Photos by Tako

2

Comments

  • Tako YakidaTako Yakida Posts: 504
    edited December 1969

    Vaskania said:
    Those cat photos are great. I can already see a difference between your previous cam and the Nikon. Your cat's green eyes provide some really good contrast in the 'portrait' shot.


    Thanks for the support!


    Funnily enough, I miss my 20mm Lumix lens for closeups. It handles low light much better without high ISO/flash.
    The portrait is actually a crop from a full body shot.


    Also, the lens I am using with the nikon can do macro but you have to put the camera super close,
    almost touching the subject, lol.
    I wonder if there is something I can add to the camera to make it possible to take macro shots farther away. O.o

  • Tako YakidaTako Yakida Posts: 504
    edited December 1969

    Some I did today...

    flower_cluster4_800.jpg
    800 x 530 - 96K
    spider_800.jpg
    800 x 533 - 128K
    rain3_800.jpg
    800 x 600 - 224K
  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited May 2012

    Funnily enough, I miss my 20mm Lumix lens for closeups. It handles low light much better without high ISO/flash.
    The lens was probably able to go to a wider aperture than your current lens. Currently the widest aperture I can go to is F1.8 with my 50mm prime lens. I'd like to get a wide aperture capable telephoto at some point as well, but those get costly.

    I wonder if there is something I can add to the camera to make it possible to take macro shots farther away. O.o

    Your raynox attachment on a telephoto lens. Just switch to manual focus and enjoy.
    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • Tako YakidaTako Yakida Posts: 504
    edited May 2012

    Vaskania said:
    Funnily enough, I miss my 20mm Lumix lens for closeups. It handles low light much better without high ISO/flash.
    The lens was probably able to go to a wider aperture than your current lens. Currently the widest aperture I can go to is F1.8 with my 50mm prime lens. I'd like to get a wide aperture capable telephoto at some point as well, but those get costly.


    Yes, the 20mm could go to 1.7 but seemed to work better at its 2.8 than my nikon 2.8 lens. I probably won't buy a 2.8 zoom unless I double my yearly income at some point. ;)

    I wonder if there is something I can add to the camera to make it possible to take macro shots farther away. O.o

    Your raynox attachment on a telephoto lens. Just switch to manual focus and enjoy.


    I meant with my 40mm 2.8 lens. The Raynox was too hard for me to focus with its super tight DOF, which is why I bought the Nikon macro lens. :(

    Post edited by Tako Yakida on
  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited May 2012

    With the 40mm, you can't. If you wanted to stick to a prime macro lens, you'll need to buy one with a longer focal length. There are extension tubes you can use between your camera body and the macro lens itself, but those just allow you to get closer to your subject without your camera freaking out and yelling at you to back up.

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • Tako YakidaTako Yakida Posts: 504
    edited December 1969

    That is unfortunate. Thank you for the fast response. :)

  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited December 1969

    Also, with regards to the Raynox, it can be a bit of a pain, but I didn't go for the 250 as you did, I only went for the 150. The 250 has a shallower DOF than the 150 so it allows less of the object into the frame. You CAN achieve the DOF of the 250 with the 150 by zooming in a little, but you can't achieve 150 results with the 250.

  • Tako YakidaTako Yakida Posts: 504
    edited May 2012

    Well, I've decided to return my 40mm and try an 85mm. The focusing distance is 0.9 feet instead of smashed up against the subject like the 40mm.

    Post edited by Tako Yakida on
  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited May 2012

    If the 85mm still doesn't work out for you, check out the Sigma 70-300mm macro telephoto. It can be used as both.
    http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B000ALLMI8/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1338367448&sr=1-2

    This thread @ flickr shows the macro capabilities:
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/_sigma_af_70-300mm_f4-56_dg_apo_macro/discuss/72157603499463082/

    The group photos have a lot of telephoto shots:
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/_sigma_af_70-300mm_f4-56_dg_apo_macro/pool/

    I don't have this lens.
    I've only read reviews and seen photos taken with it.



    /edited-
    Changed link to APO version of the lens.

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited May 2012

    Don't take this as factual, because I don't know a whole lot about lenses and I might have misunderstood it, but, one of the reasons you might not be enjoying macro on the Nikon could be down to the size of the sensor when compared to the Olympus.


    One of the things I picked up on during a conversation was that a smaller sensor is better for macro. I picked this up from Bjorn who has a D700 full-frame model. Despite having that full-frame, he was considering a D7000 (which has a smaller sensor than the D700), and if I recall it was because it would be better for macro work.


