New toy! (photography content)

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 43 total)
  • New toy! (photography content)
  • Kit
    Member

    My first ‘proper’ lens arrived today πŸ˜€ Off down to the botanic gardens to try and not look like a paedophile πŸ˜‰ (And yes, those receipts need tidying)

    Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS

    Let me guess, your an ornithologist.

    whatever it looks like a lurrsshh piece of ”kit”

    bencooper
    Member

    Lovely – I’ve got the Minolta version of that lens, looks a bit more battered than yours but still a fantastic lens to use.

    stumpy01
    Member

    Nice. Post some piccies up, won’t you?

    Is that a full frame body? Or will you be getting a greater zoom result with a sensor crop factor added on?

    I took my 70-300mm Nikon lens (which is quite discreet compared to that!) to Ferry Meadows in Peterborough once, hoping to get some early evening wildlife shots and one bloke actually rounded his kids up & escorted them away from me, as I approached…..hilarious!

    Someone will be along in a minute to tell you that an iPhone 6 would have got you the same results AND fitted in your pocket better. πŸ˜€

    Lol at stumpy’s story and the fact about the iphone 6.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    Or will you be getting a greater zoom result with a sensor crop factor added on?

    You know, I never really understood this. It’s exactly the same zoom, only less of it, surely? You could do the same thing with a Full Frame shot using Photoshop, just delete the bits you don’t want from round the edge. By that logic you wouldn’t need to spend a couple of grand on a super-telephoto lens, you could just cut rectangle out of a piece of card and stick it to the front of your kit lens.

    Anyway. Nice glass, was it just the one kidney you weren’t using?

    chewkw
    Member

    Crikey what a long lens you have there. πŸ˜†

    Now get the lens to earn its keep by being some sort paparazzi.

    Sell your pics for a prize while at it. 😈

    cranberry
    Member

    Discrete it isn’t. πŸ™‚

    How much does that thing weigh ?

    EDIT: just seen that some of the weight will be offset by having a considerably lighter wallet.

    Enjoy, and show us some piccies when you get back.

    GregMay
    Member

    Nice, be interested to see some shots from that.

    Three_Fish
    Member

    You know, I never really understood this. It’s exactly the same zoom, only less of it, surely?

    Precisely: it doesn’t zoom, it just crops the visible image because the sensor is smaller than the 35mm standard. There is no change in magnification.

    cranberry
    Member

    You know, I never really understood this. It’s exactly the same zoom, only less of it, surely?

    Yes, the image is cropped compared to what it would be on a full frame camera – which is the same effect as zooming in more, so that 70-200 would in fact be 112 – 320mm ( IIRC ).

    bencooper
    Member

    It’s not quite the same as changing the focal length, though – the DoF stays the same. That’s why you can’t do shallow DoF with small sensors, like cameraphones.

    stumpy01
    Member

    Cougar – Moderator

    You know, I never really understood this. It’s exactly the same zoom, only less of it, surely? You could do the same thing with a Full Frame shot using Photoshop, just delete the bits you don’t want from round the edge. By that logic you wouldn’t need to spend a couple of grand on a super-telephoto lens, you could just cut rectangle out of a piece of card and stick it to the front of your kit lens.

    Dunno. You could do those things, I suppose.
    I am not sure there ever was anything ‘to understand’ as such. It’s just a conversion factor for a zoom convention, to apply it to different sized sensors, isn’t it?
    I was just curious whether using that lens on that body would be equivalent to a genuine 200mm at the long end or something more, like 300mm equivalent (if, for example the body had a 1.5x crop factor).

    Premier Icon matt_outandabout
    Subscriber

    Is that a lens in your pocket, or are you just…..

    5thElefant
    Member

    Yes, the image is cropped compared to what it would be on a full frame camera – which is the same effect as zooming in more, so that 70-200 would in fact be 112 – 320mm ( IIRC ).

    But… that’s a full frame body.

    Trimix
    Member

    Nice, I’m just waiting for my 70-200 f1.4 Nikon to turn up in the post.

    That will be added to my two other (outrageously) expensive lenses and leave me with no excuse not to take a decent photo now.

    wilko1999
    Member

    Would have been more impressed had the photo been taken with a Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS πŸ™‚

    donald
    Member

    Nice, I’m just waiting for my 70-200 f1.4 Nikon to turn up in the post.

    I’m guessing that’s either a typo or that you work for NASA πŸ™‚

    Kit
    Member

    Well, the fun didn’t last that long. Lens is a dud πŸ™ Major problems with the focus, so back to Hong Kong (or wherever) for a replacement…

    I did get some photos though, will post some up shortly!

    (and yes, full frame, so true 70-200mm)

    Premier Icon Russell96
    Subscriber

    Damm I’ve been lusting over one of those for my A7 will be interested in seeing the photos with it, the 35mm and 55mm Sony Zeiss lenses are great to have BTW

    Kit
    Member

    I’ve uploaded a bunch to Flickr here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gingerfox/sets/72157654412084783

    Minor-to-no editing (apart from the B&W lady), and I’m not a very good street/portrait photographer. Thought the STW crowd would enjoy this one though πŸ˜‰

    [url=https://flic.kr/p/wRTEqy]Dancers[/url] by Kit Carruthers, on Flickr

    5thElefant
    Member

    Has someone put acid in the Scottish water supply?

