M&A stoke

agreed, thought it was my monitor, don't be afraid to brighten it up just a touch. they're so sick though! keep postin!
 
thanks guys,

there was some tough light to deal with and I edited them all very quickly so they could get put into the new articles asap
 
finally organized a spreadsheet to keep track of project, much better than the word document I've been using for over a year now
 
Stoked to be working with some shots from an event in October that were never going to be seen again (hard drives were stolen, but still had the better half of the event on a card still in my camera)! I was finishing up the project right before my editing equipment was stolen and felt it to be my strongest piece to date (at the time), so I'm STOKED to share at least some of the content that only my eyes had seen!
 
just was out filming and urban and as we were leaving we got confronted by some conservation officers about us trespassing and luckily got out of it with only a warning and not a 300$ fine that they said they could have given us. It was totally worth it for a super tight 5 kink at this closed park.

598423_10152337485720366_829188811_n.jpg


pumped that we got the shot and didnt get fined.
 
Got myself a 70-200 f4, been thinking about this for a while, thankfully got it for £299(I'm pretty sure it was a misprice as they were selling it on ebay for £399) and spent way too long just making sure they weren't scamming me(It's a newly setup shop in the uk, out of some guys house), luckily it's through paypal too.
 
Yeah it's coming with the box I think, seems legit, guy has a large supply of lenses, why would the box make a difference to wether it was stolen?
 
ah ok, prolly good then. well think about it, if some guy steels a lens from a camera bag, chances are it wont be sold with a box, right? so the usually when a lens comes with its box its fine. well, fine in regards to theft.

anyways, you're gonna love the lens!
 
Fair enough, he buys and sells lenses or so it seems, and yeah I doubt he's stealing them. And yeah thanks, I hope so, don't like spending money haha.
 
I'm selling my bronica and a few other goodies, check my thread in sell/trade!https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/726167/

 
scored a new tamron 17-50 canon off of ebay for less than 250 christmas eve, said it would be shipped in 3-4 weeks..

got it today...stoked! haha
 
stoked i was asked to be the DP for a mini web series pilot shoot today and tomorrow. first time working with a legit actress, should be fun
 
Wow, got it today, definitely a steal for the price, I wanted it for the fast af that everyone raved about, coupled with the sharpness and build. Day after I bought it I thought i might regret it, as The focus on the 17-50 was just so slow I thought I might be doing something wrong, but holy shit, the speed is insane, focuses inside at least 3/4x faster than the tamron does in good light, I have a feeling I just won't be able to live with the speed of the 17-50 after this.
 
^^^ 70-200 is a beautiful lens, you're a lucky man.

I bought myself two lenses while I was in munich, both Takumars! I got the 135 3.5 with hood and an SMC 28 3.5 for 80 euros together seems like a pretty good deal :)
 
AF is gay unless its for photos. I feel like 90% of the users that have a tamron are using it for a cheap video solution.
 
But to be fair, people do make it out to be a better lens than it is. Its great for a $250-350 price point, but when people compare it to L glass or higher end 3rd party lenses, they are just wrong.
 
Been wanting to find this since my parents moved, finally dug it out of our garage today!

35351d1243116352-pentax-me-super-me-super_071111_51k_wex.jpg


And for a lens I have a 30-85 f4, and this:

2619688061_b6c4c8d0f1.jpg


super stoked, going to go get a couple rolls of film later today and start shooting!
 
Exactly, optically it's complete shit, and 90% of the kids on here don't need 2.8 for filming, so for a little more you are better off going 17-40L
 
Yeah, I bought it mainly for filming, although I did need 2.8(and more(although I didn't have the money for anything faster(that wasn't 50mm, which is too narrow))) If I had the money I'd probably get the 17-40 and a sub 35mm 1.4/8, but I can get by with the tamron for what I need.
 
I agree with that statement if you are strictly filming outdoors/ in a controlled light setting. There have defiantly been times where I have needed the 2.8. Other times, defiantly not. Im not 100% sure on this, but a lot of the people buying the lens are just starting out. $250 used compared to $600 used for the 17-40 L is defiantly a big jump for some people.

Its still a good lens for the price, but Ive read some (stupid) posts about people saying it rivals the 24-70 2.8L and 16-35 2.8L, which isn't correct in the slightest.
 
Meh for video they're the same and 2.8 and longer range is more beneficial. Stop speaking for video people when you don't shoot video.
 
All of thomas' opinions are photo driven. He always discredits things that are completely legitimate ideas ie using a tamron 17-50 over a canon 17-40L. For video, the 17-50 is better and for photo(especially full frame which is OBVI what thomas shoots) the 17-40L is a better lens hence why he thinks its better and is trying to tell people its better.
 
got my whole setup balanced and the mic and platform both don't get picked up by the fisheye

595794.jpeg

and of course it has to be sideways for some reason
 
only with the 16:9 in movie mode, and even then it is right on the edges. Took a few different tries, but now I have it set and I am pretty much never going to mess with it now haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top