File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
hey /p/ help me out here plox?

im trying to decide between a Sigma 20mm/1.4 for ~$420 or a Pentax 50mm/1.4 for ~$260.

I'd be using it for low light shooting and general shit my kit lens couldn't take care of. Do I spend extra on the Sigma or not?
>> Anonymous
SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4 on eBay for $80 use the $180 for hookers and drugs.

winner
>> Anonymous
get some double a's lol
>> Anonymous
>>191204

I lold.
>> Anonymous
>>191202
>Pentax 50mm/1.4 for ~$260.

$195 on Amazon.com
>> Anonymous
>>191204
enjoy your lithifail.
>>191203
good glass?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>191209good glass?

Good glass?

THIS
IS
LEGENDARY
>> Anonymous
Two radically different focal lengths. Do you want a wide (20mm) or a medium tele (50mm)?

If you're not sure, split the difference and probably come out on top with a normal, either a 28, 30, or 35mm. It has approximately the same perspective as human vision, so it looks very natural and is easy to compose with. It's an intermediate length, usable for pretty much everything.

>>191209
The other guy is right. Pentax has pretty much never made anything but a great 50/1.4, but the ones it made for the M42 Screwmount ("Takumar" will be in the name) are considered some of the best lenses ever made for 135-format photography, on par with Leica, Zeiss, etc. Supposedly, the absolute best of these is the one that reads "Super-Multi-Coated Takumar" on the lens, but they're all awesome.

It's manual-focus only. Shouldn't bother you, but some people insist on autofocus, so you should know. You'll have to buy a cheap adapter, just a little piece of metal that hooks it to your K-mount camera. Except for that, if it's in good condition it'll work just like a new lens.
>> Anonymous
>>191245
>the ones it made for the M42 Screwmount ("Takumar" will be in the name) are considered some of the best lenses ever made for 135-format photography

Oh hai, did you miss where OP is talking about a DIGITAL CAMERA.
>> Anonymous
>>191265

You can get an adapter.
>> Anonymous
>>191265
Yeah, and with a few exceptions, digital SLRs based on 135-format SLRs use... wait for it... lenses maade for 135-format.

I was specifying lenses for 135 because some very nice lenses have been made for other formats I'm not as familiar with.
>> Anonymous
>>191265Oh hai, did you miss where OP is talking about a DIGITAL CAMERA.

Did you miss the fact that probably 90% of the lenses you can buy are made for FILM CAMERAS? And it just so happens that your DIGITAL CAMERA can use them?
>> Anonymous
>>191274

I think it's safe to ignore>>191265since he really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

Or he's a bad troll.
>> Anonymous
>>191275
>>191274
>>191267

Hey samefag, how's it going?
Just because a lens is TITS OUT for a film camera doesn't mean it will perform as well for a digital camera since they don't work the same way.
>> Anonymous
>>191277

And now you've just made it too damn obvious you're a troll.

Stop posting please.
>> Anonymous
>>191278
No, he's right. Lenses don't always perform at the same level, but they're exceptions. The lens is question is "TITS OUT" on both formats. Do a Flickr search for "50/1.4" and "Takumar" and look around if you don't believe me.
>> Anonymous
>>191282
>they're exceptions

To state this a bit more clearly: I mean lenses that are good on film and suck on digital are rare.
>> Anonymous
>>191282No, he's right. Lenses don't always perform at the same level, but they're exceptions

I don't think any of us are qualified to understand the relationship between 35mm film and a digital sensor but just by common freaking sense:

If a lens perform "TITS OUT" on 35mm film, a digital sensor which crops out the center part will also be "TITS OUT".

I've never heard of a good lens on film being bad on digital.

If anything, a mediocre lens on film can be good on digital.
>> Anonymous
>>191282

Fair enough, but is it going to be significantly better than the $195 made-for-digital one that Pentax currently offers? And I mean at least the Pentax one has AF. The Takumar one won't.
>> Anonymous
>>191287

Pro tip, they're both Pentax.
>> Anonymous
>>191287
Technically, if anything, the newer lens (with thirty years of development in coatings and glass) will be better. Aesthetically, probably not, but it's a matter of taste. Go see some sample shots and make your own call.

>>191286
Go looks around this guy's site of reviews of Nikkors. He tests them on both formats and notes when it's better/worse on one or the other.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html
>> Anonymous
>>191290
Takumars are old manual focus lenses for M42 screwmount.
>> Anonymous
>>191290

No shit, asshole, but I bet Pentax has gotten better at making lenses for digital cameras in the last 20 fucking years.
>> Anonymous
Sigma doesn't even make a 20mm 1.4.