    So, what I'm saying is perhaps for macro work, your Olympus was generally a better setup due to the sensor size, and to match it, you might have to do a bit of maths and work out the correct lens (which is what Vaskania probably just did). But there is definitely something in the sensor size to lens that makes a massive difference. For example, if you want to shoot really wide, then you're better off with a full-frame model, wheres an APS-C model has an advantage if you want to shoot telephoto.


    Your Olympus has an even greater advantage if you want to shoot telephoto, because the sensor is smaller still. Perhaps this effect is why you feel like you're being forced right up to the object you're trying to photograph.

    Post edited by pumeco on
  • Tako YakidaTako Yakida Posts: 504
    edited May 2012

    Vaskania said:
    If the 85mm still doesn't work out for you, check out the Sigma 70-300mm macro telephoto. It can be used as both.
    http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B000ALLMI8/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1338367448&sr=1-2

    This thread @ flickr shows the macro capabilities:
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/_sigma_af_70-300mm_f4-56_dg_apo_macro/discuss/72157603499463082/

    The group photos have a lot of telephoto shots:
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/_sigma_af_70-300mm_f4-56_dg_apo_macro/pool/

    I don't have this lens.
    I've only read reviews and seen photos taken with it.



    /edited-
    Changed link to APO version of the lens.


    Thanks. I checked out various sigma and tamron macro/telephotos but I am just not liking the macro results. For example, from the link you gave me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7303785490/in/[email protected]/ the image just looks kind of blocky to me. Most people might not notice but I am very picky. The Sigma also doesn't seem to have autofocus or image stabilization. (My Nikon body does not have either function built-in so relies on the lens for them.) What I really need is pro-level lenses, lol.

    Don't take this as factual, because I don't know a whole lot about lenses and I might have misunderstood it, but, one of the reasons you might not be enjoying macro on the Nikon could be down to the size of the sensor when compared to the Olympus.


    One of the things I picked up on during a conversation was that a smaller sensor is better for macro. I picked this up from Bjorn who has a D700 full-frame model. Despite having that full-frame, he was considering a D7000 (which has a smaller sensor than the D700), and if I recall it was because it would be better for macro work.


    So, what I'm saying is perhaps for macro work, your Olympus was generally a better setup due to the sensor size, and to match it, you might have to do a bit of maths and work out the correct lens (which is what Vaskania probably just did). But there is definitely something in the sensor size to lens that makes a massive difference. For example, if you want to shoot really wide, then you're better off with a full-frame model, wheres an APS-C model has an advantage if you want to shoot telephoto.


    Your Olympus has an even greater advantage if you want to shoot telephoto, because the sensor is smaller still. Perhaps this effect is why you feel like you're being forced right up to the object you're trying to photograph.


    I appreciate the input. I shoot a variety of stuff as you have seen and the Olympus is really slow to auto focus and handle when shooting birds. It's great for closeups of still things using the 20mm 1.7 Lumix lens or even the kit lens.


    I didn't like my Olympus too much with the 45-200mm Lumix plus Raynox macro 2.5 because of the super tight DOF. IIRC the focus distance on my 200mm end with the Raynox clipped on became around 6 inches or so. I looked at an actual micro-four thirds macro lens just now and its focus is at about 150mm or around 5.9 inches but oddly enough can be changed to 500mm or 19.7 inches. Looks like a nice lens but a bit more expensive than I want to spend.


    In any case, the 85mm for nikon I am looking at's focus distance is 0.9 feet or 10.8 inches. Both the 40mm and 85mm nikon lenses offer true 1:1 magnification but the 40mm's zoom range to get that magnification is like 1.3 inches. With the 1.5x crop factor 40mm = 60mm on a 35mm camera. On an Olympus, 40mm = 80mm with the 2.0 crop factor but the 85mm nikon = 127.5mm. It's not too hard to figure out so I'm not worried about that so much as I am narrowness of DOF.

    Post edited by Tako Yakida on
  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited May 2012

    Thanks. I checked out various sigma and tamron macro/telephotos but I am just not liking the macro results. For example, from the link you gave me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7303785490/in/[email protected]/ the image just looks kind of blocky to me. Most people might not notice but I am very picky. The Sigma also doesn't seem to have autofocus or image stabilization. (My Nikon body does not have either function built-in so relies on the lens for them.) What I really need is pro-level lenses, lol.

