jean_jacques_lemaire

Irfanview or FastStone Image viewer (which are both free softwares) offer jpeg lossless rotation feature. I even wonder if they couldn't do the job automatically, based on EXIF rotation data (if available).

I was using an Orestegor (=Pentacon or Prakticar) 500mm f/5.6 medium-format lens on a 350D/Rebel XT. It's a cheap old lens (thirty years) with only 4 lenses in it. About sharpness, it's rather the same level than a cheap nowadays zoom. About chromatic aberration, it's quite poor but usable.<BR>

No doubt a Mamiya would give a far better result. But I'm not sure it would be as sharp as a dedicated 24x36mm lens.<BR>

My Orestegor was tested on a 350D/Rebel XT. The pixel pitch on its sensor is much narrower than the pixel pitch of the 5D. Thus, I suppose that a 5D would give a better "apparent sharpness" with a MF-format lens in general.

I also thought about the Sigma 18-200OS, but now I'm aiming at buying either a 1DMkIIN or a 5D, this lens would be useless (EF-S mount only).

My preference (in my case) would then go for the Canon (which I already own anyway ;) ). But the 18-28mm range of the Sigma that I don't have with the 28-135 seems very useful to me. I'm always obliged to exchange the 28-135 with a 10-22 or 18-55 where the Sigma wouldn't make that change necessary (from a pure angle point of view).

If you plan to use it as main lens on your APS-C camera, I don't think the Sigma is a bad choice, thanks to its versatility. You don't need to waste time changing your lens and miss occasions. IMHO

and a used 120-300 is about 1/4th of the price of a new 300 f/2.8 IS L ;-)

I own the 120-300 F/2.8 EX HSM (not DG). With my 350D(=rebel XT) it is a superb lens on many aspects. Optically, I find it better than the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8EX HSM (non-DG): faster AF, better sharpness, less vignetting. The 70-200 is not good with a TC Sigma 2x APO (loss of sharpness, a lot of halo) but the 120-300 has no problem with it (of course, a little less sharpness but you don't lose that much). For me, the only downsides of the 120-300 are the "lack" of IS/OS (but I almost exclusively use it on a tripod, due to its weight), and its too-small-to-handle tripod collar (which is replaced by a far better one on the actual version). The Canon has also other advantages like focus distance preset, but I don't really need it. The same for slide-in rear filters.

I also agree that it's much more interesting to invest in lenses rather than body... BUT the 1DMkIII personnally interests me not only for its high ISO and high frame rate. Actually, I don't care about its frame rate. But it has a very efficient AF, a very nice viewfinder, it's also toughly built. Well actually, I'm hoping that Canon one day will release a camera similar to Nikon D200 for its AF. Otherwise, you have nothing comparable below 3500EUR/4000$... Yes, the sensor is much better on the 1DMkIII, but i'm not going to say it's awful on 350D/RebelXT.

I own an AF-confirm adapter. It works as expected. I hesitated with a split focus screen and decided to buy the af-confirm instead. Because the split focus screen is becoming dark with very low apertures (F/10 or higher). This is unuseful (even a pain) in macro, astronomy, or with mirror lenses.

Alexander, my answer about the Rubinar was for both film and digital, but I really start using it when I came to digital, thanks to the ISO button ;)<BR>

Yes, you're totally right about high ISO giving a second life to these lenses. But to keep a decent image, I didn't go above 800ISO with my 350D/RebelXT.<BR><BR>

IMHO, image quality provided by this lens remains constant whatever you used, digital (APS-C) or full 24x36mm surface. Some people even report nice results with 6x6 format!<BR>

Honestly speaking, I think that it will not be a lens you would use forever (because of the "bads" of my previous post), but given its quality/price ratio, you will have a lot of fun with it.<BR>

This was about the Rubinar. A Celestron or Meade may be better optically, due to their newer coating technology, and better mechanics, but I have no "proof" about this.<BR>

<BR>

Now, I own a Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 EX HSM. I think it's a much sharper lens, it has AF, it's 1.5x bigger, twice the weight, but it's much more versatile (combined or not to a TC). Last but not least, 10+ times the price...

