raymond_raymond1

Dear all

I would like to put the following gears into a beltpack

 

1) EOS-1 + booster + 35/1.4 + hood (lens attached) 2) EOS-3 + booster

+ 85/1.2 + hood (ditto)

 

Would it be possible to advise the followings?

 

1) is it realistic to carry such weight of gears in a beltpack? 2) if

yes, which model you would recommend 3) if no, I would give up the

two boosters, and would it be possible to put the gears into a

beltpack? 4) what is the model you would recommend then?

 

May thx

 

p.s. I am having a sore shoulder, pls don't recommend shoulder bag,

and I find backpack not easily accessible

Before re-seat the focus screen, please also check the diopter. As you can accidentially adjusted the diopter, which will cause blur image from viewfinder, but sharp image from film

 

If the above doesn't work, try to re-seat the focus screen, I have done that before, quite easily

I have the Tamron, it is a great performer optically. Although I do not have a Canon, but Canon's specification sounds just perfect to me, especially the internal focus, FTM, and USM motor. If I lose my Tamron and would have to buy a new one, I will go for Canon. Also, compare with other L lens, the Canon 100mm macro is very value for money. One more point, the re-sell value for Canon is much higher

The hood is called ET-78 II.

 

I do agree that it is a bit too bulky and difficult to store in my Domke F-2, but theorectically the hood has to be as long as the telephoto lens in order to effectively prevent flare. ET-78II does the job very well.

 

By the way, my ET-78 II is a bit too tight to screw on the lens, after a while, I find the plastic lens hood mount on my 135/2 worn due to the fliction. Anyway it will only affect the appearance of the lens, no harm for the image quality.

 

p.s. 135/2 is a great performer, and also very value for money

Painful experience with Tokina AT-X 300/4 and my EOS-1

 

Pros - metal barrel, cheap

 

Cons - focuses slowly, focus ring turns even in AF mode, tripod ring is too small to handle comfortably, noisy, lens hood is a bit too short, and the worst thing is ....... optically not good!!!!, I have tried a couple of rolls of film on tripod, the photos come out blur and underexposed (why????)

 

Regardless of how much you pay, I personally will NOT recommend.

 

BTW, I had a Tokina 27-70/2.6-2.8, which was execellent and value for money

I had one (Canon EF version), I did not have any scientific measurement on the lens performance, but to me it was quite good.

 

I sold that because I have changed most of my gears to primes - 20, 35, 85, 135.

 

One advantage for the Tamron, you can use insertion type filter (my is cokin) very easily, very little vignetting will be caused by the filter holder.

Hi, Adam

 

I have both, hope to share something with you.

 

EOS-1's CF-4 only has options "1" and "0", just to exchange the functions of AF and AEL bottons

 

Not sure about automatic fill flash reduction. I would guess not for EOS-1

 

AEB is present for EOS-1, but the bottons are not on the top of the cameras. By pressing the battery and drive bottons in the side door, you can activate the AEB funcion. Not as convenient as EOS-3

 

I have tried reloading before, but I always skip a frame. I can only see from the developed film that it should be OK not to skip a frame, but why take the risk? film is cheap

 

No idea about the 6-zone metering pattern.

 

Very little information, hope the above would help you a bit...

 

Cheers

Can anybody compare the optical performance of EF 85/1.2L and FD

85/1.2L? I have the former and love it, and consider to give the FD

version a try. I may consider a Canon F-1 as the body

I had the lens.

 

It performed very good when you turn your soft scale to Nil (no soft at all). It is quite sharp. Be very careful when you shoot against light, because the internal lens barrel reflects a lot of light, even with lens hood attached.

 

When you turn the soft scale to 1 or 2, it depends very much on your luck, because the result is quite unpredictable, either it is too soft, or it is not soft enough.

I am in Hong Kong, where you can easily buy a lot of 2nd hand stuff. But I seldom see 2nd hand 35/1.4.

 

BTW, I have the lens, all I can tell you that it is a very SWEET lens

 

Cheers

First of all, I don't own either of them

 

I just would like give you a hint on the pricing in Hong Kong

 

2nd hand FD 24/1.4 = around US$1050

 

brand new EF 24/1.4 = around US$1200

 

May be you can get a cheaper FD 24/1.4 in your country, otherwise why bother to consider the FD?

 

BTW, I also have 35/1.4, it is SWEET......

I had 85/1.8 and have 90/2.8 macro

 

For Canon 85/1.8

 

- optically quite good

 

- mechanically excellent (USM, IF, full time MF, quite, fast), a joy to use

 

- mine had a sticky blade problem, i.e. the blades will not return to normal position, once in a while

 

- it is CANON!!! a stength

 

- then I upgrade to 85/1.2

 

For Tamron 90/2.8

 

- don't blame me, I find the Tamron is optically superior to the Canon

 

- when the focus limiter is on for taking portrait, it focuses quite fast, but quite noisy

 

- it can take macro shot, quite a useful funcion

 

- not IF, no full-time MF

 

- a bit plasticky construction

 

- it is a TAMRON, it is a weakness

 

Anyway, I sold my Canon 85/1.8 and still keep my Tamron 90/2.8. Because 1) I like the Tamron brand, and I like the lens, 2) the re-sell value of Tamron is just too low, I would rather let mould grow on it than to sell it cheaply

 

my 2 cents

Can anybody help to advise if their is any differenct between the

above 2?

 

Besides the AF/MF differnce, is there any difference between optical

element constructions / performance in real life situation?

 

I am an owner of the EF version, and I don't find manually focusing

the lens is a joy, it just does not have enough "resistance".

