d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > Graphic Design > Photography > Calibration?
Prev189101112Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 1718Replies: 110Track Topic
Member
Posts: 11,567
Joined: Sep 11 2008
Gold: 205.00
#91
Jan 26 2013 11:58am
Quote (Xandriia @ 26 Jan 2013 10:28)
So instead of the 135, the 100? I go back and forth on macro a lot, sometimes I feel like Id have a lot of fun with it, and sometimes I feel like Id get bored quickly. But as Ive only ever used filters for macro, I cant really know until I get a lens meant for it I suppose.

Yes top is before. The top one should look brighter than the bottom. God I wish I could get my colors right. How long before my eyes just know what to do? Frustrating.


i am in the same boat, not sure which of those 3 i should go for, have tried 2 of them (85 1.2 - not the 1.8, 135 2), just not the macro but seen what its capable of
i think the 85 is a better choice as the 135 might be too long in some instances, but not 100% sure of the 1.8, the 1.2 is expensive, the 135 is better priced around 1/2 the price, similar to the 100 f2.8lL macro
way too many options out there

on another note, my next lens is the 300mm f4, the f2.8 is about 5x the price :(

when i edit, i get it looking "good" well so i think untill i open the before and after the next day
if i look at images to long i just mess myself up

This post was edited by jayandnix on Jan 26 2013 12:10pm
Member
Posts: 32,538
Joined: Dec 6 2007
Gold: 1,945.00
#92
Jan 26 2013 12:23pm
Quote (jayandnix @ Jan 26 2013 11:58am)
i am in the same boat, not sure which of those 3 i should go for, have tried 2 of them (85 1.2 - not the 1.8, 135 2), just not the macro but seen what its capable of
i think the 85 is a better choice as the 135 might be too long in some instances, but not 100% sure of the 1.8, the 1.2 is expensive, the 135 is better priced around 1/2 the price, similar to the 100 f2.8lL macro
way too many options out there
on another note, my next lens is the 300mm f4, the f2.8 is about 5x the price :(

when i edit, i get it looking "good" well so i think untill i open the before and after the next day
if i look at images to long i just mess myself up


No kidding! I have about a million lenses on my amazon wish list and Im constantly going back to all of them and reading reviews, looking at all the photos. And still Im undecided, lol.

Lith gives high praise to the 85 1.8, and I have another friend that shoots primarily with it and she loves it. Ive only heard good things about it. 1.2 is a little out of my range for now. Is length really a big deal? I mean, most of my shoots have been around an hour and a half to two hours..I feel like I could hold onto a long lens for that amount of time :P.

Now thats a big lens, lol. What will you be shooting with it primarily?

Yup, I could re-edit photos all day long. Its gotta be unhealthy.

E: I was also thinking of still going for the 70-200, only the cheaper f/4 option. Then if I really love it, later on down the line I could go for the 2.8.

If I did get that one (Ive got to be driving you guys crazy by now) would my best second option be the 85mm then?

This post was edited by Xandriia on Jan 26 2013 12:27pm
Member
Posts: 14,659
Joined: Jan 27 2007
Gold: 78.16
#93
Jan 26 2013 12:31pm
you know.. the 100 macro is also a great portrait lens.. :)
Member
Posts: 32,538
Joined: Dec 6 2007
Gold: 1,945.00
#94
Jan 26 2013 12:34pm
Quote (lithfkn @ Jan 26 2013 12:31pm)
you know.. the 100 macro is also a great portrait lens.. :)


I know, we've been talking about it :P.
Member
Posts: 14,659
Joined: Jan 27 2007
Gold: 78.16
#95
Jan 26 2013 12:44pm
Quote (Xandriia @ Jan 27 2013 04:34am)
I know, we've been talking about it :P.


It's sharp as shit at 2.8 :)

Don't get the F4 IS unless it's strictly for the studio use. I bought one a few years back and it only gets used in a studio.
Member
Posts: 32,538
Joined: Dec 6 2007
Gold: 1,945.00
#96
Jan 26 2013 12:47pm
Quote (lithfkn @ Jan 26 2013 12:44pm)
It's sharp as shit at 2.8 :)

Don't get the F4 IS unless it's strictly for the studio use. I bought one a few years back and it only gets used in a studio.


Gah, stop making me think! :lol:

I love 2.8, I think its my favorite aperture, hopefully thats not too weird a thing to say.

Would it make sense to get the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm macro?
Member
Posts: 11,567
Joined: Sep 11 2008
Gold: 205.00
#97
Jan 26 2013 01:00pm
Quote (Xandriia @ 26 Jan 2013 22:23)
No kidding! I have about a million lenses on my amazon wish list and Im constantly going back to all of them and reading reviews, looking at all the photos. And still Im undecided, lol.

Lith gives high praise to the 85 1.8, and I have another friend that shoots primarily with it and she loves it. Ive only heard good things about it. 1.2 is a little out of my range for now. Is length really a big deal? I mean, most of my shoots have been around an hour and a half to two hours..I feel like I could hold onto a long lens for that amount of time :P.

