EOS 1n - defector needs advice!

[syd]

Hello all,

 

Some months ago I got allot of help in regard to questions I had about

an upgrade into the Canon EOS 1n for my landscape work. Previously I

have been a Contax 139Q user and a MF RB67 Pro-S user. I have just

returned from a photo shoot in the Sth of France and Spain trekking

some 500 miles on foot and towards the end of my trip the Contax

(which is a 1979 camera) began to audibly groan and is getting a

little too old for the amount of work I give it.

 

I have come to the conclusion that I need an upgrade in my 35mm set up

and decided on the EOS 1n. I have decided to sell off my Mamiya RB67

Pro-S and the Mamiya 127mm lens because I was frustrated by the focal

length and I really love the sharpness of the Yashica 24mm ML I was

using with the Contax. I could sell the 127mm and buy the 50mm

(25-28mm equiv in Medium Format) but I don't believe the Sekor 50mm C

is a true 24mm equivalent, nor do I feel confident that it will give

me the kind of sharp image that I crave for colour landscapes. Weight

in the field and lack of practicle portability killed my enthusiasm

for this format for now.

 

I nearly went the LF route with a Tachihara 4x5 but there are

issues with this set-up, that for now, don't allow me to move the way I

can with the 35mm format. I am very new to all things Canon but I am

heartened by the images of some pro photographers I respect who use

the EOS 1v's and the like, so my decision was made. I am hoping that

with the sale of my Medium Format kit I will be able to afford a good

1n body and have enough left over to score a really sharp top level

piece of glass in the 24mm range.

 

I am a very happy manual shooter and I really prefer the weight and

feel of Manual focus lens'. I do however want the option (I have never

used an AF camera) and flexibility to use the AF system that the EOS

template would allow but I also want to use solid lenses that have the

feel of manual focus lenses that allow MF as well as AF when I need it.

 

Two major questions then.

 

1. What lenses besides the Canon L's and USM's am I able to use that

give great sharp results in other brands? I am mainly interested in

fixed focal lengths for my wide 24mm lenses and I would really

apreciate advice on the other brands I can access for this camera. I

see that Canon has a 15mm Flat Field lens that looks incredible also,

anybody have experience with this?

 

Essentially, what other brands have incredible glass alternatives to

the Canon glass in wides through to 300mm plus, that are compatable

with the 1n?

 

2. I have a beautiful Yashica 24mm ML (Manual ofcourse) that is tack

sharp, is there any way to mate this lens with the 1n body...any

adapters? Or is this lens just not compatable with the Canon body? It

has been mentioned to me that I would need to get a split view finder

to assist in manual focussing, any other suggestions?

 

Thank you all.

[beauh44]

Hi Simon, I think you'll be happy with Canon. I'll take a stab at your two questions, and I'm sure others will be able to help too.

 

1) I'd be very wary of non-Canon lens compatibility issues. Sigma especially has been known to have problems, but so have Tokina. Besides, I don't think there are very many non-Canon lenses that perform as well as their Canon counterparts. (I'm sure there will be those who disagree regarding performance) There are certainly less expensive offerings, but the old saying "you get what you pay for" certainly comes into play. Canon's wide-angle offerings aren't as complete as I'd like, personally, because I shoot a lot of digital with its "crop factor". Canon makes a "non-L" lens - a 20mm f/2.8 USM lens, as well as a 24mm f/2.8. I own the 17-40mm F4/L and it's a great lens and isn't too expensive for an L lens. Its more expensive brother is the 16-35 f/2.8L, which if you don't need the extra light, doesn't buy you a whole lot. There is a 14mm f/2.8L prime lens, but I have no direct experience with it. You didn't mention this focal length, but one of my favorite Canon lenses - and one of the sharpest - is the 50mm 2.5 Compact Macro. I *love* that lens. My .02 cent's worth is to stick with Canon if at all possible on new lens purchases.

