hung_james_wasson

Andrew,

<p>

Out of curiousity, what brand are those tubes? My understanding is

that the Kenko's work great (I don't yet own a set, but they are the

most recommended ones I heard about).

Okay, </b> </b> </b> Did I manage to turn off bold printing this

time???

</b>Are you looking at getting a Mk I used? If it's in good shape &

at a reasonable price, snatch it up!

Tony T.,

<p>

I'm a little confused by your post, but here goes...

<p>

There are 3 Canon EOS EF 50mm lenses in common use (<i>I'm not

counting the <b>EF 50mm f/1.0 USM</b>, Which almost no one has!</i>):

<p>

<li> <b>50mm f/1.8</b> (commonly refered to as the Mk I, after the Mk

II came out)- This lens has the same optics as the Mk II, but is

considered to be mechanically better made. It has a metal lens mount

& nicer focusing ring. Canon stopped making it in when they came out

with the lighter & cheaper Mk II model.</li>

<p>

<li> <b>50mm f/1.8 Mk II</b> - the cheaper but still optically

identical lens that replaced the above item. <i>The general concensus

is that if you find a Mk I in reasonably good shape, get it --

otherwise be happy with the Mk II.</i></li>

<p>

<li> <b>50mm f/1.4 USM<b> - the slightly faster & much more expensive

50mm fixed focal length option. The lens sports a micro-USM motor

rather than the cheaper micro-motor, but yet somehow manages to

retain Full Time Manual focusing (<i>which otherwise is seen only on

the more expensive ring-USM motored lenses</i>). It has a metal

mount, a limited depth of field scale & a nicer to use focusing ring.

It runs 3 or 4 times more in price than the 50mm f/1.8.</li>

<p>

I hope that answered your question. The short form: In 50mm f/1.8,

there is only the original EF lens (often called the Mk I) and the

replacement called the Mk II (II & Mk II mean the same thing).

<p>

<i>In case you care, the </i>50mm f/1.0 USM<i> lens sports the ring-

USM motor, is MUCH bigger & heavier than the f/1.4 and f/1.8

lenses...and only runs about 35 times more expensive than the 50mm

f/1.8 Mk II!</i> :-)

Oops...my brain translated <i>"instructions"</i> to

<i>"instructor"</i> -- sorry if I caused confusion! :-)

<p>

The Canon EOS-3 manual says to not stack multiple tubes & use only in

manual focus? That's interesting! As long as the lens/tube/body

assembly is properly supported, I don't see any problems.

An idea of your budget would help, as well -- since there's a

tremendous variation in pricing & performance!

Andrew,

<p>

You can purchase "auto" extension tubes, which have all the

electrical contacts necessary for your EOS to communicate with the EF

lenses. You should still be able to autofocus & aperture with no

problems. When adding tubes to a lens, you will lose infinity focus

(distance focus), but since you are working at macro distances that

should not matter. Your instructor may be recommending shooting with

manual focus so that you can control what is in focus better. Depth

of field is very shallow in macro work & the camera may not know what

you are truly aiming at. The use of a viewfinder magnifier will help

immensely in this. Canon makes one, and I'm sure there are third pary

makers as well.

<p>

In response to stacking tubes: It should be no problem at all. In

fact, Kenko (and likely others) sell sets of tubes, and suggest

stacking in different combinations to achieve different close focus

magnifications.

<p>

<i>Here's some links for you:</i>

<p>

<a

href="http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_83453_3132crx.aspx"><b>Phot

ography Review</b></a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.thkphoto.com/"><b>Tokina/Hoya/Kenko products web

site</b></a>

<p>

I hope I've answered your questions. Enjoy your shooting!

Rod,

<p>

I guess it's not really surprising that the first generation DO lens

will be very expensive... :-(

<p>

However, the use of less expensive materials in manufacturing will

hopefully not be too terribly offset by the increase in design time

and precision assembly -- so I think the technology still hold the

promise of providing high quality optics for lower cost

(eventually) :-)

<p>

<i>Personally, I'd rather carry a heavier & faster L series lens,

rather than a "prestige" lens, if it costs less!</i>

<p>

Indeed, you are a font of knowledge (or is that fount?) -- thanks for

the additional info!