    You cannot rely on all photos for an accurate lens review. Some people just don't know what the hell they're doing. If there ARE good photos with a lens, then you know it's possible and can pretty much dismiss the poor quality photos. With autofocus, I don't use it for macros anyways (I physically move my body and/or the camera further/closer whilst manually focussing the lens), and the lack of image stabilization is moot if you have enough light or are using a tripod (you turn IS off on a tripod anyways). If you're doing macros, chances are you'll have more than enough light, especially since you said you went and got a macro light ring.

    /edit
    I just did a test myself turning IS on and off on my 55-250 lens using my Raynox 150, and while it is possible to take good photos without IS on.. it is a royal pain in the ass (I was also only using on-camera flash and my cellphone flashlight propped up on an ice tea cannister as extra light). However, if you use a tripod, you can still go without the IS.

    /edit 2
    Also, with Sigma, what you'll want to look for is "OS" as opposed to "IS". On Sigma lenses it's called Optical Stabilization.

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • Tako YakidaTako Yakida Posts: 504
    edited May 2012

    Vaskania said:
    Thanks. I checked out various sigma and tamron macro/telephotos but I am just not liking the macro results. For example, from the link you gave me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7303785490/in/[email protected]/ the image just looks kind of blocky to me. Most people might not notice but I am very picky. The Sigma also doesn't seem to have autofocus or image stabilization. (My Nikon body does not have either function built-in so relies on the lens for them.) What I really need is pro-level lenses, lol.

    You cannot rely on all photos for an accurate lens review. Some people just don't know what the hell they're doing. If there ARE good photos with a lens, then you know it's possible and can pretty much dismiss the poor quality photos. With autofocus, I don't use it for macros anyways (I physically move my body and/or the camera further/closer whilst manually focussing the lens), and the lack of image stabilization is moot if you have enough light or are using a tripod (you turn IS off on a tripod anyways). If you're doing macros, chances are you'll have more than enough light, especially since you said you went and got a macro light ring.

    /edit
    I just did a test myself turning IS on and off on my 55-250 lens using my Raynox 150, and while it is possible to take good photos without IS on.. it is a royal pain in the ass (I was also only using on-camera flash and my cellphone flashlight propped up on an ice tea cannister as extra light). However, if you use a tripod, you can still go without the IS.


    I suppose I just suck at taking macros. The ring light I bought didn't help much. It only works as a weak fill light. For 30 bucks I can't complain too much about it, which is why I want to try more expensive equipment. Sorry I am such a pain, I'm just frustrated.


    The worst part of this all is I don't have any confidence that I'd be able to make money with this even if I produced the level of quality I want consistently. The world is full of photographers, but only a handful of Published Artists....

    Post edited by Tako Yakida on
  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited May 2012

    I watched just about all of these guys' videos and they helped a lot.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/PhotoExtremist/videos
    and
    http://www.youtube.com/user/PhotoGavin/videos

    Start with the 3 DSLR Basics videos from PhotoExtremist: http://www.youtube.com/user/PhotoExtremist/videos?query=basics
    His What's In My Camera Bag videos aren't necessary, but they do show some equipment and why he uses some over others in certain situations.

    Photography forums: http://www.dgrin.com/
    Specifically this thread: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=143373

    /edit
    You may also want to look into what's called photo stacking. You take multiple shots of the same thing focused on multiple areas and merge them together. It's a work-around when you can't get the right DOF you need.

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    In any case, the 85mm for nikon I am looking at's focus distance is 0.9 feet or 10.8 inches. Both the 40mm and 85mm nikon lenses offer true 1:1 magnification but the 40mm's zoom range to get that magnification is like 1.3 inches. With the 1.5x crop factor 40mm = 60mm on a 35mm camera. On an Olympus, 40mm = 80mm with the 2.0 crop factor but the 85mm nikon = 127.5mm. It's not too hard to figure out so I'm not worried about that so much as I am narrowness of DOF.


    I'm totally ignorant about macro because it's something I've never needed to get into. To be honest, I actually thought one of the beauties of macro was to have that really narrow DOF, but it sounds as if I'm a bit off on that one. Anyway, I hope you find the right lens, and yup, you can almost be certain that the only way to get the lens you want, is to buy a professional one.