I have a Rubinar 500m F/5.6 mirror lens. Great on some aspects, bad on others.<BR>

Pros:<BR>

- compact, light<BR>

- very short minimum focus distance<BR>

- f/5.6<BR>

- quite nice focus ring (very precise)<BR>

- no chromatic abberations, no vignetting<BR>

- quality/price ratio<BR>

<BR>

Bads:<BR>

- sharpness not of a high level, but correct though. Mine was second-hand and in a bad shape when I got it. I had to realign the lens (<I>very</I> difficult job) to get good results. I don't know if brand new ones get this optimization from the beginning.<BR>

- f/5.6 but because of the partial reflexion of mirrors, effective aperture was around f/8.0<BR>

- my main complain: no aperture setting ring. When you shoot 3 meters away, depth of field is very very shallow (around 2-3mm). The background is completely blurred, *but* you can't have a bird completely in focus.<BR>

- for Canonists, I recommand to get a AF-Confirm chip to help manual focus: depth of field is so shallow (with this 500 f/5.6) that you need to be very careful at focus.<BR>

<BR>

If you are on budget, this lens is great. BUT not usable on any subject. It is a nice toy for bird photography IF you can be close to them and have a not-so-close background.<BR>

The donut-like bokeh is often a problem, but if you care, you can play with it and get good results. Not on all pictures, but you can.<BR>

Nobody advising the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 zoom? It's a very very sharp lens. Its only downsides are its weight (2.6Kgs) and the lack of IS (/OS). But its a fast lens (HSM motors, the Sigma name for USM), gathering plenty of light to help for quick focus, and so sharp, even with a 1.4x TC. Even with a 2x TC (Sigma APO) its sharpness remains ok (but of course, not as good).<BR>

<BR>

I wouldn't go for the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS <B>+ stacked TC</B> but rather for the 100-400L IS in this case (for quality and speed reasons)

Maybe consider the Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 too?

 

Very sharp, quick AF (compared to 100-400L)

Image quality seems to remain ok even with a TC1.4x

 

It doesn't have OS but it is HSM (very quick/silent) and doesn't vary in length while zooming/focusing.

 

But it's more expensive than the 80-400 (except maybe if bought second-hand) and definitely heavy (2.6Kg)

 

The front filter thread is also 105mm diameter so you cannot use Cokin-P system... (but anyway...)

 

But it's a sharp and fast lens

I plan to make some trekking, but I just couldn't do it without a camera :D

 

So I think I should go for such a lens, because my normal set is just too heavy (and takes too much space in the backpack). Needless to say that you don't always have time to set the tripod down, choose the right lens, ... when you are in a group...

<B>Thank you for your reactions</B>

 

<P>I said I was stuck with Canon simply because i'd loose too much money by selling my Canon lenses and buying their "Nikon equivalent".

 

Of course, I know each brand has its pros and cons. No 500mm F/4VR listed at Nikon, and I won't speak about the price argument in favor to Canon about long tele-lenses. Canon EF-mount can also accept any lens via adaptors (except FD-mount...)</P>

 

<P>Why to go for an APS-C sensor? because of their bigger pixel density.<BR>

What turns me on about the D200's AF is its numerous modes of subject tracking, useful for bird photography. Smaller (noisier) sensor maybe, but better chances to get something sharp...</P>

 

<P>Why doesn'it sound useful to Canon to put gridlines in their viewfinders ? Maybe because we're all pros? ;)</P>

 

<P>PS: In my country we deal more about beer than wine ;)</P>

Ok, it's another Canon vs Nikon thread, but yes and no...<BR>

I won't compare 400D with D80, but non comparable things.<BR>

At Canon, you have a 30D, a 5D, a 1D MkII.<BR>

30D has the price, 5D the wonderful sensor, 1D MkII its wonderful autofocus.<BR>

At Nikon, you have D80, D200, D2X<BR>

D80 has the prince, D200 very nice Autofocus, D2X wonderful autofocus.<BR>

So, if I were using Nikon lenses, I would clearly go to the D200.<BR>

<BR>

But I'm stuck with Canon, and wondering why they do not offer anything similar

to the D200 (sophisticated AF + APS-C sensor).<BR>

<BR>

Canon stopped making the 200 f/1.8 L USM but Nikon released the 200 F/2 VR not

so long ago. And it seems people like it.<BR>

Is there any 18-200 VR available for a Canon EF mount? Nobody would want any?<BR>

<BR>

Where are you mister Canon?<BR>

You also have a Canon EF 14mm rectilinear or a Voigtlander 12mm (which is a full manual lens and requiring mount adapter)

just a clue instead of a real help: about the data strip: just look on the boards if something is written, like G (ground) or anything else, that can be the same on both boards, so that you can find the good side of the strip.<BR>

I'm interested by pictures of the lens opened... if you have time and if you don't mind...

