sounds easy, but it's not.
Alright, I need to pick up an ND filter for an upcoming trip.
Both lenses I'm taking are 77mm threads, so I could get a single round ND filter...but I'm wondering if a better long term purchase would be something like this so I could use on any future lens, any thoughts?
Both lenses I'm taking are 77mm threads, so I could get a single round ND filter...but I'm wondering if a better long term purchase would be something like this so I could use on any future lens, any thoughts?
Alright, I need to pick up an ND filter for an upcoming trip.
Both lenses I'm taking are 77mm threads, so I could get a single round ND filter...but I'm wondering if a better long term purchase would be something like this so I could use on any future lens, any thoughts?
You can always buy step up rings, if 77 is the biggest one, or buy a bigger circular filter and buy step up rings from 77 for now. I have a couple of circular filters, I also have wondered if I should go this route instead
Guess it depends on how often you plan to use it and on how many different lenses.
I bit the bullet and bought the 100mm NISI kit.
I bit the bullet and bought the 100mm NISI kit.
Jesus that's pricey. I'm sure I'd start using it more if I had it, but I could do a lot with the $400+ I'd save between the NiSi and the K&F.
That's really cool. Assuming it comes to Sony FE and the AF performance is pretty good, I would definitely be interested.
Covering another event...what's a DSLR. Not using a Nikon I think till cover a few of my jobs graduations.
I'm curious why, at this point, you'd keep the Nikons and Fujis and not just go full redundant Sony and Sony lenses. You keep mentioning how archaic the Nikons are feeling these days.
Never know when you're going to need a back up system. That and I don't think they're worth much trade in wise so I just hold onto them. That and well. I sort of think maybe when I'm properly set up with Sony I'll make the trade but I'm honestly only expecting to get $800 tops per Nikon so I just keep them. I don't think I get a free A9 with the trade and still need a 24-70 I just keep them. I also still like my Fuji's but who knows what I do in 2 years. Long story short I like having options in case something is in the shop for repair. Like I'm only shooting Sony with Fuji because my 50-140 has been at Fuji for like a month but it's been a very eye opening experience so I guess stuff happens for a reason. I think I also keep mentioning it because it's not what I was expecting.
Last edited:
I just ordered my sigma lens and it's coming tomorrow!
But I have a question can anyone guess what lens this guy used in this photo here? I've been to that spot before but this shot makes it look so much interesting. It's almost a bit unreal
https://www.instagram.com/omarshinez/p/BvdB2YFnvkn/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=wun2h8y2ohc9
But I have a question can anyone guess what lens this guy used in this photo here? I've been to that spot before but this shot makes it look so much interesting. It's almost a bit unreal
https://www.instagram.com/omarshinez/p/BvdB2YFnvkn/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=wun2h8y2ohc9
A telephoto, probably at least 200mm. That's what makes it look so compressed.
So I've had a Sony a58 for a about five years now that I've barely touched. I've decided I want to start getting out and using it more seriously, and was looking to grab a prime lens I've been looking at for it.
My question is as this is an A Mount lens, and Sony has seemingly all but phased out that style, if I were to want to buy a higher end (likely middle tier) mirrorless like a a6300 or something down the road and got an adapter (which I guess in this case is A to E mount) is there really any problem there? Specifically I guess I'm asking if there are any real drawbacks to using an adapter?
My question is as this is an A Mount lens, and Sony has seemingly all but phased out that style, if I were to want to buy a higher end (likely middle tier) mirrorless like a a6300 or something down the road and got an adapter (which I guess in this case is A to E mount) is there really any problem there? Specifically I guess I'm asking if there are any real drawbacks to using an adapter?
These should be permanent prices and not for one week to be honest. At this point I'm already too invested in E mount to even care.
That ancient thing on the right is probably made out of silly putty.
I was curious and it turns out that TLR won't even shoot 120 film like the old Yashicas, it's gonna be another 35mm camera. These are gonna be so wack remember Yashica's kickstartered "digi-film" camera last year? Lol.
Don't remind us since they there were shit.
It's weird, I'm heavily invested in F mount and I still have no real urge to get these. Drop the Z7 by like a thousand and I'd get it. Shit I'd still just get a used A7RIII I at least know Sony's AF can easily handle event photography and the lens mount is cheaper to find stuff for...unless you need a 35 1.8.
The Sony Alpha Camera Facebook group probably has some of the dumbest fuck nuggets opinion wise I have ever fucking seen.
How is 200mm for little birds in tall trees less than 300 feet away in a full frame sensor? Heavy crop needed?
Yeah, I bailed pretty quickly on it. Then again, I was also a member of the X-T3 community while I was curious about the camera and there were some stupid mother fuckers in there, too. I think Facebook is just not a good platform for photography discussion. Honestly, it's probably not good for discussion of any kind. Mostly just a bunch of old people looking for a fight.
I'm pretty sure I'm in that X-T3 group. Some people in there have no respect for any form of non posed people photography at all. I have my limits with what I think is good as well, but I'm not going to shit on a very well respected and storied genre of photography. Let me reiterate. People. In a Fujifilm group. Shit on. Street photography. A genre of photography. Tailor made for Fuji. It's mind boggling. There are so many ignorant and or entitle suit POS photographers in there. Half don't even post content, they post pics of their gear or boxes of their gear and bitch about people posting complaints about it. I started my initial rant post because I saw a post of some dude stating that a beginner should drop 8 grand on fucking gear. I was like in my head, "dude you are fucking stupid and you should be thrown out of this group." And yeah Facebook is fucking horrible as a discussion program for this. There are some really good photographers on both and I like seeing their content, but damn some of these dudes are fucking stoopid.
Telecoverters. Stack them like Alex Phan or just look into adapting one of the third party 150-600's.
I got interesting results with a 40mm Minolta (60mm) at the park, even captured a beautiful egret yesterday. So I think the 50-140 will work for me at the park, as these birds are used to people and get close, and of course I'll use it for portraits and landscapes as well. So 200mm at less than 300 ft should work just don't expect Nat Geo quality etc etc. You should always experiment IMO.
Last edited:
I love his work though that set up looks fucking asinine.He's quite a guy.
Yeah that part of the country is made for photography. I wanna head out to Utah sometime this summer and try to do Arches and Zion in one shot.
Very doable. We did Grand Canyon, Bryce, Zion, and Arches in one 10 day trip, including drive time from Texas and back.
For Fuji? So what around 400mm effective? Might be interested in that if I ever get the money for a long lens.