Lens talk

[Egg-Roll]

12 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

It's all good, you don't have to explain your twisted fantasies to me, I'm a fetish photographer, I get it!

(all in good fun, all in good fun, cheers mate!)

I'm more of a data horder than a brony (the fact chrome knows that word scares me, College Humor taught me that word sadly), I've been pony free since I stopped visiting a particular family member about 2 years ago  (no they did not have a kid) I'll stay pony free till Galarian Ponyta gets thrown into Pokemon Go  (What has Hasbro done, HELP)

 

Maybe I should go back to Ingress as my mobile game of choice  Also no worries all fun  Tho getting off topic (I also keep forgetting to reply to you).

 

5 hours ago, sub68 said:

My 400mm weights 6to8 pounds full kit

That's as much as a assault rifle 

And here I thought my 28-105mm Nikon lense was heavy at 2 pounds. However it is very tiny and dense. It's basically the size of a 341ml glass pop bottle base up to the start of the neck with a similar diameter as the bottle.

 

3 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

And is great for personal defense if need be!

At that weight I would let the person steal it esp if it is attached to the camera. It would hinder them running so bad it would be relatively easy to catch up to said person to reclaim the stolen goods, also that way any harm caused to them isn't criminal as long as it's not excessive

[Radium_Angel]

7 hours ago, sub68 said:

Jokes aside I can hit a person in the head and knock them out

I hear you. I had an all metal 70-200 2.8 (the older push pull style) for my Nikon D3x, and it was perfect for getting that in-the-middle-of-a-slam-dance shot, without having to worry about hurting my gear.

 

As to the 2.8 vs 4 L lens discussion, I just bought (used) the f/4 IS USM version, will see how well it works for me.

To those that have had it, there are apparently two settings for IS, 1 and 2, what's the difference?

[Egg-Roll]

5 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

As to the 2.8 vs 4 L lens discussion, I just bought (used) the f/4 IS USM version, will see how well it works for me.

To those that have had it, there are apparently two settings for IS, 1 and 2, what's the difference?

https://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300003460/02/ef400f4doisusm-im3-eng.pdf

Basically mode 1 is for stills, and mode 2 is following a moving object.

 

Edit: this link is from Canons website:
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/details/lenses/ef/super-telephoto/ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-usm?tab=manuals

 

[sub68]

5 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

I hear you. I had an all metal

Oh I forgot to say my 400mm is all metal 

https://www.ebay.com/i/333566841166?rt=nc&_trkparms=aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D225080%26meid%3D1fd5342d2f914ea79cf529db7dfbbf5d%26pid%3D100694%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D30%26mehot%3Dnone%26sd%3D333221965696%26itm%3D333566841166%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2386202%26algv%3DDefaultOrganic%26brand%3DVivitar

This lens is weird the mount is a t2 mount for a telescope.

So this makes the lens basically can mount to any camera 

[Radium_Angel]

1 hour ago, sub68 said:

Oh I forgot to say my 400mm is all metal 

https://www.ebay.com/i/333566841166?rt=nc&_trkparms=aid%3D1110006%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D225080%26meid%3D1fd5342d2f914ea79cf529db7dfbbf5d%26pid%3D100694%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D30%26mehot%3Dnone%26sd%3D333221965696%26itm%3D333566841166%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2386202%26algv%3DDefaultOrganic%26brand%3DVivitar

This lens is weird the mount is a t2 mount for a telescope.

So this makes the lens basically can mount to any camera 

Post some pics you've taken with it

[sub68]

2 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

Post some pics you've taken with it

ok

 

[Hackentosher]

13 hours ago, LyondellBasell said:

Tried both and I'll say, I think the argument for either depends on how budget conscious you are while making the decision. They'll both get the job done. Is the 2.8 heavy? Yes. But the F2.8 Version 3, in the new white, with AirSphere, is REALLY nice. It's definitely a unique look, when opened all the way up at 200mm.

 

You don't NEED it. But it's in the Holy Trinity for a reason.

I buy used gear, so I’m looking at old v1s. I’m leaning towards the f4. Prices are going up though, they used to go for $300~ on eBay a year ago  

[Radium_Angel]

1 hour ago, Hackentosher said:

I buy used gear, so I’m looking at old v1s. I’m leaning towards the f4. Prices are going up though, they used to go for $300~ on eBay a year ago  

If you are talking the 70-200mm f/4 USM, I still see them for 300$ (USA money) 

the IS USM version, however, is still 500+

[Radium_Angel]

1 hour ago, sub68 said:

ok

For a while, I was into shooting the moon with a 500mm Catadioptric lens (aka, Reflex lens)

Manual focus and nailing the focus was pretty well impossible on a camera without focus peaking, which I didn't have.