    Unless you're rolling in cash, join the club, because every DSLR owner who makes use of the camera for a certain type of photography is going to be hit by the need to do some serious saving-up for the right lens. If it's of any consolation to you, you already have a head start in getting the lens you need - because you're prepared to buy second-hand. I'm not, so my stubbornness will cost me time and money. Then again, it's worth it to me because I never intend to sell the stuff I'm buying, so paying over the odds for new gear is something I prefer.


    Just forget about steak and chips for a while, and get used to Pot Noodle!

  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited May 2012

    pumeco said:
    Unless you're rolling in cash, join the club, because every DSLR owner who makes use of the camera for a certain type of photography is going to be hit by the need to do some serious saving-up for the right lens

    You ain't kiddin'. Canon 100mm 2.8L macro lens is close to $1000. The non L version without IS is ~$600. I'd have the puppy if we didn't just spend $10,000 repairing my hubby's semi-truck. He makes money with his truck; I don't make money with my glass. The truck won. LOL

    My Amazon wishlist is kind of like Energizer Bunny on Viagra.. it keeps growing, and growing.

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • Tako YakidaTako Yakida Posts: 504
    edited December 1969

    Vaskania said:
    I watched just about all of these guys' videos and they helped a lot.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/PhotoExtremist/videos
    and
    http://www.youtube.com/user/PhotoGavin/videos

    Start with the 3 DSLR Basics videos from PhotoExtremist: http://www.youtube.com/user/PhotoExtremist/videos?query=basics
    His What's In My Camera Bag videos aren't necessary, but they do show some equipment and why he uses some over others in certain situations.

    Photography forums: http://www.dgrin.com/
    Specifically this thread: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=143373

    /edit
    You may also want to look into what's called photo stacking. You take multiple shots of the same thing focused on multiple areas and merge them together. It's a work-around when you can't get the right DOF you need.

    I'll have to check out them videos once my swiss cheesed mind regenerates. I've been researching so hard for the whole month my head feels like jello at the moment. I was out of it enough to have a fender bender yesterday, lol. Luckily no one was hurt.

    pumeco said:
    In any case, the 85mm for nikon I am looking at's focus distance is 0.9 feet or 10.8 inches. Both the 40mm and 85mm nikon lenses offer true 1:1 magnification but the 40mm's zoom range to get that magnification is like 1.3 inches. With the 1.5x crop factor 40mm = 60mm on a 35mm camera. On an Olympus, 40mm = 80mm with the 2.0 crop factor but the 85mm nikon = 127.5mm. It's not too hard to figure out so I'm not worried about that so much as I am narrowness of DOF.


    I'm totally ignorant about macro because it's something I've never needed to get into. To be honest, I actually thought one of the beauties of macro was to have that really narrow DOF, but it sounds as if I'm a bit off on that one. Anyway, I hope you find the right lens, and yup, you can almost be certain that the only way to get the lens you want, is to buy a professional one.


    Unless you're rolling in cash, join the club, because every DSLR owner who makes use of the camera for a certain type of photography is going to be hit by the need to do some serious saving-up for the right lens. If it's of any consolation to you, you already have a head start in getting the lens you need - because you're prepared to buy second-hand. I'm not, so my stubbornness will cost me time and money. Then again, it's worth it to me because I never intend to sell the stuff I'm buying, so paying over the odds for new gear is something I prefer.


    Just forget about steak and chips for a while, and get used to Pot Noodle!


    I'll get by somehow. I don't each much anyways. :)

  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited June 2012

    Vaskania said:
    You ain't kiddin'. Canon 100mm 2.8L macro lens is close to $1000. The non L version without IS is ~$600. I'd have the puppy if we didn't just spend $10,000 repairing my hubby's semi-truck. He makes money with his truck; I don't make money with my glass. The truck won. LOL


    My Amazon wishlist is kind of like Energizer Bunny on Viagra.. it keeps growing, and growing.


    I'm hoping to save up for the Canon 135mm 2.0L, so I know exactly how you feel. I used to think maybe the "L" stood for Luxury, but now I'm beginning to think it stands for "Lifetime", as in that's what it could take to save up for one.


    I hope he doesn't mind me asking in his thread, but I've been getting some ideas through reading the conversation between you and Justin, all that stuff about extension tubes, and I was wondering ...