Mark,

<p>

I�m curious if you could give me some reference to your sources of

information. Not that I doubt you � much of what you say has the

weight or tone of published reports, but I�m not familiar with most

of it.

<p>

<u>Specifically:</u>

<p>

>With the newest bodies you can get an increase of 15% focusing speed

with AFS/USM over regular motors. 15% and that's it!

<p>

By newest bodies, I assume you mean Canon EOS-3/1v on one side and

Nikon F5s on the other? The Canon realizes only a 15% gain in

focusing speed from a lens (<i>comparing an otherwise identical ring-

type USM vs non-USM lens? How is this possible? <u>Are</u> there any

such models available to test?) <b>AND</b> Nikon also shows an

<i>identical</i> gain in performance from their fastest autofocusing

lens that utilizes the motor in the body vs the AF-S motor in an

otherwise identical Nikkor? Striking coincidence!

<p>

Frankly, I�m astounded that the difference in auto-focus is so

slight. I <i>wonder</i> at the testing program. Subjectively, my

experience with internal focusing ring-type USM lenses versus other

EF lenses that incorporate AFD or micro-motors is like night and day.

Both in terms of speed of focus and less focus drift or �hunting.� It

certainly feels like more than a mere %15 gain, which should not be

very perceptible! Of course, I�ve not set up a scientific program for

testing the lenses myself.

<p>

In reference to FTM, I can certainly understand that for many types

of photography it would hold no advantage. However, it can be quite

useful (<i>especially with the focusing decoupled from the shutter

release</i>) in macro, portrait & nature work (branches & shrubbery

can play havoc with AF!). <b>More</b> importantly though, is that the

lenses that incorporate FTM are simply better ergonomically &

mechanically designed � even if you never use FTM, the lenses are

much more a <b>joy</b> to use in <u>manual focus</u>.

<p>

> VR & IS in mode 2 produced a tie, however the Nikons automatic pan

detection gave it the lead. As stated, "You can take a picture of the

batter swinging, take a picture panning as he runs to first, then

take another picture of him sliding to base". Very difficult with the

Canon.

<p>

I don�t understand this point. If VR & IS is tied (with IS in mode

2), how can the lead go to VR? As Isaac says, IS mode 2 is the same

as VR�s only setting. Why is taking a picture of a stationary subject

with an IS lens in mode 2 very difficult?

<p>

> Rumor is IS is only Sony's optical steady-shot and VR is Sony's

optical super- steady-shot.

<p>

I don�t understand�are you saying that <b>Sony</b> holds the patents

on the technologies that both Canon & Nikon are using? Where do you

come by this information?

<p>

> I also wouldn't pay 2X more for a lens that can focus up to 15%

faster! No way.

<p>

The USM technology incorporated into the more expensive lenses is

only <i>incidental</i> the cost of the package! These lenses also

incorporate more sophisticated design, better optics, and usually

faster apertures as well! You don�t �just� get USM for twice the

price as a micro-motor lens. The EF lenses that are marketed with

micro-motor & micro-USM versions only show a small increase in price.

<p>

> End result, they both have their pluses and minuses. Both produce

better results than hand holding�.No one is better than the other,

they both have equal advantages & disadvantages.

<p>

Ah! An opinion that I can <i>heartily</i> endorse! Canon & Nikon

(<i>& others</i>) are fine makers of photographic equipment, and

regardless of your choice you can be happy - if your reasons for

purchase were based on your own conclusions (backed up by all these

contradicting opinions, of course)! ;-)

<b> I stand corrected! I even like the black L's and some very nice

lenses that aren't L's at all!</b> ;-)

Sam,

<p>

Good call, keeping the domestic peace & all! :-)

Isaac,

<p>

Thank you for the quick reply. That is <u>very</u> cool!