Now thats a big lens, lol. What will you be shooting with it primarily?

Yup, I could re-edit photos all day long. Its gotta be unhealthy.

E: I was also thinking of still going for the 70-200, only the cheaper f/4 option. Then if I really love it, later on down the line I could go for the 2.8.

If I did get that one (Ive got to be driving you guys crazy by now) would my best second option be the 85mm then?


only prob i see with the 135 is that indoors its too long, so u cant get far enough from ur subject to frame them correctly - so i would drop this from the list
the 85 1.8 is well priced but i have used the 1.2 so cant give feedback on quality etc (if Lith says its good then it certainly is, i trust his word prob more than my own :rofl: ) - its a great focal length and will be great both indoors and out
the 100 f2.8L macro, is a little longer but should still be ok in a decent size room (if not u always have ur 24-70 i guess), its sharp, great for potraits and has the added advantage of being an awesome macro lens
the 70-200 f4 i cant give feedback on besides the fact that everyone i know that bought it were never really satisfied and eventually upgraded to the 2.8, i just went all out on mine 70-200 f2.8L IS II and i absolutely love it only downside is price and weight
so i would say go for the 85 or the 100 f2.8L macro, and way down the line get the 70-200 2.8 IS.... i think they will suite you and potraits shots more

my passion is wildlife so thats what the 300mm will be used on together with my 1.4converter = 420mm, a poor mans wildlife setup
Member
Posts: 11,567
Joined: Sep 11 2008
Gold: 205.00
#98
Jan 26 2013 01:02pm
Quote (Xandriia @ 26 Jan 2013 22:47)
Gah, stop making me think! :lol:

I love 2.8, I think its my favorite aperture, hopefully thats not too weird a thing to say.

Would it make sense to get the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm macro?


imo they too close, would rather think of the 35mm 1.4 and the 85 or 100
but thats just my preference

35 is great for many things, group shots, events, landscapes

This post was edited by jayandnix on Jan 26 2013 01:04pm
Member
Posts: 32,538
Joined: Dec 6 2007
Gold: 1,945.00
#99
Jan 26 2013 01:31pm
Quote (jayandnix @ Jan 26 2013 01:00pm)
only prob i see with the 135 is that indoors its too long, so u cant get far enough from ur subject to frame them correctly - so i would drop this from the list
the 85 1.8 is well priced but i have used the 1.2 so cant give feedback on quality etc (if Lith says its good then it certainly is, i trust his word prob more than my own  :rofl: ) - its a great focal length and will be great both indoors and out
the 100 f2.8L macro, is a little longer but should still be ok in a decent size room (if not u always have ur 24-70 i guess), its sharp, great for potraits and has the added advantage of being an awesome macro lens
the 70-200 f4 i cant give feedback on besides the fact that everyone i know that bought it were never really satisfied and eventually upgraded to the 2.8, i just went all out on mine 70-200 f2.8L IS II and i absolutely love it only downside is price and weight
so i would say go for the 85 or the 100 f2.8L macro, and way down the line get the 70-200 2.8 IS.... i think they will suite you and potraits shots more

my passion is wildlife so thats what the 300mm will be used on together with my 1.4converter = 420mm, a poor mans wildlife setup


Quote (jayandnix @ Jan 26 2013 01:02pm)
imo they too close, would rather think of the 35mm 1.4 and the 85 or 100
but thats just my preference

35 is great for many things, group shots, events, landscapes


Yeah I dont have much room inside to back up, so good point.

You guys are giving me even more to think about than I already had :lol: I wish the 70-200 2.8 wasnt so damn expensive. But I guess you get what you pay for.

Do you sell your work or is it just a personal hobby? And doesnt sound very poor to me, lol.

Im just not very interested in the 35mm for some reason. I guess because Im pretty content with my 50 and its too close?

Im not really interested in any of those three things also, so yeah :P.

This post was edited by Xandriia on Jan 26 2013 01:32pm
Member
Posts: 14,659
Joined: Jan 27 2007
Gold: 78.16
#100
Jan 27 2013 05:11am
Quote (Xandriia @ Jan 27 2013 04:47am)
Gah, stop making me think! :lol:

I love 2.8, I think its my favorite aperture, hopefully thats not too weird a thing to say.

Would it make sense to get the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm macro?


mmmmm i think they are also too close together, it should be either one or the other if it's your first purchase. Stick with the 85 to start with.

My next lens will be the sigma 35 1.4 or the 100mm macro, i need something not as wide and tight as 24/50 for fashion (35mm) and something for beauty (macro)

Like I've said a few times, the new sigma 35 1.4 shits on the canon 35L and it's half the price :)

This post was edited by lithfkn on Jan 27 2013 05:12am
Go Back To Photography Topic List
Prev189101112Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact