Free K&F MicroSD Takes Eons to Transfer, Plus Sigma 23 mm f1.4 Lens

[William Baroo1]

I ordered some UV filters. When I was a kid, the only person I knew who knew anything said to keep one on my lenses all the time. Then I read that they cut the light. Then later, I read that the really good ones do not cut the light significantly, they resist water spotting and fingerprints, and they are very tough. Okay; sounded good. I picked up some K&F Nano-X's.

K&F offered free MicroSD cards with them, so I figured that would be nice as well, if they actually worked. I now have two 64GB cards. They came with adaptors to make them fit cameras. Maybe the would work well, and if not, I wasn't losing anything.

I got myself a 23mm Sigma 1.4 for indoor shots, and I tried it today with a K&F card. It looks like it stored the images, but when I retrieve them, it's unbelievably slow.

Question: has anyone else here had problems like this with K&F or other cheap cards? Should I just dump these in the trash before they ruin pictures I care about?

As for the Sigma, I got it because I tried to take indoor photos of my son, and I had problems with lenses that didn't go below 3.5 and 2.8. I can't run for a big light when a baby does something cute, and if there is a way to use a flash quickly without ending up with bad-wedding-reception-quality shots, my son will probably be 30 before I get on top of it.

The test images I managed to retrieve look wonderful. Am I right to think I should think more about low-light primes if I want to take handheld indoor shots?

 

[William Baroo1]

It looks like the adaptor is the problem with the card. I put a K&F card in a different adaptor, and it worked. A Lexar card in the K&F adaptor wouldn't start.

I tried both K&F adaptors, and neither works well.

 

[Jeff1573 73]

UV filters are a waste of money, in my opinion ...

 

[William Baroo1]

The claim is that they are now tougher than lens caps. I am hoping that's true, because it would mean I could leave the filters on al the time, forget the caps, and stop losing lens caps everywhere I go.

 

[William Baroo1]

The lens is fantastic.

Not only is the framing perfect for indoor work; the images are sharp and bright. I have seen people claim this or that lens gives strong colors, and I thought it was BS, since a lens is clear glass. This lens really does seem to provide deeper, more intense color. Maybe I'm imagining it.

I took a quick shot of my son on his mother's back, just trying to figure out how to work the lens and exposure. I wasn't trying to get a useful photo. Still, it came out great, so I saved it. Could be brighter, but still a keeper. I fiddled with it a little in Affinity.

Now I'm wondering about the other three Sigma 1.4 APS-C lenses.

 

[Thiophilos]

Only real old-fashioned folks mired in film technology talk about UV filters these days. Modern cameras are immune to UV. We can talk about clear protective filters, though. They are expensive considering they are a simple piece of glass. They protect against fingerprints and dust, but not against stray light. Lens hoods are better for this.

Use of protective filters is based on beliefs, and therefore generates intense emotions. People will go to war over the issue.

My opinion: use a filter if you need one, and don't if you don't.

 

[William Baroo1]

I wasn't even thinking about UV.

 

[Thiophilos]

I wasn't even thinking about UV.

Yes you were.

I ordered some UV filters. ...

 

[William Baroo1]

No, I was thinking of buying UV filters to replace lens caps. I called them UV filters because that's what manufacturers and photographers call them, and it's also what they are. I am not worried about UV.

 

[Thiophilos]

No, I was thinking of buying UV filters to replace lens caps. I called them UV filters because that's what manufacturers and photographers call them, and it's also what they are. I am not worried about UV.

Oh, OK, thanks for clarifying.