 

2) Your timing was good asking this one, just because this issue of Shutterbug magazine (Aug 2004) has an article on using MF non-Canon lenses with Canon digital SLR cameras. I suspect if the lens works on a 10D, it *should* work on a 1n. Anyway, the article mentions that the Canon 10D "can be used successfully with... Contax/Yashica RTS". There are a couple of links listed for resources - although I'm not sure if they are Yashica specific... probably not, but worth looking at: www.cameraquest.com. Our very own NK guy is mentioned too, with his very good: photonotes.org/articles/eos-manual-lenses/ and that's probably a good place to start. Best wishes . . .

[syd]

Hey Beau!

 

Thanks for your input mate, greatly apreciated. I will take your advice then and stick to the Canon glass. Could you help me out with a few more questions regarding the Canon lens designations? Am I able to use any and all of the Canon lenses with the 1n and what do all the various acronyms mean?

 

USM

L

EF

FD... etc?

 

Am I able to use any and all of these?

[lee_shively]

All Canon EF lenses fit all Canon EOS cameras.

 

The Canon EF 24/2.8 is a very good lens and is probably the optical equal of the Yashica lens you mentioned. The 24/2.8 is not a USM lens, which means it is not silent on autofocus and you do not have full-time manual focus capability. The AF is not loud, however, and I've never really missed the full-time manual focus on mine. Full-time manual focus capability is a feature of USM lenses that allow you to adjust the focus manually after the autofocus finds its target. To me, it's a necessity with long lenses--unnecessary but nice to have with shorter lenses.

 

I don't know if the Yashica lens can be adapted to an EOS body or not.

 

There's a plethora of information on Canon lenses on this site as well as the entire Internet. Enjoy.

[syd]

Ah... reading the links you provided, thanks! ;)

 

Best, Simon

[eigtball]

In response to the acronyms.<br><br>

 

USM - Ultrasonic Motor<br>

FD - Canon's Older manual focus mount<br>

EF - Electrofocus<br>

L - Luxury (Top of the Line Lenses)<br>

[jeffcallen]

You can get a Contax - Eos adapter:

 

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-

msg?msg_id=008m6f&unified_p=1">read more here</a>

[syd]

Thankyou Lee!

 

Thanks to Beau's links I was able to find an adaptor ring for the Yashica to fit the Canon EOS 1n! Yay... this would ostensibly mean that I would be able to use the other lenses I have from my Contax on the 1n body in manual mode and I could then spend money on something in the longer focal range amongst the Canon family. Any tips on killer 300-400mm lenses in the Canon family?

 

Best, Simon<div></div>

[lee_shively]

EF 300/4L IS and EF 400/5.6L. Excellent lenses that work great with Canon's 1.4x and 2x extenders. The 300mm has image stabilization that helps with camera shake. I usually use a tripod so I have the 400mm. My favorite lens in the Canon line is the 70-200/2.8L. It comes with or without the IS feature. Again, it does a great job with the Canon extenders.

[syd]

Lee,

 

Thanks for that; I'm curious to know your thoughts about tele's and zooms as opposed to primes and fixed focal lenghts in the Canon range of lenses. I am traditionally wary of lenses that are not primes because of the common issues of being weak at the extremes of their range. It is usually the extremes of these two ranges that I want a lens for. You have mentioned your favourite lens being a short Tele, what are your thoughts on the strengths of the lens given the shortcomings optically at both ends of this range? Have Canon been able to transcend these shortcomings then?

[marc_bergman1]

Simon,

 

One of the great things about the Canon EOS mount is the number of lens adapters you can use. Contax, Leica R, Nikon, and others are adaptable.

 

For 300mm and above you can't go wrong with the Canon EOS 300mm f/4 L or 300mm f/4 L IS. For 400mm the EOS 400mm f/5.6 L is a sweet lens.

 

These lenses have the fit, feel, and function you probably desire. Watch for them in the photo.net cleassifieds.

[syd]

Hey Marc!

 

Thanks for the heads up on those focal lengths. What are your thoughts about buying these lenses used from the Adoramas and B&H;s of the world? WHat about KEH etc? I am somehow more at ease purchasing from established photo businesses than through private sellers, particularly when I am so far away... Australia.

