willie_ju

It's been a long time since I sold mine, so everything is fuzzy. I think your camera is in the green zone, but it's set to a PIC mode other than 1. Try this: while pressing the mode button, turn the main dial until the display shows 1.

The 1.4x converter is compatible with any lens 135mm or above, except the 135mm 2.8 soft focus. You can use the 2.0x converter, though.

USM is a type of focusing motor built into some Canon lenses. There are three types of motors. USM is known for quick and near-silent focusing action. <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon/lens-motors">Here's</a> an explanation of each by one Canon user.<p>

The original 100mm f/2.8 had the older AFD (Arc Form Drive) motor; the newer version has USM. I haven't used the new one, but all I've read about it seems to indicate the two are virtually identical as far as optical performance. I would recommend the USM version because it lets you focus manually any time, even in AF mode.<p>

However, if portraits of a sharply focused subject against a creamy background blur are your thing, I admit the 135mm f/2.0L has the edge. Decisions... Another option is to get the 100 macro and add the 200mm f/2.8L later.

My 135mm f/2.0 is as sharp as my 100mm 2.8 macro, which is saying something. I have no reservations using it wide open, though I rarely do because depth of field is so shallow. Optical performance at f/2.8 and f/4.0 is outstanding. But before you decide to buy it, make sure it's the right focal length for your intended application. I have found that 135mm is a little long for portraits, making its uses somewhat limited. The flattening of the face that occurs because of the distance between you and the subject is often excessive. Increasingly, I have been reaching for the 100mm macro for portraits.

Not quite. I started with the 3021/410 combo and found it to be a little wobbly with the P67 (with any lens), especially doing verticals. I switched to the 3233 and it's a lot more stable because of the locking center braces. I have been thinking of switching heads too sinde the 410 geared head<i>which has no locks</i>doesn't seem all that stable. I would suggest you take a look at the 3039 super-pro head.

There was a Maxxum 8xi.

The chaing engages itself when you mount the lens but the prism has to be attached first.

You could turn the camera 90 degrees to the other direction.

I have both, and a 100mm 2.8 macro (non-USM). I use all three for

portraits. Both the 135mm and 200mm are capable of extremely smooth

background blur, but the 135 is a tad sharper. I rarely use the 135 at

f/2.0 because of the shallow depth of field. It's also soft wide open.

I use it mostly at f/2.8 and f/4.0. On the other hand, I use the 200mm

wide open with total confidence. For candid shots, the 200mm is

better. I stand somewhere between 15 and 16 feet for head and shoulder

shots, and around 20 feet for half-body shots. I think the 135mm is

close to the 100mm focal length, but they're different lenses. I find

the 100mm macro has the highest contrast of the three.

I have the 200mm f/2.8L and find it to be a specialized lens. Its

uses are more limited than a 50 or 100, but it's very sharp and

contrasty, with pleasing background blur, very similar to the 50

f/1.4.

 

<p>

 

1. Yes, it is a far better portrait lens than the 50 for head and

shoulder shots mainly because of its ability to blur background to

mulch. I would say it does a better job than the 50 for head and

shoulders because of the greater distance. With the 50, you'd have to

stand pretty close to the subject for head and shoulders. You may or

may not like the perspective at that distance. The enlarged nose

isn't so much a problem as enlarged breasts...

 

<p>

 

2. I took out a tape measure and found that for tight horizontal head

and shoulder shots of a 6-ft tall frame, my feet were around 12-13

feet from the subject. I had a tiny bit of space on each side of the

shoulders. For vertical shots, 15-16 feet.

 

<p>

 

3. I haven't used a 100-300 zoom but I would think the blur wouldn't

be as nice and smooth. I had a 70-210 once and found it to render

background objects like foliage and fences with double-edges. I also

have the 135mm f/2L and the difference is there but negligible. Don't

know about a 300.

 

<p>

 

4. Yes, other things being equal, the blur is more pronounced at 2.8

than at 5.6. Besides aperture, tough, you can control blur by

adjusting the camera-subject-background relative distances. The

farther the background and the closer the subject, the more

pronounced the blur.

The new 100mm 2.8 macro USM has it.

According to an old brochure, the EOS 10s (which replaced the 630) has

a built-in interval timer. Without a special back, the 10s could be

set to anywhere between 2 and 36 frames and the interval shutter times

could be adjusted between 1 second and 24 hours. It had advanced

features back then such as 5fps advanced rate, three focus points,

mirror pre-fire, and 14 custom functions.

The RT doesn't have the QCD and differs from the others in that it has

a pellicle mirror. I handled it briefly and must say I liked being

able to see the subject at the instant of exposure.

Hung, get a life.

There was a series of Canon camera commercials on TV about twelve

years ago where some baseball players pronounced it as a word. I think

the "green zone" feature that touted EOS cameras as being

user-friendly was introduced then.

<a href="http://people.we.mediaone.net/wju/canonlenses.htm">Here.</a>

I can't compare the 200mm to the zoom because I don't own the zoom.

The image quality of the 200mm is slightly better than the 100mm

f/2.0, especially in color rendition and contrast. Sharpness is about

the same, with the 200mm enjoying a very slight edge. It provides very

high image quality overall and is a great value in the Canon line.

But it's a specialized lens. Finding the right distance from the

subject is something you'll have to explore. And if you're shooting

handheld, you will never see the advantage it has over the 70-200mm

zoom. I suggest the zoom for its versatility in covering events, the

prime for landscapes and other.

1. Auto film rewind cancel.

2. Film leader left outside film cartridge.

3. Auto DX-code cancel.

4. Autofocus activated by AE Lock button.

5. Aperture set by main dial, shutter speed set by rear dial.

6. Shutter speed and aperture settings in 1-step increments.

7. Manual focus touch-up disabled (using USM lenses).

8. Centerweighted average metering (in place of evaluative metering).

Thanks, Bob.

Does anyone know if the tripod mount ring for the EF 200mm 2.8L II fits the old version of the lens? Thanks.

I've been using a 100mm 2.8 macro lens (non-USM) exclusively for portraits for the past few months. In comparing the results with pictures taken with the 135 f/2.0 in the past, I've noticed that the 135 has slightly lower contrast. Although I prefer the blur of the 135, slides taken with the 100 seem to have a snap that the 135 cannot approach. I'd like to hear opinions from others who have used these two lenses. Am I seeing differences caused by sample variation?

Sorry about the typo in the title. That should have been 100mm.

I've been using a 100mm 2.8 macro lens (non-USM) exclusively for portraits for the past few months. In comparing the results with pictures I took with the 135 f/2.0 in the past, I've noticed that the 135 has slightly lower contrast. Although I prefer the blur of the 135, slides taken with the 100 seem to have a snap that the 135 cannot approach. I have been considering selling the 135 for some time for other reasons (always too long) and if the 100 indeed has higher contrast than the 135, I will not think further. I'd like to hear opinions from others who have/own these two lenses. Am I seeing differences caused by sample variation?

Steele,

 

<p>

 

"As we know the Japanese read backwards . . . so EP could stand for

Post Exchange."

 

<p>

 

This is the looniest thing I've ever seen. First, the Japanese do not

read from right to left. They read either from left to right or from

top to bottom (with the next line starting on the left). Second, even

if they did read from right to left, they wouldn't apply the same

style to foreign writing by reversing the letters in a word or

acronym.

Please turn it right side up, like the others...