I love zooms! A wonderfully handy invention! (<i>I wonder who

invented it, and if they ever saw any money out of it</i>) A marvel

of modern engineering, design & manufacturing -- especially those oh,

so lovely <b>L series</b> big heavy white thingies (<I hope to have a

few of my own some day</i>)! ;-)

Brian,

<p>

I got your direct post. My apologies...I was in a hurry earlier, or

else I would have provided a <i>link</i> for you.

<p>

The discussion thread I was talking about can be accessed by clicking

on the colored & underlined link here: <a

href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=006DeY">new canon product (legnum)</a>

<p>

alternately, you can just type http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-

a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006DeY into the address bar of your web

browser (or cut & paste it).

<p>

Other handy tricks:

<li>When looking for a particular thread in the forum, and faced with

a long list of links -- press <b>Ctrl + f</b> on your keyboard to

bring up the <i>find function</i>. Type in as much as you accurately

remember (i.e. "new canon") and click on <b>Find next</b>. The

browser will scroll to the closest matching entry & highlight the

matching word(s). If it's not the right link, keep clicking on

<b>Find next</b> until you find the right one or run out of

options.</li><p>

<li> Use the <b>New Answers</b> link at the top of the forum listings

in order to go to a page where the links that have been most recently

replied to are organized in order of most to least recent. It's

easier to keep track of threads that have generated interest here

(even if the original posting is months or years old!)</li>

Brian,

<p>

We discussed this very issue in the "new canon product (legnum)"

thread. Check it out! :-)

Doug stated in his original post that he had a <b>large</b> number of

EF lenses already -- I <i>assumed</i> that that included zoom lenses.

That reflects more on me than on him, doesn't it? :-)

<p>

In any case, the decision on zooms for himself or his son is entirely

up to him, and we've all given Doug our excellent (<i>IMHO</i>)

advice! ;-)

Isaac,

<p>

I'd not heard that the elements on the Mk II 2x TC had been altered

to allow stacking without use of extension tubes, and the attendant

loss of infinity focus. I thought that both the new 1.4x & 2x just

got weather seals to match the 1v & newer L lenses. How

<u>certain</u> are you of this? It seems like a very important design

change for Canon to overlook mentioning in their literature. Does

this work only with a 1.4x + 2x combination, or can one stack two 2x

TC's together to create a (<i>horribly <b>dark</b> & "soft"</i>) 4x

TC? :-)

Just to let everyone know, Ione found a used 420EZ in excellent

condition, and went that route!

<p>

PS A very belated thanks to <b>Peter</b>, for his correction of the

meanings of A-TTL & E-TTL (<i>that's what I get for firing a rapid

response based on faulty memory, and not double checking my

facts</i>)! ;-)

Doug,

<p>

All of these 30/33/300/3000/3000N EOS's can get quite confusing! In

some ways, I prefer the American "Rebel's," & "Elan's," though the

semi-consistent numbering system is more eloquent.

<p>

Back to your point! The EOS 300 is the Rebel 2000 -- the more

sophisticated entry level, up from the EOS 3000 or EOS 3000N. I've

not checked pricing on the two lower end models, but unless they are

drastically less expensive than the EOS 300, I'd recommend going with

that for your son.

Allan,

<p>

Thank you for your input regarding my post! I agree with your

conclusion about UV vs Skylight filters. The suggestion of removing

the filter(s) when shooting against light is a good one (use of a

lens hood may help as well, unless the light source itself is in the

frame). Finally, thank you for confirming that linear polarizers can

impair the light metering system as well auto-focus.

<p>

PS Thanks again for allowing me to post links to your informative

website (<a href="http://cybaea.com/photo/">Allan's Photo Pages</a>)

Lori,

<p>

As you can see, there's <u>plenty</u> of differences of opinion! :-)

<p>

Has this discussion given you enough points, pro & con, for you to

come to your <i>own</i> decision?