@josiahw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, I have never used a 18-200, but I do have a 24- 105 L series that got a broken AF cable inside. I did send that in. $300 later, I got it back. I though that was pretty expensive for that lens. It got a crack in the barrel now, and I don’t think that I will get it repaired because of the price.
I don’t know what a 18-200 is worth, but you may be better off going lens shopping 🙂 I once took a lens apart- it might be a easy fix. You could try to take the rubber of the focus ring grip and see if there is any thing obvious wrong. Other wise, you will end up tearing the whole thing apart. It’s not too complex, but there is a risk to it. You could look at the Lensrentals blog- they recently tore down a 70-200 to remove a fly, of all things!
Let us know what you find!I did a little research, and I believe that a SR lens will fit a MD mount. Can’t say for sure, but I as near as I can tell, the MD mount is a universal mount for Minolta lenses. They had several different ones, just as Canon had EFS, EF, and EFL But they all fit one camera. @JamesStaddon has good advice on inspecting the lenses, but since you already have them, I wouldn’t worry about them. They are both primes, and about the only thing that can misfunction on a old manual lens is the aperture ring jamming. If it works, and you can see the blades close down as you turn it, it’s probably fine.
I think this should work. I’m not positive the lenses you mentioned are MD mount, so you might want to double check that. As far as image quality goes, it has a corrective lens built-in that lets the lens still focus to infinity. This may or may not degrade the quality a bit, but I can’t really say for sure. You might not even notice.
You’ll have to use manual focus, and there is probably a manual aperture ring on the lens as well. Don’t worry about the focus too much- you’ll find that these old lenses that have real focus rings, rather than focus by wire, are extremely smooth and accurate. You will not be able record metadata from the lens, such as focal length and aperture settings because it has no contacts. It may take some getting used to, but I would try it. That 58mm f/1.4 is probably a very, very nice lens.Well, I found a way! I upgraded my monitor. I had been using a 1080p gaming monitor, and I finally bought a IPS monitor with better resolution and much better contrast. I got some pictures printed to compare to it, and it is pretty close to what you see on the screen. It’s bothered me for a long time that my prints don’t look quite like I thought they did on my monitor
Yes, having multiple copies can seem overkill… till you have a drive fail. Believe me, it’s a nasty feeling! Another thing not mentioned yet is the possibility of viruses and malware corrupting a drive. It’s a good idea to disconnect your backup drive for that reason.
@Cretan,
Do you have a pic of the milky way edited this way? I would love to see it!I guess it all depends on your shooting style, but fast apertures are the main factor to take into account when choosing lenses for most weddings, mainly due to the low light conditions. I shoot with a 50mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, and 35mm F/2 for portraits and candid type shots during the reception and afterwards, and a 12mm f/2 and 50-140 F/2.8 zoom lens during the ceremony. The 12mm covers my wide angle, and the zoom get everything else. (Fuji sells a 50-140, most other companies sell a very similar lens as a 70-200) If I were to pick two lenses for my Canon system, I would probably get a 16-35 f/2.8, and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. They should get you decent bokeh for portraits, and still be flexible enough to cover most scenarios. I saw that Sigma is making some pretty impressive zoom lenses with 1.8 apertures. That would be like having a bag full of primes in one lens! Pretty affordable too.
I assume it is unedited? I think it could use a little more foreground. When I look at it, my eye is drawn to the strip of road in the middle. Somehow, it doesn’t feel right. I played around with it a bit but didn’t help it much.
Attachments:
Yea, I think the whole word should be in focus.
- This reply was modified 56 years, 10 months ago by -.
Thank you! I have since learned a lot more about special effects that can be gained by shooting straight into the sun, and try it any chance I get. When this picture was taken, I only had had my camera 2 weeks- there was very little intentionality in how it was taken 🙂 But I did shoot it in RAW, so it remains one of my favorite pictures.
Hope it works well for you! I have a 70d myself and love it. I would really like 1080p 60fps video though.
The international version is not covered by any warranty in the USA. If that is important to you, make sure you get a US model I personally would not worry about the warranty as I have bought most of my gear used or refurbished and have never had a issue. But it would only take one problem to make me wish I had a warranty 🙂
I think the card in the middle should be more in focus, enough so that the wording can be read. Also, what is that grainy stuff near the edges of the table?
The correct term for background blur is “Bokeh”. The best way to gain it is with a very wide aperture- at least f/2, preferably 1.8 or more. There is a big difference between even a 1.8 and a 1.4. Even with a fast lens, there are ways to improve the bokeh of a existing lens. The first is to zoom to the max length you have. I have a f/5.6 lens that has very good bokeh- it is a 600mm. Next, move as close to your subject as possible. Finally, keep as much space between your subject and the background as possible. For example, if trying to take portraits with a 18-55 kit lens, zoom to 55mm, step as close as possible, and keep as much distance between the person and the background. It is no replacement for a fast portrait lens, but it will do in a pinch. In the pictures I took here, I used a 10 stop ND filter to slow my shutter speed to about 15 seconds, ensuring that any movement (water) would be smoothly blurred. Happy Shooting!
