File :-(, x, )
NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
ITT lenses we're currently lusting over
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=46&sort=7&cat=2&page=3
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelP 45Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2677Image Height1890Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:11:29 12:57:09ISO Speed Rating50Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1417Image Height1000
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
     File :-(, x)
pic related.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Now and always, the Noctilux.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>152952
And always will be till someone gives me a lot more money.
>> Anonymous
>>152952sucks

>>152968okay i guess, not worth the money
>> $19.99
50mm 1.2L
>> Anonymous
>>152981


canikon fag
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I have the Noctilust. Bad.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
70-200 2.8
>> linkiE !ei5A1FPDuk
>>153004

L, IS, etc.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>153005
yeah, got lazy
but that's the one
>> linkiE !ei5A1FPDuk
>>153009

Assumed so...was just me saying "me too"
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>153011
i'll probably have to end up getting the f4 though.. still great, just a little less awesome
>> Anonymous
24-70 f/2.8 L... 70-200 f/2.8L IS as well but not as much use for it atm.
>> Anonymous
40/2 Summicron-C and 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit to go on an M3 I am also currently lusting after.
>> M/A !n21TE7QU8U
Pfft...
Eh.
Sigma 30/1.4 i guess.
30mm is just perfect for portraits on a crop sensor.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Nikkor 85 / 1.4
>> Anonymous
>>153021

filter size on that thing is 62mm
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
     File :-(, x)
>>153005

agreed...just throw USM on as well and that's what I'm currently drooling over.
>> Anonymous
would anon take a used SB-600 for $150 firm on craislist? Assuming it looks like its in good shape.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>153196

Jesus says: go for it.
>> Anonymous
>>153200
Thanks J.C. ur da best

I think thats the first time Jesus has spoken directly towards me.
>> Buddha !XMQaICzxR.
>>153196
Buddha say, "Wise man invest in better equipment now rather than scrimp and regret later".

Go get an SB800.
>> Anonymous
i have every one of these lenses.

the canon ones anyway

get a job you morans
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>153236
college makes me poor
>> Anonymous
>>153238

i didn't go to college

the only real way to make money is be your own boss
>> Anonymous
>>153239
>the only real way to make money is go to college then become your own boss

fixed.
>> Anonymous
it's up to you if you want to waste a couple years and pay for it too
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>153246
>the only real way to make money is go to college then blow your own boss
Fix'd more
>> Anonymous
i don't know where you live

shit like that doesn't go down here in america, moran
>> Anonymous
>the only real way to make money is major in hard sciences.
>> Anonymous
>>153255>the only real way to make money is go to college then blackmail your boss
Fix'd further
>> Anonymous
fuck money.
>> Anonymous
>>153278
enjoy your poverty lol
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>153280
Actually, it's sorta sick just how high the "poverty" line is in some places...

/has lived _very_ comfortably under the poverty line
>> Anonymous
>>153281
What sort of other arrangements did you have?

Did you rent an apartment or squat?
Did you drive a car? (For people in cities, a car is usually a luxury, but for people who don't live in an urban core or have shifts past when public transporation shuts down in cities where it does, a car is a necessity.)
Did you have insurance? Medical, auto, etc.
Did you have any dependents?

I'm not saying living comfortably costs as much as most people think it does- it doesn't- but for most people' situations a decent living lies somewhere above the poverty line.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>153182

Still drooling over the 70-200 2.8. Touch wood nothing comes up that requires the cash and I can splurge on it this year as a treat.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>152949

Are you really saving up for that one now? It's a strange but amazing lens. I saw samples from careful testing and comparison and the quality is very good even by the usually high standards of macro lenses.

I'd be more tempted by it if I could convince myself I'd use it enough to make it worth while.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>153294
Lived in a housing co-op. (Separate houses [not communal living, heh], insanely cheap "housing fees" that cover all the standard rent+maintenance in exchange for a couple hours a month of "volunteer" activity.)

Cheap used vehicle. Insurance was a little nasty due age/sex, but not too bad due to an immaculate driving record. [Also, legally required...]

