^looks like a jubilee to me. also looks like someone converted it to 12v electrical system.
Post pictures of your most recent purchase
Collapse
X
-
sigpic
Gigitty Gigitty!!!!
88 cabrio becoming alpina b6 3.5s transplanted s62
92 Mtech 2 cabrio alpinweiss 770 code
88 325ix coupe manual lachsilber/cardinal
88 325ix coupe manual diamondschwartz/natur
87 e30 m3 for parts lachsilber/cardinal(serial number 7)
12 135i M sport cabrio grey/black -
-
engage photography nerd rant
50mm f1.8 is super useful. Zoom with your feet.
i can't remember if that camera is full frame or crop sensor. if its full frame, the lenses are going to be relatively pricey.
i don't know your budget but if you can afford the latest iteration of the rebel with a 18-250 sigma zoom, you would probably be a lot better off.
Generally superzooms like the 18-250 are optically very poor, even the best of them are worse than your average mid-range prime. They're soft, full of distortion and focus breathing, have terrible "micro-contrast" and, worst of all, are slow. My (arguably) most versatile lens (Nikon 18-200mm VR) is the lens I use the least because my images just look worse with it. Even my $120 35mm f1.8 (my DSLR is a crop body) produces better looking images, and it gives me far more control over depth of field.
end photography nerd rantComment
-
^
A lot of yes and no, depends in that up there..... foot zoom yes, that's fine, sometimes not practical, in a room cant get further away for a group shot, landscape can't get closer due to terrain. Better noise performance, likely yes at is 200 and down, those old sensors dont like the power turned up on them at all, and the new senors in even the rebels is going to produce better low light high iso results.
As to zooms in general your right, but the white canon 70-200 is one of the sharpest, and distortion free hunks of glass on the market, rivaling most mid and upper end primes in iq. Build quality on old 5d is going to be far superior to a new rebel. Your 18-200 is mid level consumer glass, and of course it's going to look wishy/washy compared to a decent prime. Get your slef a 70-200 f2.8 low ed and 24-70 low ed and get back to me on those thoughts. Trade off is cost and those better lense elements are much heavierLast edited by mrsleeve; 03-25-2017, 06:49 AM.Originally posted by FusionIf a car is the epitome of freedom, than an electric car is house arrest with your wife titty fucking your next door neighbor.
The Desire to Save Humanity is Always a False Front for the Urge to Rule it- H. L. Mencken
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.
William Pitt-Comment
-
I also said in general
Nothing I said is "yes and no" it's all factual and that which I am not sure of or is opinion I qualified. There are situations where zooms are more convenient, and I have a few for that reason, but superzooms are so bad optically that you're better off giving up the long end and going with a standard length zoom of better quality. The long end of the 18-250 I am replying to a comment about or any superzoom is of very limited usefulness because it'll be slow and soft.Last edited by varg; 03-25-2017, 06:58 AM.Comment
-
I said superzooms
I also said in general
Nothing I said is "yes and no" it's all factual and that which I am not sure of or is opinion I qualified. There are situations where zooms are more convenient, and I have a few for that reason, but superzooms are so bad optically that you're better off giving up the long end and going with a standard length zoom of better quality. The long end of the 18-250 I am replying to a comment about or any superzoom is of very limited usefulness because it'll be slow and soft.
I always laugh every time I hear someone say that a 50mm prime is a versatile lens. I'll let you in on a little secret: that's the shit photography instructors have been telling students for years because they don't have the money to buy anything better. I know this because I taught photography at the community college for a few years. If you want to carry 6 or 8 lenses around with you in a 40 lb. backpack, by all means.....go to town! I suggest the equipment I mentioned above because it is light and portable-oh wait.....I already said that.
Enjoy your collection of prime lenses. They are great. They take tack sharp photos. I have several of them too. There is no way in hell that I am going to bother carrying them around with me though. Fuck that.sigpic
Gigitty Gigitty!!!!
88 cabrio becoming alpina b6 3.5s transplanted s62
92 Mtech 2 cabrio alpinweiss 770 code
88 325ix coupe manual lachsilber/cardinal
88 325ix coupe manual diamondschwartz/natur
87 e30 m3 for parts lachsilber/cardinal(serial number 7)
12 135i M sport cabrio grey/blackComment
-
I kind of get the feeling you aren't really speaking from experience, but more so just parroting a lot of opinions you either read on the internet or your buddies told you. Those lenses are indeed a compromise. They are not as sharp as prime lenses. That's pretty much the same as saying shit stinks or wood floats.
I noticed from this little bit alone that you must not have read a word of my post thoroughly too since I very clearly and repeatedly said superzoom lenses are optically crap, not "all zoom lenses"Comment
-
My tamron 150-600, is not that bad at all and produces wonderful results in until it starts to fall off after around 500mmOriginally posted by FusionIf a car is the epitome of freedom, than an electric car is house arrest with your wife titty fucking your next door neighbor.
The Desire to Save Humanity is Always a False Front for the Urge to Rule it- H. L. Mencken
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.
William Pitt-Comment
-
Zoom ratios, a wide to tele lense has a huge zoom ratio, hence "superzoom". Very high zoom ratios are one of the things that makes them so hard to do well. The engineering that goes into making a lens that goes from wide to tele is indeed impressive if you've been exposed to it, but is a game of compromises. That's one of the reasons zooms that have a narrower range of coverage tend to be better, like my 18-200 vs my defunct 18-70; both pretty cheap lenses, but the 18-70 was a bit better across the range. A workhorse zoom like a 70-200L has a decent range, but it is nowhere near that of an 18-200, 28-300, 18-250, etc. Even the 28-300 L is pretty poor wide open in the tele range, and quite slow in focus compared to something like a 70-200L, not to mention the aperture difference. I've tried the 150-600 out and they're ok at the long end, but I'd have a nikon 200-500 even though it doesn't have the same reach. Faster operation is important with long telephotos.Comment
-
Gentlemen, gentelmen, there is a damn thread for this already: http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=196136
Or, you know, start a P&R thread on which lenses/bodies/sensors are best.
Also, rules:
Comment
-
Taken with my cheap tablet and a potato super zoom lens, low evening lighting.
Always said "I would never buy one of those expensive tool boxes" but got a killer deal on it slightly used (paid less than "sold" eBay ads :)) has the SS worktop and locking riser cabinet. Came off the truck, so has the factory warranty.
Comment
-
Post pictures of your most recent purchase
Taken with my cheap tablet and a potato super zoom lens, low evening lighting.
Always said "I would never buy one of those expensive tool boxes" but got a killer deal on it slightly used (paid less than "sold" eBay ads :)) has the SS worktop and locking riser cabinet. Came off the truck, so has the factory warranty.
Appears to be same one i have just without the topper. 56 inch 11 drawer. I got mine through the student discount of %60 plus sale price. I couldn't resist that offer
Per rules
Strömung cat backComment
-
Comment