[gary_ferguson1]

Simon, welcome to Canon!

 

One thing you'll soon be wrestling with is the bizzare "L" designation. It originated as a description for a lens with one or more elements made from exotic glass. However, over time it's lost much of its usefulness.

 

The 35-350mm L isn't a particularly good performer, while the 100mm Macro (non-L) is superb. The 24mm Tilt & Shift is an L, but its equally well-made brothers, the 45mm T&S and 90mm T&S, aren't awarded "L" status. The 85mm 1.2L is a magnificent lens, but unlike the 85mm 1.8 (non L) it's slow to focus and it can't take advantage of the new E-TTL II flash technology. I wish you luck navigating through the acronyms!

 

I take my hat off to you for your 500 mile photographic march, hopefully you'll be posting some of the results on photo.net. If you carry a tripod on your travels then there's some great Canon optics to choose from, the 300mm f4.0L and the 400mm f5.6L both have outstanding reputations and are relatively light at about 1.2KG. If you don't carry a tripod then there's a second 300mm f4.0L with Image Stabilisation, unfortunately it's more expensive and second hand examples are thin on the ground.

 

Your decision to use a Yashica/Zeiss 24mm on a Canon body is interesting. After 25 years with Nikon I switched to Canon about 18 months ago. I'm generally delighted with the move but I think even the most die-hard Canon fan would accept the wide angle range is a bit patchy. I recently bought the 14mm 2.8L and I've found it an indifferent performer, I get better results with a relatively cheap 15mm Voigtlander on a Leica rangefinder. I've tried (and happily didn't buy) the 28mm f1.8, maybe I had a poor sample but the results were disappointing. The 20mm f2.8 is good at medium apertures, but not an exceptional lens. Conversely there's some great options at 24mm. I also have the 35mm 1.4L, it's terrific but if I were buying again I'd save weight and money and get the (non L) 35mm 2.0.

 

I'll be interested to find out how you get on with manual focusing on the EOS 1n. The viewfinder screens are really designed for auto focus and don't have split rangefinders or micro-prisms. However, I'm still intrigued by the Yashica/Zeiss manual option for wides as range focusing with an auto focus lens isn't particularly effective. So, keep us posted on your experiences.

[syd]

Hey Gary,

 

Great information and it left me saying, "zoiks!", to myself actually. It seems that in every camera system there's a mine field of issues, pro's and cons to navigate. I think one of the best things I might be able to do is hire some of the lenses I am looking at buying in the Canon system and shooting some tests to see for myself where the strengths and weaknesses are. Strangely enough it is not always the case that the lesser lens in any given range is the poorer in quality; Case in point are my Yashica lenses.

 

I had a friend who had a Contax system with the Zeiss T 50mm and he wanted my Yashica lenses after he tried them, they really were so much better. I have had many a film lab comment on the sharpness of my 24mm lens without their knowing what it actually was. I must have paid only $200 US for that lens second hand many years ago... isn't it always the

way? What I am having trouble reconciling myself to is that HUGE price difference between the L series lenses and the standard EF lenses. I am always aware of the law of diminishing returns. The question comes, is an L lens actually $1000 better than many of the EF lenses?

 

Again... zoiks! I have homework to do here.

[lee_shively]

Ah, the eternal question! Are the expensive lenses really worth it? Actually, all the Canon lenses I've owned are quite good for the purposes I've used them. That includes the "consumer" zooms. The build quality of the lower priced lenses is not the greatest but, optically, they all perform pretty well.

 

Primes vs. zooms? I have the 24/2.8 and the 35/2, both of which are pretty decent performers. I also have the lower-priced 20-35/3.5-4.5 zoom. All the lenses do their jobs extremely well. I used to shoot a lot of scenics and I generally followed the same procedure. If I would put the zoom on a camera, put the outfit on a tripod, set a medium small aperture and, everything else being equal, I could shoot a picture that you could not tell from one using prime lenses, even L-series lenses. But if I were to shoot at wider apertures or shoot subjects that show distortion, the primes would win.