You're either looking at a 20mm 1.8 or a 30mm 1.4.
>> Anonymous
>>191291

>Aesthetically, probably not

The "not" is a typo, sorry.
>> Anonymous
>>191294
Quit being a douche. New lenses are good. Old lenses were often just as good.
>> Anonymous
>>191299

Nah,

>> Aesthetically, probably not

works.
>> Anonymous
>>191300

Ken Rockwell disagrees
>> Anonymous
Get a 24mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4 or 1/7 from KEH and save money.
>> Anonymous
>>191202

You will not be disappointed by the DA f/1.4. Also, when shooting with such a narrow DOF, auto focus can be especially important, especially in low light situations when you can't see well through the viewfinder.
>> Anonymous
>>191745

If you can't see shit in the viewfinder, autofocus probably isn't going to work either unless you have AF assist.
>> Anonymous
>>191865

facepalm.jpg

You're doing it wrong.
Throw away your DSLR and buy a P&S you idiot.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>191865
And why wouldn't someone have AF assist? Hell, even the ghetto laser pointer AF assist...
>> Anonymous
>>191872

Have you ever tried autofocusing in darkness you fucking idiot?

The lens will be hunting and unless you have AF assist, it will never lock on anything.

>>191874

Because most cameras use a series of strobing flashes from the built-in flash and it's awkward as fuck to raise it to AF then pop it back in for the picture?
>> Anonymous
>>191881

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus_assist_beam
>> Anonymous
>>191883

>> Because most cameras use a series of strobing flashes from the built-in flash
>> Anonymous
>>191885
>Some cameras, like for example the Canon EOS 20D do not incorporate a dedicated AF assist beam but can use its internal flash as a stroboscopic flash
>Some cameras, like for example the Canon EOS
>Some cameras,
>Some
>> Anonymous
>>191886

Oh wow, your source is Wikipedia, man?

Nikon uses an AF lamp.

Canon uses the built-in flash.
Pentax uses the built-in flash.
Olympus uses the built-in flash.
Sony uses the built-in flash, except the A700.

Yeah, sure.. "some"
>> Anonymous
wow u fags are ignorant
only p&s cameras use flash for af assist
dsrls use ir af assist beams
unless you have a shit camera i guess
lol poor assholes
>> Anonymous
>>191890

Actually, point-and-shoots use beams and DSLRs use the flash.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>191890
0/10
>> Anonymous
>>191889

Nee-cone FTW!
>> Anonymous
>>191895
It's Nee-con, not Nee-cone, fag, get it straight. Also enjoy your overpriced shitty glass.
>> Anonymous
>>191895

Well, yeah. I guess that's one thing they have going for them.

Until you realize that little lampt doesn't do shit most of the time.

The strobing flash works well but then people think you took the picture already.
>> Anonymous
>>191897
Lamp works well on my D70s.
>> Anonymous
>>191892
>Actually, point-and-shoots use beams and DSLRs use the flash.

P&S > DSLR???
>> Anonymous
>>191902

Phase detection > Contrast AF
>> Anonymous
>>191902
Except when you consider everything else that makes a DSLR superior to a P&S
>> Anonymous
>>191896
but its a long o sound, not short o!
>> Anonymous
If you attach a flash, such as the 580 or the 430 onto the canon, it will use the infra-red beams from that to assist focusing. The flash doesn't need to fire for it to work. You can also use Canon's Speedlite ST-E2 control unit to have the beams without the flash unit too if you happened to already have a multi-flash set up.
>> Anonymous
>>191936The flash doesn't need to fire for it to work.

Only on xxD bodies. It will still fire on xxxD unless you manually shut it off after AF locks.

But the whole point was that your AF won't lock unless you have AF assist.
>> Anonymous
>>191940

Oops, on xxD bodies and higher.
>> Anonymous
>>191936infra-red beams

And technically, it's not infrared because you can see it..
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>191881
Uh...while the strobing is annoying, my XSi/450d has an option to disable firing the flash. I can pop it up, use the strobe to focus, and then shoot without it firing.
>> Anonymous
>>191957Uh...while the strobing is annoying, my XSi/450d has an option to disable firing the flash. I can pop it up, use the strobe to focus, and then shoot without it firing.

Mind telling us where in the menus that option is?

If you raise it in manual modes to assist, you still have to pop it back down, otherwise, it will fire. But if you are saying Canon now has an option to change the built-in flash to assist-only mode, please tell us where it is in the menus.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>191962
Sure. I got paranoid and went and tried it just now actually. It works.

1. Pop up the flash hitting the "flash" button with the lightning bolt.
2. Hit Menu.
3. Go to "Flash control", third from the right, fourth from the left (middle "wrench" icon).
4. Change "Flash firing" from "Enable" to "Disable".
5. Use your focus-assist flash without it firing!
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>191966
Oh, for got to add: I'm doing this is "Creative zone" manual/semimanual modes. I have no idea about anything Auto.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>1919663. Go to "Flash control", third from the right, fourth from the left (middle "wrench" icon).

There is no "Flash control" in the middle menu.

C. Fn 07 however prevents the AF beam from firing, which kind of defeats the whole purpose.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
     File :-(, x)
>>191980
Who said middle menu?

Middle "wrench" icon.

>>191966third from the right, fourth from the left
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>191987
Hey...that's no fair dammit!

/Ninja erase'd...