    What if I was to stick this:
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50-1-8-Lens/dp/B00005K47X


    On this:
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-25II-Extension-tube/dp/B0008G2P22


    The reason I'm wondering is because it would save me a fortune if it worked. I know the Canon 50mm 1.8 is a gem of a lens, but would it work as expected if I put that extension tube on it? Would it be exactly the same but at a longer focal length, or would there be some other optical effect I need to consider? If it works as I'm hoping, that would be great, because the price of the lens and extension tube combined is way cheaper than the L lens I was after, it's even slightly faster as well.


    It would give me two focal lengths to choose from rather than just the one, and I'd even have macro in case I ever needed it.

    Post edited by pumeco on
  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited June 2012

    While I do have the nifty fifty lens, I don't personally use tubes just because I have the Raynox 150. Tubes are better though as they dont add extra glass into the mix. If you do decide to go the tube route, be sure to get ones that are 'auto' so you retain autofocus. Cheap tubes like Fotodiox have no electric elements so you lose some abilities, and the workaround is a pain. I hear good things about the Kenko brand.

    This thread specifically talks about the 50mm with tubes: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=142667

    More on tubes http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm

    For a macro to truly be a macro you want 1:1 magnification or higher. Using all 3 tubes at once from the Kenko auto kit will achieve this on a 50mm, and I believe gives 2:1 on a 100mm macro lens (which btw can be used for portraiture and landscapes quite nicely).

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited June 2012

    Thanks for the links, I'll take a look, although I forgot to point out that I don't actually want the tube for macro.


    I'm hoping the tube would lengthen the focal length of the prime, and that I can still use it as a portrait lens but at a longer focal length. I know the 50mm is already a good portrait lens on the 1.6x Canon crop, so I'm hoping that if I put it on the extension tube, it will give me the same sort of lens - but at an even longer focal length. I don't use autofocus much, but according to one of the reviewers at the link for the tube, all of the features carry over with the tube attached, so that's ok. I noticed that the Canon tube is more expensive, but I think that's because it allows the lens to function as normal when it's attached, or that's the impression I get from one of the reviews.

    Post edited by pumeco on
  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited June 2012

    If from what I read about tubes is correct, tubes aren't all that great for portraiture. If you take a photo with the 50mm at its minimum focal distance (1.5 feet), and then take the same photo with an extension tube (which would require you to move forward to obtain the same shot), there would be no difference. Tubes allow you to focus more clearly at closer ranges.

    Unless taking portraits of someone's nose hair is your thing. %-P

    To do what you want, if you don't want a zoom lens, you'll need to find a longer prime lens which will give you the photo of a 50mm but from further away. This guy feels that the 85-135 range is the 'sweet spot' for portraits, http://www.photomatters.org/portrait-lens

    If buying a new prime lens isn't optimal, look into teleconverters. They double the focal length of the attached lens (meaning you can get a 50mm shot from further back). These WILL add extra glass between the camera body and your main lens, but I've read that if you have a good, sharp lens (Canon or other) and a good TC you will still get some good shots.

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    No I'm not into nose hair portraits, lol, quite the opposite, I was hoping I could be further away!


    It started out promising at the first link because it seems primes work great with tubes. But then something I read at the second link pretty much told me it wasn't what I was hoping, and your nose hair comment confirmed it for me.


    I just looked into the extenders, and yup, it looks like that's what I'd need to extend the focal length. Not bothering with those though, too expensive and as you say, they add extra glass so that will effect image quality, even if it's only slightly. Bit of a bummer that is!

  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited December 1969

    What lenses do you currently own?

  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Lenses sounds good, but so far it's just the one:
    http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/18-50mm.htm


    I pre-planned a set of lenses when I bought the body, and bought the body and lens separately so that there'd be no money wasted on kit lenses I didn't want. Before I started drooling over that Canon 135mm 2.0 L, the set of lenses I had planned was these:


    http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/18-50mm.htm
    http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/50-200mm.htm


    I already have the first and I'm super-impressed for the price, and the thing is, those two are virtually identical and one starts where the other leaves off. I like the IQ, feel, OS and build of the first, so the other will hopefully have all the same qualities. Then, I was going to have the Canon 50mm 1.8 prime, right in the middle where the other two cross over. The idea with this set of lenses is that I have a 2.8 aperture at 18mm, still have a good zoom range, and even get 1.8 from the prime which sits at a good focal length between the two.


    I think that's the setup I'm still going to go with and will have to forget about that L lens, at least for a while. I even bought the official hood for the Canon 50mm 1.8 a few months ago in preparation for it, so it makes sense to stick to that plan I think. Either way, I'll be pleased to have a prime, I really hate not having a prime.

