Welcome to the IHoP v.2

[dem beats 1,223]

Sony will buy out someone is my guess. Or as you said whatever tech giant.  LG buys up Canon and I can put my 70-200 on my LG V16 cell phome would be ok!

 

[///M5 2,833]

Only to put it on your phone it would need a bigger sensor to be worth a shit

I guess you completely understand my reasoning for wanting a mirrorless aps with image stabilization in the body and the 1.8 combos.  The only problem is that Sony includes their 5 axis IS on the FF mirrorless, but none on the APS.  I don't want FF sized lenses, when APS will do....but I don't want to buy into a format that requires IS in the lens when the lenses I want don't have IS.

[///M5 2,833]

Ok.  Scratch that.  1490g wtf Sigma.  That is the same weight as the 2.8 canon so it buys me nothing.   Aargh. I keep the 70d for now i guess

[///M5 2,833]

Reviewing my shots it seems an 18-35 and the 70-200 would serve me well.  50% of my 17-55 shots are at 17, 30% at 55 and 20% in the middle

[MKader17 332]

2 hours ago, ///M5 said:

Only to put it on your phone it would need a bigger sensor to be worth a shit

I guess you completely understand my reasoning for wanting a mirrorless aps with image stabilization in the body and the 1.8 combos.  The only problem is that Sony includes their 5 axis IS on the FF mirrorless, but none on the APS.  I don't want FF sized lenses, when APS will do....but I don't want to buy into a format that requires IS in the lens when the lenses I want don't have IS.

I don't think I understand when you say FF sized lenses. From what you mentioned it seems like you get more out of a lens on FF than you do on APS. So shouldn't the APS lenses be bigger and more expensive to achieve the same focal length and aperture?

[///M5 2,833]

13 minutes ago, MKader17 said:

I don't think I understand when you say FF sized lenses. From what you mentioned it seems like you get more out of a lens on FF than you do on APS. So shouldn't the APS lenses be bigger and more expensive to achieve the same focal length and aperture?

No a lens is a lens you can't change it.  Same focal length on any camera same fstop as well.

That being said on a crop sensor that lens will seem to have more reach since the sensor only uses less of the lens diameter.  Being a smaller sensor it gathers less light too so you need a faster lens to compensate

[///M5 2,833]

I say ff as that is the defacto standard to help normalize what the reach and light gathering capabilities are

[///M5 2,833]

Focal length, fov and dof all relate to distance to the target.  Nothing normalized naturally

[///M5 2,833]

Perceived fov is then related to the sensor.  

50mm 2.0 on a full frame would give the same field of view on a sensor cropped to 1/10 the size as a 500mm f20.0.  Dof however would still be as a 50mm 2.0 which magically exactyl equates to the same length as the 500m f20.0

[///M5 2,833]

Exactly why a teleconveter doesnt change the dof of the lens but the perceived is of a lens that has been multiplied in FL and Fstop by the tc multiplier.

[///M5 2,833]

So it is either fuji or canon atm.

[///M5 2,833]

Ugh.  Now i read canon is releasing a mirrorless this year with ef mount.  

Figures it follows their mantra.  Don't be first but be the best

[dem beats 1,223]

EF mount mirrorless is boner town!

[///M5 2,833]

I really want in body stabilization please.  No reason to not have it in the lens and the body.  

[///M5 2,833]

200 f2.8 primes are cheap!

[///M5 2,833]

Real excited to take some shots at the game with whitey and see how many i shoot at what focal length.

[sandt38 448]

Need bokeh... shit.

[sandt38 448]

the prime 55 1.8 would have rocked this. unfortunately these flowers don't stay in bloom long.

[sandt38 448]

[Godsmack 361]

On May 28, 2016 at 10:24 AM, ///M5 said:

All prices B&H or Adorama.  Only listed lenses that potentially I could own.  I did no research on the quality of many of them, just the Fstop and range.  Next step in my process is to put together option packages and then research them.

If I weren't scared of the Sigma reliability it would be easier.

 

I'm scared as hell to pick up a Sigma or Tamron lens. The price is great but the reviews on anything besides stills is shit more often than not, and they often weigh much more than lenses from Nikon/Nikkor.

 

J

[///M5 2,833]

6 hours ago, sandt38 said:

the prime 55 1.8 would have rocked this. unfortunately these flowers don't stay in bloom long.

A 70-200 at 200 2.8 would rock it even more.  Although that shot in particular is worse on the Nikon than the Canon 200 as the Nikon suffers from serious FL shrinking at close focus

IIRC from my pre-shopping it is less than the 135 making the 70-200 Nikon not much of a portrait lens.  Canon still reaches 180mm at that focus 

[///M5 2,833]

5 hours ago, Godsmack said:

 

I'm scared as hell to pick up a Sigma or Tamron lens. The price is great but the reviews on anything besides stills is shit more often than not, and they often weigh much more than lenses from Nikon/Nikkor.

 

J

Reviews show the 24-70 Tamron to kill the Nikkor.  Not even close.

Same can be said about the full Sigma Art series.

Weight may be more, but usually because they actually seem to put optical quality as the priority.  I am shocked at the weight of the 50-100 1.8 though as I really was hoping for 2/3 the darn 70-200.  That pissed me off.

 

[///M5 2,833]

I'd be buying the Tammy 70-200 over the Nikkor as well.  No brainer.

[///M5 2,833]

That and early release ANY lens i dont want.  Firmware upgrades seem to be needed on all ....in particular 3rd party.

[sandt38 448]

1 hour ago, ///M5 said:

A 70-200 at 200 2.8 would rock it even more.  Although that shot in particular is worse on the Nikon than the Canon 200 as the Nikon suffers from serious FL shrinking at close focus

IIRC from my pre-shopping it is less than the 135 making the 70-200 Nikon not much of a portrait lens.  Canon still reaches 180mm at that focus 

The MKi is actually 190.