 

May be you find this question silly. Yes, I know I am a equipment

freak, I find a toy like the FD 85/1.2 very attractive

 

Thx in advance

I have tried the Zing pro slr cover last week in one of the local shops. When I tried to fit my old eos 1 (without booster) and my 85/1.2 lens + hood, they can only marginally fit in the Zing cover, but looked very ugly. So I would really suggest you to go to a local shop and try it out with your existing gears. In my case, I gave up.

another vote for 35/2

Hi, Alan

 

As I have mentioned in the above messages, I use a <$100 worth desk top scanner on a 4" X 6" print. That degrades the image a lot, the original print is much better.

 

I used Fuji Superior 100, frontier machine to develop and print. I donno how to say in English, but my feeling on the colour of the original print is quite "hard" and "exegerated". Well, not very natural from my viewpoint, but not too bad.

 

On the other hand, I believe the 35/1.4 lens does not have the chromatic abberation problem. This kind of problem is more common on tele lens.

 

I not not trying to be a sales from Canon, but I could not believe this damn expensive 35/1.4 has chromatic abberation problem, which can even be seen on a 4" X 6" print

Hi, Alex

 

Forget to talk about the performance at F1.4

 

I have read some review from the web saying that it is great. But in the real world, when your model is close to you (this is what you intend to do, right?), and you open at F1.4, the depth of view is just too shallow that you can hardly focus.

 

Well, you can always say using a tripod and focus manually / slowly. True, but it takes much longer time and much more effort. For myself, I seldom use a tripod for ourdoor portrait, since I would always like to catch "that" moment / facial expression. A tripod adversely affects.

 

That's why I seldom use F1.4 when there is enough light....... Well, don't blame me, I am just one of the stupids who want a 35/1.4 mainly to show off

Hi, Alex

 

The photo was taken with 35/1.4

 

Pls find below another taken on the same day. But no bokeh as you could see.

 

I just counted the number of blades on my 35/1.4, it should be eight blades.

 

Please let me attach another photo, aperture should be around 2.8

 

As I have mentioned in my above message, really really really think twice about 35/1.4, it is not that value for money. I believe, with the optical performance of 35/2, can do 95% of 35/1.4's job. And the price of 35/1.4 is 4.5 times the price. Well, you may say that I am kicking my ass, but this is a piece of advice from the owner of 35/1.4 and also the ex-owner of 35/2

 

Enjoy shooting

Sorry, I keep spelling "boken", it should be "bokeh"

Hi, Alex

 

Please let me attached a photo

 

As far as I can remember I was using around F2.0. There is small amount of boken above the model

 

This scan is from my very cheap scanner of a 4" X 6" print, hope that will not disappoint you. The actual print is much sharper.

Just my 2 cents

 

I had 35/2, and have 35/1.4

 

First of all, it is not that easy to see bokeh for a 35mm focal length lens, unless 1) you focus very close, i.e. your model is very close to you, 2) there are a lot of highlights in the background. 3) you use really big aperture like 2.0 or up. Otherwise, the boken will not be very exergerated. If you really want to see exergerated boken, buy 85/1.2 instead

 

BTW, 35mm lens is not a bad choice for portraits. You can always include a lot of background for composition. Keep using 85mm or 135mm all the time and blur the backgound will make you bored somedays.

 

Think twice for this 35/1.4 lens. I am not saying it is not good. Compare 35/1.4 with 35/2, the former is better in nearly all the aspects, e.g. optical, mechanical, user friendly... but the former is nearly 4.5 time the price (in Hong Kong). From my viewpoint, it is not that value for money.

 

Don't ask me why I bought it, it is a long story. But if you ask me, I have no regret since I am a "big aperture freak", I am mentally very very happy with 35/1.4.

 

Happy shooting!

Assume you are the same as me, interested in portrait photos.

 

Just would like to share some of my experience. I have 35/1.4, 85/1.2, and 135/2, and had 135/2.8 SF before.

 

First of all, 135/2.8 SF is really "cheap" in terms of price. At the time when I bought it, it is cheaper than either 85/1.8 or 100/2.0. I got an impression it is THE portrait lens for poor. When you turn SF off, the sharpness is quite good. I have tried Ilford 400 and enlarge to 8" X 12", very good. For SF function, I found it very difficult to control. Personally I prefer softening during printing process. No problem on AF speed, although it is not a USM. Plus 135/2.8 is IF, great advantage. Of course there are weaknesses. 1) strange material on filter mount, looks like elastic rubber, quite strange. 2) Be very careful when shoot against light, the problem is not flare, but the light reflection on the inside surface of the lens barrel, very serious, even the original hood from Canon is not very good to cure, since it is too short for the lens. Above all, 135/2.8 is really "value for money" and "portrait lens for poor"

 

For 135/2. Very simple conclusion, it is sharp, sharp, sharp and sharp. Optically, mechanically outpeform, and more user-friendly than 135/2.8 SF. Never worry about the optical side. Whenever I got a bad photo, I will blame myself, not the lens.

 

Final advice. Do you really need 135mm lens? I do have the lens, but I seldom use it. I use 35/1.4 and 85/1.2 much more often.

 

Happy shooting!

35mm F2, quite a versatile lens.

consider the price of Canon 1.4 extender, and compare it with Canon EF 135/2.8 SF lens, they are quite similar. Why not save up a little bit of money, get the 135/2.8 lens? you will not only get an additional lens, you also have the soft focus feature

suggestion 1 - cheap way

 

tilt your lens a bit up before tightening the tripod head, and let gravity pull it down a bit after tightening. Need some trial and error, and different effect for different lens

 

Suggestion 2 - costly way

 

Buy a new tripod head