bhedges1987

Hey all, When in apeture auto mode, my histogram isn't updating when I change my SS, so I can't tell when a photo will turn out dark or have enough light.... Do I possibly have some setting incorrect? I'm having to turn it to apeture priority mode to be able switch my shutter speed and have the histogram update? I have always shot completely manual since receiving this camera, so maybe this is just how it is? Thanks

EDIT*** found out I had to switch camera settings to take photo without lens.

So I just purchased a Rokinon 12mm. Trying to test it out, however, when I press the shutter down... Nothing happens? This is my first manual focus lens, so is there something I"m doing wrong? Thanks

Thanks for the reply. I was able to snag a used rokinon 12mm for pretty cheap. So for now I will go that route and pick up a 55-200 and see how things go. Eventually I will want that 16mm as it looks so nice.

Yeah I understand I"m wanting to cover a lot of things. I haven't looked much into the 50-230, but I will. Is the 16mm 1.4 worth the price to upgrade over the 18-55 for the wide angle vista and close flower w/ mountain background shots? I guess this is my main question. If the IQ isn't that much of an upgrade, I think I would lean more to going the samyang with the / 55-200 route.

I am a landscape, wildlife (elk, moose etc), and astro guy. I usually take a few trips to the mountains every year and kind of want to round of what I like doing. The 18-55 is great, it gets me decent wide angle, but lacks some on any animal that is further than 30 yards away. It's also just so-so for astro. I am debating on the 16mm 1.4 - this could cover astro (Though some say it's not very great). I also hear the 16mm required some effort to gain focus at infinity. I am no professional, but would welcome a good upgrade from the 18-55 2.8. The 16mm would also probably be my go-to for hiking and getting those vista and flower pics. Also debating getting the samyang 12mm WITH the xf 55-200. This would cover astro (better so I hear than the 16mm1.4). However I don't like the fact I would have to be going manual when I want my wide angle and flower shots, so there lies that downfall. The 55-200 - I know most people say it's not good for wild life, but I mean it's gotta give me more range than my 18-55 at the moment. Normally in the mountains, wildlife is around 30-60 yards away. I know the 100-400 is obviously what I want for wildlife, but that's just out of the question for now. Basically I guess I'm kind of asking if the 55-200 is decent for the type of wildlife shooting I do, if it's much of an improvement over my kit lens. Also asking if it's worth it to get the 16mm for my wide angle and vista shots and gaining some astro ability, over sticking with my 18-55 for landscapes and gaining the samyang for astro. Any input for those that have used any of the above are greatly appreciated. I hope I covered most of what I shoot and what my main focus is.

Hey All, new to the forum and photography in general. Came here to try to learn as much as possible. I have never taken a photography class or anything, just kind of learning on the fly and hope I can digest as much info here as possible. From Kansas City, frequent visitor of RMNP.

Any advice on finding it on this lens? I have tried a few different things. 1. I zoom in on a target at distance and then auto focus, switch to manual and keep the dial where the auto focus was at. (is this an okay way of doing it?) Does it matter what apeture I'm doing this at? Or should I never use the zoom on the lens when trying to focus to infinity? 2. Put it at f2.8 and tried to auto focus on something very far away, then manual focus in that object. Using the view finder to zoom in and help. 3. Keep it at f2.8 and just auto focus, then switch to manual and see where it's at, and keep it there until I go back at night. All 3 have given me way different answers. Any advice?