Medical insurance is unnecessary (Canada).
No dependents.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>153306
Actually, I recall something else:
When I was younger my parents pulled off the below-poverty-line thing quite well with two kids. Then again, artists and musicians and self-employment mean that tax writeoffs are insane. We lived in a nice house (another co-op), and lived quite decently - skiing locally and in the mountains, good food, etc. Of course, that probably counts as cheating since without the tax deductions I wouldn't think that the poverty line was anywhere near...
>> Anonymous
I'm still trying to track down a Tokina 28-80/2.8, but they're impossible to find these days.
>> Anonymous
>>153016
But you get 50% off! Just splurge and pay way less than the rest of us will have to!
>> Anonymous
i bet he has to suck some dick to get that discount

he's no stranger ot it lulz
>> Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Us pentaxfags finally get a 70-200 f2.8 AND HSM for 800. It's about fucking time. I want them to hurry the hell up on these.
>> Anonymous
>>153349

except sigma zooms are all fail
>> Anonymous
>>153373
ever actually used one or are you just spouting some generic dpreview fanboy shit?
>> Anonymous
The 10-24mm Tamron. Here's hoping it will outperform the 10-22mm...
>> Anonymous
>>153373

Right... They seem to like it a lot over here- http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102&sort=7&cat=37&page=3

Just because it doesn't have a Canon or Nikon logo doesn't mean its a bad piece of glass. The results from this one look great.
>> Anonymous
>>153380

the only thing they have going for them is cheap, cheap and cheap

that's about it, they have yet to make a remarkable zoom

good primes, though
>> Anonymous
>>153387

Meh, $200 cheaper than the Canon. Does Nikon make a 70-200 2.8 without VR? Or do they only have a 80-200?

$200 isn't really enough to make me swing the Sigma way. I'll buy their lenses when OEM don't want to make them, like a 30 or 50mm with HSM.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The only lens I'll ever need.
>> Anonymous
From what I've seen of the higher end Sigma lenses they are very nice. Compared to the Canon equivalents it can be 90% of the lens for 70% of the price

With some of the macro lenses and more exotic ones it is well worth considering Sigma and the other brands too. They are sometimes better for image quality.
>> Anonymous
It would maybe be the 70-200 2.8 IS since i already have the 85/1.2L II and the MP-E
>> noko
Sigma 30mm f/1.4..and it should either have arrived upstairs already, or will sometime today <3
>> Anonymous
if the Sigma were the same price as the Nikon or Canon, would anyone pick the Sigma?

no, you only buy a Sigma because it's cheap not because it's better.

bulletproof logic is bulletproof
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>153512
Some sigma lenses might not have an equiv for your manufacturer.
>> Anonymous
>>153513

>> I'll buy their lenses when OEM don't want to make them, like a 30 or 50mm with HSM.

hoho
>> Anonymous
>>153512
Not true.

Lenses are subjective, and Sigma makes some pretty nice lenses. I don't own any of them, but I can see myself on an infinite budget finding occaison to use the 30/1.4 and the f/1.8 series of wides. All of them produce some nice looks.
>> Anonymous
>>153512

Some Sigma and Tamron, etc. lenses can be better than the Canikon equivalents. Canon and Nikon are not flawless gods. Sometimes if you want the best you don't buy Canon or Nikon.
>> Anonymous
>>153553

>> that's about it, they have yet to make a remarkable zoom

>> good primes, though

none of their zooms are any good.

again, the only thing they have is cheap
>> Anonymous
>>153554

feel free to name some
>> Anonymous
>>153558

Tamron 90mm macro compared to the Canon 100mm macro. Tamron gives better detail in results.

A bunch of other macro lenses from other brands have similar placements all over the board. Some better and some worse. It's worth testing and seeing what you like. You really can get a bargain sometimes. :)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
oh yeah

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-300Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution314 dpiVertical Resolution314 dpiImage Created2007:05:29 08:24:20Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/13.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length37.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height900RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHard
>> Anonymous
>>153393

you seem to be forgetting the sigma 100-300 f4 that does not cost a million dollors

god id buy one tomorrow if they made this in K mount with HSM
>> Anonymous
I have £1000 to spend on a new lens. Should I go for that or go on holiday and get laid? Dilemma.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>154117
Get laid. Take pictures during the getting-laid with the lenses you have now.
>> Anonymous
>>154121

What if I looked like a troll and/or was gay?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>154122
Then convert to b&w and call it art.
>> Anonymous
>>154123

And post the results here for you?
>> Anonymous
Nikon AF-S 600mm f/4 ED VR II
>> Anonymous
Lusted over the 70-200 VR, 17-55, and 105 f/2.5 ais.