 

So, it's fitting the tool to the task. Canon makes some cheap lenses that will perform great under certain conditions. Canon also makes some expensive lenses that will perform with the best under all conditions.

[beauh44]

Hi Simon, I see you've gotten lots of good advice while I stepped away! With regards to Canon's old FD lenses, again, I have no personal experience, but the same Shutterbug article I mentioned above says: "Ironically, Canon's own FD lenses are difficult to adapt to EOS bodies". When Canon went to electrical lenses, they burned a few bridges and really p***** some people off. But in the long run, I think they have a very good design. Some would say a weakness of Nikon is their attempt at remaining backwards compatible with lenses made in the '50s. Best wishes . . .

[eric merrill]

Simon:

 

<p>

<i>"Some months ago I got allot of help in regard to questions I had about an upgrade into the Canon EOS 1n for my landscape work."</i>

 

<p>

Are you really sure this is what you want to do? Seems like you are taking a step backwards going from MF to 35mm.

 

<p>

I have a Canon 1v, and I'm really happy with it. The feature I like best is full time manual focusing that some lenses in the Canon line offer. I can use autofocus and then fine tune manually without doing anything other than focusing the lens. No switches to flip or anything. And then I can autofocus again when I want. Most of my subjects are fast-moving rug rats and curtain climbers. :)

 

<p>

I'm not sure I'd call moving to a smaller format an upgrade.

 

<p>

That said, I like this listing. Very concise summary of the EF lineup, although it hasn't been updated recently:

 

<p>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/8917/eflenses.html">http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/8917/eflenses.html</a>

 

<p>

If the budget allows, I'd be tempted to go with the 24/3.5 tilt shift lens for landscapes. It's manual focus only, but even I can usually keep up with the fastest of mountains. :)

 

 

<p>

--<br>

Eric<br>

<a href="http://www.merrillphotography.com/">Sioux Falls Portrait Photographer</a><br>

[pbizarro]

For landscape work, going from MF to 35mm does not sound reasonable, but it's your decision. A MF camera and a couple of lenses are not significantly heavier than the EOS 1N with L lenses.

 

My EOS 1V with booster weighs in at around 1.5 Kg. For serious wide-angle landscape work with EOS, nothing beats the 24 TS/E lens. This is the lens that I use mostly for scenics. It's ability to tilt is really nice to have. I also have the 35 1.4, perhaps the best wide angle in the EOS range.

 

All EF lenses will give you good to excellent sharpness for typical landscape aperture settings (f/11-f/16). But if you want the same sharpness at wider apertures, say f/2 to f/4, then you need to consider the fast primes, f/1.4. Regardless of what people say, f/2.8 lenses are not "fast" lenses, they were awarded that status with the introduction of the "slow" f/4.5-f/5.6 zoom lenses.

 

You already have a sharp 24mm lens, so why don't you buy a manual Yashica SLR? Why invest in the EOS line if in the end you will be using the 1N, or whatever, manually? If you like landscapes, and want quality in 35mm, the X-Pan is another option.

 

There are many Canon resources, try the Canon camera museum for a listing of cameras and lenses; or the Lens Book (III I think, these days).

[syd]

Hello Gents,

 

Well whether you know it or not you have actually helped me make a sound decision and after 24 hours of research and going through the evaluations I have decided to keep my Mamiya MF system, upgrade to a 50mm and maintain my Contax system by purchasing another body. I do believe that in a few years I may want to buy a 1v to have that in my arsenal but for now I will remain with the 6x7 neg size and a system that I know well. In response to those who asked if a move to EOS from MF was a move backwards...I should clarify that I would have purchased a 4x5 Tachihara and moved to LF if that had have happened and kept a 35mm system but now I will keep the MF and 35mm and possibly buy the Tachihara early next year and have the best of all three worlds. If you knew where I live and shoot you'd know how important it is to have a 35mm system. I must say though that I think 35mm gets a bad rap sometimes, just look at the format of the National Geographic... 35mm! ;)

 

I have logged the info here for future reference, thanks to all for your candid responses.

 

Best regards, Simon