This was taken with my Nikon D2x, which effective turned this into a 750mm shot.

The 500mm lens is a funny thing, virtually useless for anything other than moon shots, because of the donut-shaped bokeh it produces.

 

[Lord Vile]

On 7/30/2020 at 10:42 PM, sub68 said:

My 400mm weights 6to8 pounds full kit

That's as much as a assault rifle 

Maybe a cheap American one  

[Egg-Roll]

On 7/31/2020 at 12:49 PM, Radium_Angel said:

For a while, I was into shooting the moon with a 500mm Catadioptric lens (aka, Reflex lens)

Manual focus and nailing the focus was pretty well impossible on a camera without focus peaking, which I didn't have.

This was taken with my Nikon D2x, which effective turned this into a 750mm shot.

The 500mm lens is a funny thing, virtually useless for anything other than moon shots, because of the donut-shaped bokeh it produces.

 

Put a 2x converter and you could see Saturn and Jupiter

I think mines in Toronto, could be wrong (it's not with my camera or lenses). Not like I have a 500mm+ lens to actually try this. However I might just be able to pull it off with my SX40 and Raynox DCR-2025PRO, which I think the camera is also in Toronto...

 

 

[atxcyclist]

All of my nice lenses are for my Bronica ETRS setup, that medium format film stuff got real cheap and I bought a bunch of it before it jumped back up in price a few years ago. I'm looking on eBay occasionally for a nice F1.8 or F2.0 lens for my Fuji X-mount mirroless, though getting one for a decent price will be a challenge.

 

I still have some cheaper EF mount lenses I need to sell since my Rebel XS got sold very early this year. I haven't wanted to go mail packages off with human malware being so common around here. I have an EFS 55-250mm Canon F4-5.6, and a Yonguo 50mm F1.8. Also a Promaster 70-300mm that is sketchy but works, mostly.

[Radium_Angel]

8 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

Bronica ETRS

Drool.

 

I had a body once, and was in the process of getting the rest, when life got in the way and I had to sell it.

8 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

human malware being so common around here

rofl, good term.

 

[Radium_Angel]

So, my 1st Canon L lens came in, and a single shot, pointed at nothing useful really, and I'm totally in love. None of my Nikon, Olympus, Pentax lenses have ever focused so fast.

 

And to be able to focus to 200mm, with 1/40sec shutter speed, and have that IS kick in and give me a sharp shot.

Well, now I can see why these lenses are 4 figures in price...

 

(that "frying bacon" sound of the IS kicking in is going to take some getting used to)

[sub68]

8 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

So, my 1st Canon L lens came in, and a single shot, pointed at nothing useful really, and I'm totally in love. None of my Nikon, Olympus, Pentax lenses have ever focused so fast.

 

And to be able to focus to 200mm, with 1/40sec shutter speed, and have that IS kick in and give me a sharp shot.

Well, now I can see why these lenses are 4 figures in price...

 

(that "frying bacon" sound of the IS kicking in is going to take some getting used to)

What did you get I assume that it's a 70-200

[Radium_Angel]

52 minutes ago, sub68 said:

What did you get I assume that it's a 70-200

yes, 70-200 f/4 IS USM

[sub68]

8 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

yes, 70-200 f/4 IS USM

Yummy

I want one

[GDRRiley]

canons pro zooms are that pricey for a reason.

those USM motors are so fast even on a big lens

[sub68]

13 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

canons pro zooms are that pricey for a reason.

those USM motors are so fast even on a big lens

I will probably get a 24-70mm f/4 

 

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, sub68 said:

I will probably get a 24-70mm f/4 

 

that over a 24-104 F4?

[sub68]

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

that over a 24-104 F4?

Actually I would like to that more

[sub68]

8 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

that over a 24-104 F4?

But it is the same price as a 70-200 f4

[GDRRiley]

5 minutes ago, sub68 said:

But it is the same price as a 70-200 f4

really?

https://www.lensauthority.com/products/canon-24-105mm-f-slash-4l-is

[sub68]

11 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

really?

https://www.lensauthority.com/products/canon-24-105mm-f-slash-4l-is

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1274709-REG/canon_ef_24_105mm_f_4l_is.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457678-USA/Canon_1258B002AA_EF_70_200mm_f_4L_IS.html

But these are brand new

Spoiler

IDK what lens athority was but thanks

 

[YellowJersey]

19 minutes ago, sub68 said:

But it is the same price as a 70-200 f4

Depends on whether we're talking the IS or non-IS version.