    Kit
    Member

    They’re foreigners hence the healthy look and the smiling faces πŸ˜‰

    CountZero
    Member

    Despite the issues, that looks really promising as a lens, the photos you’ve linked to look terrific.

    Kit
    Member

    Yeah it does. Images at f4 are a tiny bit soft, but up from there they’re grand. Bought it mostly for landscape duties, but makes a good portrait and sports lens!

    footflaps
    Member

    Now you just need a tele-converter and you’ll have 400mm

    [url=https://flic.kr/p/wQnQb5]Nikon f2.8 70-200 plus x2 Teleconverter[/url] by Ben Freeman, on Flickr

    cranberry
    Member

    But… that’s a full frame body.

    This I did not know, but I was trying to answer the general question of Cougar regarding crop-sensor cameras and their effect on focal lengths.

    cranberry
    Member

    Thought the STW crowd would enjoy this one though

    Well, one of them shaves.

    joshvegas
    Member

    [Quote]footflaps – Member
    Now you just need a tele-converter and you’ll have 400mm
    Nikon f2.8 70-200 plus x2 Teleconverter by Ben Freeman, on Flickr[/quote]

    [Img]https://fbcdn-photos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-0/1891198_10201128703832036_1210703838_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=fa9cc14bebf0357aa35263ab5fb70ded&oe=564EFB57&__gda__=1447912072_0cf679bdb13577ef740b25156b1ec570[/img]

    My attempt at getting a picture of the moon.

    gf1 into m4/3 to fd adapter into fd to m42 adapter into 3x teleconverter into 400mm 30quid lense.

    Thats 1200mm with and with the crop factor the moon kept flying out of shot πŸ˜€

    [Url]https://flic.kr/p/nAjLPr[/url]

    Kit
    Member

    No teleconverters sadly for the FE mount. I did nearly buy the Sigma ‘Bigma’ 50-500mm beast but a) I’d need a new tripod to hold the damn thing and b) I’d need a car to transport it around πŸ˜‰

    Premier Icon cynic-al
    Subscriber

    So is there a plethora of ace lenses I can plug into my Sony mirrorless with several adaptors?

    Kit
    Member

    Virtually any lens you like, Al, and you should only need 1 adapter (unless you’re mental πŸ˜‰ )

    joshvegas
    Member

    Ha i only used two as i didn’t have the required one.

    It was all a bit wobbly….

    bencooper
    Member

    I did nearly buy the Sigma ‘Bigma’ 50-500mm beast but a) I’d need a new tripod to hold the damn thing and b) I’d need a car to transport it around

    Too right, it’s a hefty lump. I rarely use mine because of that. If you want something long and light, the 500/8 reflex is fantastic.

    For the moon, to get a decent pic you don’t need tripods and loads of converters, you just need to spot meter off the moon and shoot handheld – this was with a 300/4 with 1.4x TC:

    [url=https://flic.kr/p/2XQBQM]Gibbous Moon[/url] by Ben Cooper, on Flickr

    If you want to get closer, a decent cheap telescope is the way to go.

    MrSmith
    Member

    So is there a plethora of ace lenses I can plug into my Sony mirrorless with several adaptors?

    Yes and no, some retrofocus wides have colour cast issues and smearing due to the angle of light hitting the sensor, the new back illuminated sensor in the A7r II should improve some WA lens use.
    You might need a ‘smart’ adapter like a metabones if your lenses don’t have a manual aperture.
    there aren’t many lenses you can’t fit to a Sony mirrorless body.

    Premier Icon Russell96
    Subscriber

    There are cheaper adapters for Nikon to Sony that still allow for aperture control, I’ve got the Fotodiox Nikon F mount to Sony that has a click/no click control. You loose autofocus and stabilisation and the aperture control is just steps and isn’t marked with the F numbers, but at the price for trying out my existing Nikon full frame lenses its worth it.

    Kit
    Member

    I’ve got the same adapter as Russell. Works pretty well, although don’t have any Nikon fit lenses now.

    Trimix
    Member

    Footflaps – how much light do you lose using that teleconverter ? Im considering getting one for my 70-200 f2.8.

    5thElefant
    Member

    Unless you get an expensive matched teleconverter I really wouldn’t bother. You’ll be hard pressed to spot the difference to cropping and up-scaling in post. With an old/cheap teleconverter it’ll be worse.

    Light loss uses the same multiplier as magnification, so if the teleconverter is 2x you get a 1/2 the light.

    Kit
    Member

    Well, turns out the lens was a) a dud and b) a disappointment.

    I had a problem with the AF so was going to send it back anyway, but then a night photographing fireworks revealed some weird flaring issues. Turns out another local photographer had the same issue. Shame, as it was really sharp and nice to use πŸ™

    This is at 200mm and f4
    [url=https://flic.kr/p/x7HF9v]Tattoo2015-16[/url] by Kit Carruthers, on Flickr

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 43 total)

The topic ‘New toy! (photography content)’ is closed to new replies.