|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 3rd, 2010, 11:13 AM | #16 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 73
|
Actually, going from 2.8 to 1.4 is two stops, representating 400% as much light as f2.8, a huge difference IMO. So F1.8 vs F2.8, the amount of light ratio is (2.8/1.8)^2=242%. You can see the effect by changing your shutter speed from 1/100 to 1/40.
|
December 3rd, 2010, 11:53 AM | #17 | ||
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 499
|
Quote:
Then there is the investment, kit lenses don't have very good resell value. You buy glass thats worth it and you sell it for more than you bought it for in five years. Tyson, looks good to start. If I had done it over again I would have studied below, but maybe its not worth the time it takes: Manual Focus Lenses Quote:
Still Lenses That Can Grace The Big Screen | Hurlbut Visuals |
||
December 3rd, 2010, 12:11 PM | #18 | ||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
|
Quote:
Quote:
Pay close attention to the people who are complaining about aliasing and Moire. And notice how many of those folks are using ultra-sharp glass like the Compact Primes and the "L" glass. Then see comments from the vintage glass shooters. You barely hear anything about these issues. In my opinion, based on what I've shot and what I've seen shot, the very sharp glass causes more problems than it solves, and costs a small fortune to boot. So I don't recommend them. If others like them and want to shoot it, that's fine. For me these reviews only go so far. At some point, you've just got to put the glass on your own camera, and go see what it does.
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels. |
||
December 5th, 2010, 04:24 AM | #19 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North Hollywood, Atlanta
Posts: 437
|
2.8 is the magic number.
Thanks to everyone included, I now understand that f/2.8 is what i must be going for for video. Man, i cant believe how dumb i was 2 days ago! Anyway, I'm now adjusting and looking at the Tamron 17-55mm f2.8 lens as a primary lens i might use often. -As used it sells for only $400. ($800 new)
__________________
Tyson X |
December 27th, 2010, 12:15 PM | #20 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: new jersey
Posts: 151
|
I would say the line up of lenses you want/plan to buy should have an impact on whether or not to get the 18-135 kit. If you initially want to buy some fast primes then get the kit, use it, and start buying primes. If the first lens you want is a 17-50/18-55 f2.8 then use the $100 toward that lens.I have many lenses and my 17-50 2.8 is on my camera almost exclusively when it comes to video. For stills I favor my primes.
Tyson I use the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and NEVER take it off my camera. I have the OS/IS version and got it for $650 with a $50 rebate. Tamrons are known to be optically better than Sigma but rarely have an autofocus system as good. With video autofocus is pointless so it was a no brainer to me. And a grand for the canon is simply laugh worthy. |
| ||||||
|
|