Lens talk

[Radium_Angel]

Figured it couldn't hurt to start a thread where we talk about lenses we own, how well they worked, things we've had and sold, and so forth.

 

I once had a Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0-5.6 for my Nikon bodies. I'd picked it up from a guy who had bills to pay. IIRC I'd paid about 100$ (US money) for it.

I never really could figure out a use for it in my workflow (at the time, I shot concerts) so I decided to put it up for sale. That weekend I took the lens out on my D2x to a local(ish) marine and shot some boats with it, and scored some awesome (IMO) shots. Satisfied I'd found a use case for it, I went home only to find an offer in my email for 400$ for the lens.

 

Oh well, easy come, easy go.

 

[GDRRiley]

still waiting on my set of 3 helios44 to come in from Russia. I already got the mount adapters.

[Radium_Angel]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

helios44

You'll find all kinds of fun from old Soviet lenses. Some are fantastic (I had a manual focus 8mm fisheye eons ago for one of my Pentax dSLRs) others are real frightpigs.

Look forward to seeing a review on them. Soviet build quality is real hit and miss.

[GDRRiley]

Just now, Radium_Angel said:

You'll find all kinds of fun from old Soviet lenses. Some are fantastic (I had a manual focus 8mm fisheye eons ago for one of my Pentax dSLRs) others are real frightpigs.

Look forward to seeing a review on them. Soviet build quality is real hit and miss.

yeah. I'm not going crazy and ordering sets but some people do. I'll see how they compare

[YellowJersey]

When I shot Canon, I had the 17-40mm f/4, the 16-35mm f/4 IS, the 24-105mm f/4 L, the 70-200mm f/4, and the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 (not all at the same time, obviously). I've got to say, I think my best work came out of the 17-40mm and the 24-105mm... though I did most of my travelling with those two lenses. They were quite a combo. I was also always impressed with the 70-200mm f/4 L; an insanely sharp lens.

 I used to have the Sony 16-35mm 2.8 GM lens, but I sold it last year with the intent of buying the Tamron 17-28mm 2.8. It was a good lens, but just too expensive to keep.

[Radium_Angel]

4 hours ago, YellowJersey said:

70-200mm f/4

I have my eye on this as well, I don't see a need (or foresee a need) for the extra f-stop to 2.8, at least on a telephoto, but the cost difference is nuts.

[GDRRiley]

4 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

I have my eye on this as well, I don't see a need (or foresee a need) for the extra f-stop to 2.8, at least on a telephoto, but the cost difference is nuts.

I ran with a 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 L (the OG ones) for a few weeks and while I got some great shots most could have been done at F4

[Fetzie]

2 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

I ran with a 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 L (the OG ones) for a few weeks and while I got some great shots most could have been done at F4

I'm more than satisfied with my Tamron 70-210. Most cameras that were made in the last 4-5 years have such improved high-ISO performance over even 10 years ago that you can easily add another stop of ISO if you really need to without worrying. Where you used to have to stop at 1600 you can now go to 3200 or even 6400 before you start to get noticeable noise from overdriving the sensor (not that you need to get that nailed at the time of shooting with the ISO-invariant sensors in cameras anyway ).

 

Sure, if you're earning your keep from your photography you'll want to go with the 2.8 (and probably the first-party one at that too), but I think the diminishing returns between the f/4 and the f/2.8 aren't worth the 3-5x price increase to do so for anybody else (unless you have the kind of budget that means you never look at price lists anyway).

[GDRRiley]

1 hour ago, Fetzie said:

Sure, if you're earning your keep from your photography you'll want to go with the 2.8 (and probably the first-party one at that too), but I think the diminishing returns between the f/4 and the f/2.8 aren't worth the 3-5x price increase to do so for anybody else (unless you have the kind of budget that means you never look at price lists anyway).

the only time I'll end up spending big money on lenses is for cine ones.

[Fetzie]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

the only time I'll end up spending big money on lenses is for cine ones.

The only lens I'd consider spending a lot of money on is the Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF. 500mm in the same package (size and weight) as a 70-200.

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, Fetzie said:

The only lens I'd consider spending a lot of money on is the Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF. 500mm in the same package (size and weight) as a 70-200.

if I end up with an E mount cine camera MK18-55, 55-135 T2.9. 6-8k for the pair mattering on sales and are a proper cine set.

I'll likely get some older EF constant F5 zooms in the mean time though.

[Radium_Angel]

I had the old Nikon push-pull 80-200 f/2.8, and while it was a screw motor focus (which could be slow at times) it never failed to nail the focus, and even at wide open, was a fantastic lens. It was my goto lens at concerts. But let me tell you, working with a Nikon D2X, plus that all-metal 80-200, really gave me a workout...

 

On the plus side, anyone slam-dancing into me, I never had to fear for my camera's life.

[GDRRiley]

I wish fuji would expand the mk/mkx with a longer telli 135-250 or so

[Origami Cactus]

On 7/8/2020 at 3:27 AM, GDRRiley said:

still waiting on my set of 3 helios44 to come in from Russia. I already got the mount adapters.

You might be interested in this status update 

https://linustechtips.com/main/profile/580805-origami-cactus/?status=269407&type=status

 

Anyways back to the topic at hand, my current favorite lenses are fuji 18-135, really underrated, but a great performer, and Helios 44 and Jupiter 37a.

[Radium_Angel]

46 minutes ago, Origami Cactus said:

You might be interested in this status update 

https://linustechtips.com/main/profile/580805-origami-cactus/?status=269407&type=status

 

Anyways back to the topic at hand, my current favorite lenses are fuji 18-135, really underrated, but a great performer, and Helios 44 and Jupiter 37a.