Ok, "mechanical parts" are the words that sound bad BUT...

solid state is not always better: fabrication process also have their defects. Sometimes a transistor is ok, up to a certain time. I personally had more trouble with rams than hard disks in my PCs...<BR>

In 3 years, I had two defective compactflash cards. Both were from "this famous brand" ;)<BR>

I have a 4GB microdrive for my 350D for 1.5 year, and had no problem with it so far. It's just my experience. But I use not to throw it on the ground ;)

I didn't need to use such a software yet but Datarescue has a good reputation for such a job.

http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/index.htm

same opinion than Geoff Francis: the 350D/XT is very convenient to bring along due to its (relatively) small size.<BR>

But the choice between 20D/350D might be influenced by AF sensitivity, better in the 20D. But both are way behind the 1Ds ;)

Thank you for your experience report.<BR>

Actually, this lens had already been serviced one time (it fell on the ground). It took 2 months to be serviced (Sigma Benelux (Europe)) but everything was perfect. Yes I'm familiar with sensitive disassembling and reassembling ;) but I wonder if i need to unsolder those ribbon cables. I don't want to risk heating too much electronics if it's not necessary.<BR>

<br>

Maybe images or schematics of other Sigma EX lens can help too? Anyway, I will post images of this repair if I'm successful.

Hello!<BR>

<P>I'm the proud owner of a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO HSM.

But, I have a problem. The focus ring wobbles about 1mm... More

worrying: the autofocus seems to unclutch from times to times.</P>

Yes, I should send it to Sigma service. but it takes a long and it's

rather expensive IF it is only some screws to tighten again.<BR>

I have nothing to loose to try myself given the repair service is the

same price whatever the problem is.<BR>

The HSM/USM system should be one of the outests parts of the lens, so

I think that I wouldn't disturb lens alignements (especially if they

are organized in blocks like it seems when you look through the front

lens).<BR>

<BR>

So far, I managed to open the back of the lens but I couldn't go

further than an electronic card. Ribbon cables attached to its back

prevented me to remove it.<BR>

Should I unsolder those ribbon cables? Or do I start from the wrong

end of the lens?<BR>

Any images? suggestions?<BR>

<BR>

Thanks by advance!<BR>

regards :)

you may ask a custom one to makers like Haoda or Katz eye (make a search on this forum). They may provide you this screen in a size fitted for the ElanII.

with my EOS50E/Elan IIe (ancestor of your Elan 7NE), you could change your battery whenever you wanted, with a film loaded or not. The film counter kept the right frame number after battery change.<BR>

It also happened that my camera ran out of battery during film rewinding. I changed them (AAs in a battery pack) and it finished the job normally.

If I were in your situation:<BR>

- for only one camera and 2 lenses, I may satisfy from a "simple" backpack, with everything wrapped in pullover or anything that could protect them from shocks and moisture. Therefore, you don't carry a backpack exhibiting "steal me first".<BR>

- I would use a cardreader to be free to empty my CF card anytime I want (because my memory card can be filled in a single day, sometimes more than once). To me, Compactdrive PD70x seems one of the fastest, most reliable, thougly built, using AA batteries and can act as a AA-charger (with 100-240V + 12V car plug). I never payed attention to CD burning option at photographers' but what I'm sure of is that it may be difficult to find this service if your are out of cities or in the countryside.<BR>

- I would bring a travel plug converter AND a small multiplug, because you often use several devices at the same time. Ex: battery charger from various devices (those can monopolize a wallplug for a while...). BTW, yes, here in Europe, we also have electricity ;)<BR>

- There are decent compact tripods compatible with your gear. Velbon, or this Ultrapod I didn't knew before (thanks for the tip). I personnally use a less compact but "regular" Gitzo tripod with a ball-head. But it's not that convenient to pull out of a normal backpack (though this is what I actually do). when I'm in safe areas, I carry it attached to my backpack belt.<BR>

Don't forget to bring a small plastic-bag and rubber band in case of bad weather. It takes no space and gives you camera protection, or carrying bag for anything you would find along.<BR>

Cheers!

Sigma 70-200 has ultrasonic motors, which the Tokina doesn't have (the Sigma is then much quieter and faster, and you get full-time manual focus). Both are thoughly built, but I prefer the finishing of the Sigma (looks higher quality, less prone to scratches).<BR>

When I had to chose between Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Tokina 70-200 f/2.8, I noticed several reports about flaring and hard vignetting from the Tokina.<BR>

I only own one Tokina lens: a 19-35. I don't feel it flares that much. But it's operating slowly. Not a problem for an ultrawide, but a real one for a telelens (with a narrow depth of field).