  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited June 2012

    The lens setup you want is actually pretty ideal. When I bought my camera it came with the kit lens and had a deal with the telephoto if purchased at the same time as the body, so I have the standard Canon 18-55 and 55-250 lenses (~$800 for all), plus the 50mm 1.8. The body is $600 by itself, and only another $50 bucks more with the kit lens, as opposed to the body plus another $200 for the Sigma version, which I didn't know existed at the time anyways. I knew squat about lenses when I bought my camera, but I've been drooling over Rebels for years.

    I have the hoods on my to-get list atm as I initially bought a petal hood which is absolute crap on a non-usm lens (again, something I didn't know at the time- I'm learning as I go lol), especially at shorter focals (vignetting can be a cruel mistress when you're not intentionally going for it).

    I think my wired remote and uv filters for all lenses (easier to replace a scratched filter than scratched glass) are the cheapest things I own in my camera bag.

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Yeah, have to say I think Canon are really mean when it comes to lens hoods, and I think all lenses should come with the correct hood as standard. My Sigma came with a lens hood, and it's a petal type but it's quite deep. To be honest I haven't a clue if it's even effective or not, I only keep it attached because I think it makes the camera look meaner and to offer some sort of protection for the glass (haven't got a UV filter yet).


    As for accessories, my next is going to be the official grip, not just for extra battery life, but because it add's more heft to the camera.

  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited June 2012

    Hm. Does that petal hood give you any vignetting on the 18mm side of the lens? Also, if it came with a petal, is that lens a USM (lens doesn't rotate when focusing, just in/out)?

    A grip is on my list as well. It also allows for a more natural hand holding position when the camera is sideways.

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    @Vaskania
    I haven't noticed any, but then I've not taken a single shot I've been bothered about since I bought it, I've just been casually messing around with it rather than trying to be a photographer.


    It's gone midnight right now, but I'll take some shots in the garden tomorrow, some with the hood, and some without. I'll also position it without the hood first, to get some glare to see if it get's removed when the hood is attached. Like I say, I honestly haven't a clue if the hood even works at all.


    As for the USM and rotating front, I'm a bit puzzled about the connection you have between them.


    http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/18-50mm.htm
    http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/50-200mm.htm


    If you look closely at those two zooms, you'll notice something different about them, physically. The 18-50mm I already have is fitted with internal focusing and internal zoom, whereas the other one is internal focus. On both of those lenses, your filter never spins because the focusing is internal. The bonus on the 18-50mm though, is that it also has internal zoom (which is surprisingly rare), and that means it doesn't extend even to zoom.


    For attaching stuff to the front you have both a 67mm thread and a bayonet fitting (none of it twists).


    Like I said, I'm really impressed with that lens, because although it's an 18-50mm, and people tend to think "kit lens", it totally isn't and is why it's just a little more expensive. I compared it to the Canon kit lens in spec when I bought it, and it has a fair few advantages:


    1 - Maximum aperture of 2.8 instead of 3.5 (first most important reason I bought it)
    2 - Fatter barrel to grab hold of and a nicer feeling mechanism and focus ring (second most important reason I bought it)
    3 - Heavier and better built
    4 - Internal focusing
    5 - Internal zoom


    Not only that, you should ignore the £299 RRP on the Sigma site because I only paid around half that price from Amazon (£182 if I recall). The only thing I don't like about the lens is that the focus ring spins automatically when you use autofocus, so you have to be careful not to grip the focus ring when it's in auto mode. That takes a fair bit of getting used to if, like me, you normally prefer to manual focus.


    @Justin
    This is your photo thread and I kinda feel like I'm invading it with all this stuff. People come here to see your photos after all, so don't be too polite to tell me to take it to a separate thread if you wish.

  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,921
    edited June 2012

    pumeco said:
    As for the USM and rotating front, I'm a bit puzzled about the connection you have between them.

    Non-USM lenses rotate as you zoom in and out, so if you're using a petal hood at 18mm and zoom in, the petal hood can turn sideways as the lens moves, which is unwanted.

    It's usually preferred to use a round hood with non-usm lenses, which is why I asked if yours was usm or non, since your lens came with a petal hood.

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • JaderailJaderail Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Just peeping in. I love this thread. I've learned so much about this stuff. I'll never do much but it's all good stuff to know.

    ignore the drow peeping over your shoulder......

Sign In or Register to comment.