Nice. I always thought that 58mm for a focal length was an odd choice, but they apparently work well, when you get a solid example.

I'm currently trying to find a cheap and cheerful telezoom for my Canon 1D Mark II for doing some animal shots in the parks around here, and unfortunately I can't go manual focus, it's becoming too hard for me to nail the focus right on moving subjects.

[Origami Cactus]

6 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

Nice. I always thought that 58mm for a focal length was an odd choice, but they apparently work well, when you get a solid example.

I'm currently trying to find a cheap and cheerful telezoom for my Canon 1D Mark II for doing some animal shots in the parks around here, and unfortunately I can't go manual focus, it's becoming too hard for me to nail the focus right on moving subjects.

I also was looking for telephoto lenses, but they are all too goddamn expensive, so i got a russian Tair 3S for a few bucks. 300mm, F4.5, not too shabby.

Yes, manual focus only and no stabilizer, also weighs more than a car, BUT it isn't normal manual focus, it has a focus knob, makes it much more natural to focus.

Spoiler

 

On manual focus on mirrorless cameras, i find that focus peaking (also called focus highlighting maybe) works really well.

On real SLR's i can't focus too good, because i can't trust my eyes anymore, but the focus peaking really makes manual focus as easy as auto focus.

[Radium_Angel]

5 minutes ago, Origami Cactus said:

focus peaking

I have seen this in action and it's a godsend for manual focus. Sadly, my old Canon doesn't have that (AFAIK)

6 minutes ago, Origami Cactus said:

focus knob

Oh those crazy russians, always coming up with new and inventive ways to do things. How are the pics from that lens?

[Origami Cactus]

1 minute ago, Radium_Angel said:

I have seen this in action and it's a godsend for manual focus. Sadly, my old Canon doesn't have that (AFAIK)

Oh those crazy russians, always coming up with new and inventive ways to do things. How are the pics from that lens?

Yeah, without focus peaking i wouldn't be able to enjoy any of my manual focus lenses.

 

The pics are good, lot of chromatic abbreveations (green/purple lines around stuff), but it kinda adds to the photos, and isn't that bad. At wide open isn't too sharp, but that's expected.

[Radium_Angel]

4 minutes ago, Origami Cactus said:

chromatic aberration

I ran across that with a crap Quantaray 75-300mm f/4-5.6 I had eons ago on a Pentax dSLR had this for days on end, and this was before I really knew anything about photography, so I had no idea what was going on, but it was such a huge problem that I sold off the entire lot, thinking there must have been something wrong with the set.

 

I don't miss those days of buying unknown quality lenses and trying to make them work well, now I just read the reviews on line and go from there.

The one manual focus lens I still have is an absolutely stunning looking Tamron SP 135mm f/2.8 with a Nikon Adaptall mount on it, the whole thing is simply a work of art to look it, and the images from it weren't too shabby either.

(about 2/3rd down this page are pics of the lens https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/samples-tamron-adaptall-automatic-135mm-f2-8_topic112744.html)

 

 

 

[GDRRiley]

4 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

Nice. I always thought that 58mm for a focal length was an odd choice, but they apparently work well, when you get a solid example.

I'm currently trying to find a cheap and cheerful telezoom for my Canon 1D Mark II for doing some animal shots in the parks around here, and unfortunately I can't go manual focus, it's becoming too hard for me to nail the focus right on moving subjects.

it is but eh.

as for that 75-300 III USM or a 75-300 III (auto focus is a little slow and loud)

[Radium_Angel]

2 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

75-300 III USM

Are you saying this plastic-looking lens, is actually *good*?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-75-300mm-F-4-5-6-III-USM-Lens-Tested-Clean-Sharp-Free-Shipping-US/254642467040?hash=item3b49dfb0e0:g:YoUAAOSwZDde~qJa

 

[GDRRiley]

Just now, Radium_Angel said:

Are you saying this plastic-looking lens, is actually *good*?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-75-300mm-F-4-5-6-III-USM-Lens-Tested-Clean-Sharp-Free-Shipping-US/254642467040?hash=item3b49dfb0e0:g:YoUAAOSwZDde~qJa

 

its not complete junk and is cheap. the 70-300 IS is likely better around the same cost.

here is one from the non USM on a T5

Spoiler

 

[Radium_Angel]

8 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

70-300 IS is likely better

I'll look into that as well.

 

Ever had a lens that "got away"?

I've been chasing one of these for years and years

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-SP-17mm-f3-5-with-Adaptall-AIS-Nikon-mount-mint-with-hood-and-case/324196497363?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160908105057%26meid%3D2f4b63574074489397a62f605917b7ba%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D15%26mehot%3Dnone%26sd%3D254642467040%26itm%3D324196497363%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2380057%26brand%3DTamron&_trksid=p2380057.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3A5564b4f9-c240-11ea-8e8b-74dbd18019fc|parentrq%3A3605c8311730abc19bf3eb41ffe8e1dc|iid%3A1

 

I don't need it, I just got a Tokina AT-X Pro 17mm f/3.5 AF for less, and could be argued is better in every way, but there is something irrational about wanting an old wide angle manual focus 17mm lens.

 

What's the one that you want that is always out of your reach?

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, Radium_Angel said:

What's the one that you want that is always out of your reach?

jokingly the Canon CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm or the sigma classic art primes

 

I've thought about dropping more on glass but right now I want a better video body my Sl2 is good but the quality isn't great

[GDRRiley]

if you'll haven't seen this video get yourself 35-40 mins and watch it