Promptly got em all.

Now I'm lusting over the 11-16 Tokina 2.8. But it's a damn Tokina... Other mini lusts are for the 300mm (any version, AF-I on up, as I have the 1.7x TC), that or probably the 120-300mm Sigma f/2.8 with a Sigma TC probably.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
pic related... currently saving for this lens
>> Anonymous
>>154113

those are all primes
>> Anonymous
>>154333

Yeah, you are right. I'm more of a primes girl than anything else.

Still, it does mean that Canon and Nikon aren't always on top! If those ones can happen then it is worth testing and looking at results before making assumptions. Baaaaargaaaaains. ;)
>> Anonymous
>>154346

again

if the Sigma were the same price as the Nikon or Canon, would anyone pick the Sigma?

no, you only buy a Sigma because it's cheap not because it's better.

bulletproof logic is bulletproof
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>154365
Id pick the Sigma because the canikons wont fit on my body.

BULLETPROOF HUH?
>> Anonymous
>>154346
Girl?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Fuck you, NatureGuy! This thread just cost me £950.

I bought the 70-200 2.8 IS I was lusting over...this was the last straw for me.

I am so weak.
>> Anonymous
>>154429

yes, girl. they exist.

>>154365

faulty logic is faulty.

i would as some are simply BETTER lenses. the tamron 90mm gives better detail in macro shots than the canon 100mm. i've seen the results from comparisons. this sort of thing does happen. it isn't always so obvious a choice. the other brands also offer lens specifications that the others don't. try not to be a lens snob or brand fanboy.
>> M/A !n21TE7QU8U
>>155458
>This thread just cost me £950.

This sentence just made my day.
>> Anonymous
>>155460

again, that's a prime

sigma zooms suck shit
>> Anonymous
>>155497

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM focuses faster and is sharper than any Nikon 80-200 f/2.8D that I've used.
>> Anonymous
>>155502
and what version of the 80-200s have you used? the AF-D version? or what about comparing it to the 70-200vr?
>> Anonymous
>>155506

I believe I denoted that I tried the AF-D version. When shopping for a fast tele zoom I tested 3 copies of the last two-ring version of the 80-200 and was unimpressed with the optical performance wide open past 150mm. The focusing was a bit slow, at least compared to the AF-S/HSM models, and the torque from the focusing system was a bit annoying. Not a bad lens by any means, but I liked the overall performance and handling of the Sigma better. Not to mention that the Sigma works much better with teleconverters.

I wouldn't really compare the Sigma to the 70-200VR because it lacks VR.
>> Anonymous
>>155517
oh, indeed you did. read right over it. my apologies, good sir.
>> Anonymous
The Bigma is a great lens too.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Nikkor 35/2. I tried Sigma, but it failed work as a lens is supposed to work with my D80.

Also the build quality sucked: Hood wanted to came loose all the time, paint chipped off very easily, manual focus ring was very stiff and coarse etc... not to mention barrel distortion (for a prime lens) extremely poor border quality no matter what aperture you used.

Of course the 35/2 is a stop darker, made of plastic etc. etc; but I've tested it and it didn't feel nearly as annoying to use as the Sigma.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern750Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2005:10:02 23:24:05Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/11.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/11.0Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFlashFlashNo FlashFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width752Image Height500RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessSoftSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>155463

I'm glad one of us was laughing because I'm the one who's going to have to offer up their tender anus to strangers in order to pay the bills this month.

I'm looking for a decent filter for now. Maybe I'll go all out and get the B+W Kaesemann CP. I hear they work out well in the long run as they last longer.
>> M/A !n21TE7QU8U
>>155770
Your tende....
That was YOU last night???
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>155780

Please...we...we...promised to keep it confidential. You know our families would never understand.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Man, I'm really jonesing to buy myself a new lens. I've been playing around with my old Minolta manual SLR with its big, beautiful 50/1.4. I'm thinking I might like to get Canon's 50/1.4 for my Rebel.

Either that or the 70-300IS. Or maybe the 28/1.8 to replace my 35/2.

Dammit, I want too much stuff.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>155829

I know what you mean. It never ends. I just spent myself into whoredom and then I'm already planning on saving up for the next thing I have in mind. It's like crack.

"Gotta catch 'em all!"