miles stoddard

I would have to think the early superwide model is only available used. It should not be very expensive. I bought one recently, for a friend, at a used camera store and it was $100 in Chicago, U.S.. This is a very durable lens, probably not much heavier than the Canon. I didn't mean to imply the Canon was a poor or even mediocre lens; it is quite good. Only that often the Canon lens is twice as epensive, and in the case of the 24mm you are not getting better optics. If you found the Canon used, at a good price, that too would work well. A 24mm would be nice and short compared to the lens you broke, perhaps less likely to get banged into things.

If you have never used a 20mm or 21mm lens, youmight want to borrow one or rent one for a day. I find it almost completely useless as a landscape optic. Intuitively, the difference between 28mm and 24mm, and 24mm and 20mm seems the same, but visually the difference is astounding. The ultra-wide 20-21 simply pushes everything too far away. I use a 21-35mm Sigma, and am quite pleased with it (I believe it has the same score as the Canon on photodo and elsewhere). I also own the straight 24mm f2.8 Sigma (old version), mostly because it focuses so close and my infrared filer is 52mm (and I am not giving tiffin $$$ for a 77mm infrared filter!). Anyhting I have said about perspective/field of view regading Sigma, more or less applies to Canon; I personally think Canon wide and macro lenses are over-rated, and over priced; one exception is the L zoom people are recommending here over and over - which is a fine lens, assuming it is within your price range.

If someone cannot take nice flash pics with a 630 / RT / A2 +430ez / 540ez, then they simply cannot take nice flash pictures (you are fooling yourself if you think you need the "new" flash system; after all, how have people taken such great portraits so long without it?). The A2, with all the options and accessories and v-grip is one heck of a steal at current used prices, and the new Elan an over-rated and over-priced substitute. It is worth asking, just what are you photographing if the autofocus speed of the new Elan is neccessary and that of the A2 insufficient? The spot meter on the A2 is very useful, and it is a great camera, though if you lean towards this, please read about the command dial failure first. However, many used cameras out there have already been repaired with metal parts, so you are safe from the $75 repair. Just for the record: the A2 does not have eye control; that is the A2e.

It might be many things but normal is NOT one of them. I cannot comment on the 650, but use 620's and 630's and have never had such problems. I have done extended shoots in northern Canada and the U.S. and the bodies have never let me down. I have used the 630's on the U.P. of Michigan where it was -20F without problem. Do you have a way of knowing if it is a battery issue? I keep spares in my clothing (to keep them warm), and rotate every few hours. You might want to read similar posts on photo.net regading other EOS bodies. This should not happen on an EOS, nor on any camera, at temps above 10 degrees; and, any semi-pro or pro body should handle temps well beyond this.

This is the "Canon Repair Philosophy" in a nutshell. On many older EOS cameras, the set repair price is $250 or $265 (U.S.). This is the fee regardless of what is really needed. Canon tried charging A2 users with the infamous dial problem (which required $7 in plastic parts) $285 for a new top of the camera! A small mishap on say an EOS 620 renders it not worth fixing; this is a complicated way of saying lower-end EOS bodies are more or less disposable cameras, in effect not all that different from the toaster or clock radio you might buy. Of course, your unit it in a whole other price category, which means it has to be evaluated differently. Nevertheless, it is a ripoff for the consumer; there isn't any reason to pretty it up and rastionalize it according to some EOS myth or "pro standards". Find a reliable EOS guy on the www or in Shutterbug. He can remove the ring (maybe $15), redoe the hotshoe (maybe $50), and seal the crack (depending on how bad, could be as little as $10-20). Yes, spend the money on the 50mm f1.4!

Yes, the ones you mention are the "famous" little Rolleis, but that is not what he is using (those are VERY heavy, and fairly complicated to operate, especially if you were mountain climbing). The new Rollei he has is very tiny and very light; I believe it is called the "Rollei Prego Pocket 30", and the 30mm lens -and I dont know if it is a Rolleinar or Schneider or what it is- isn't all that fast, but is quite sharp. I have only seen pictures of it; well-built, or so he says, and easy to operate one-handed; it was around $150 at a store in NY.

I didnt realize there were so many versions, or at least relabelings of the lens. The new one sounds as big as the zoom (77mm filters, again); I would think all the reasons for not using the big zoom might also apply to not using the newest Sigma 24mm f1.8. I also didnt realize it was more expensive that the Canon 24mm 2.8, which has a 1:6 macro, and doesn't focus close. I just re-read your question. I just prattled on about the lens, without really focusing on what you were doing. Do you really need an SLR for these trips? If you dont go bigger than the occassional or even freqeeunt 8x10", there are many good pocket cameras, some with f2.8 lenses (avoid the zooms; slow, slow, slow). A friend takes a Ricoh R1 on such trips, though he just switched to an inexpensive little Rollei with a 30mm lens; hard to find a camera weighing less than one of these.

Hello,

I have owned the Sigma 24mm f2.8, Sigma 24mm f1.8m, Sigma 21-35mm, and sigma 17-35mm. I can say that Sigma sought speed and range at the expense of sharpness. I sold the 24mm f1.8, as the older lens is sharper. This old lens actually beat Canon's 24mm f2.8 when tested by magazines in Japan; if you check the MTF scores on photodo, so will see that is won there too. It is compact, fairly light, sharp, focuses way down, and uses common 52mm filters. I owned the 17-35 and sold it after a few months. I found a mint used 21-35mm, which I had owned previously, and bought it right away. Every magazine which tested the 21-35 raved about it, partly for its sharpness; no one raves about the sharpness of the newer 19-35 and 17-35 lenses; they simply glow about the widesness and range. Again, photodo.com and others tested the Sigma 21-35, and I believe it received the same score as Canon's high-end lens of near this focal length (at a time when the Canon lens was probably 400-500% the cost). Even though I have the 21-35, I keep the 24mm f2.8 for the reasons you mention (my 21-35 is very heavy, and uses 77mm filters, and it can be hard to shield for flare). I have an elaborate filter collection, mostly in 52mm. Also, I can't do wide-angle infrared with the 21-35 due to the huge cost of the filter. I don't know that the 1.8 would be a huge befefit in the field. I know your point is to reduce weight, but if you had a tiny table-top pod or clamp, you might be able to live without the 1.8. I have a EOS 630 (pretty heavy, older body) and an A2. I have a Hakuba clamp with ball head, as well as a Hakuba table pod which has legs that drop down to 5 feet. Between the two you can do a great many things, and neither takes up more space than a can of coke (I rarely carry both). If you had a lighter camera,like the newer low-end EOS stuff, everything would be even easier to use. Canon makes great lenses, though most of the best are "L" and pricey. When it comes wo wide angle and macro lenses, there are very few reasons to pay more for the Canon name.

Most of these devices, including my Rollei pano head (I forget which version it is), are NOT full-frame-aligned. In other words, if you make a series of pics of 180 degrees, and then print full frame, there IS overlap in the prints. This device, though quite useful, does not eliminate the need to careful cropping and/or darkroom work. This makes any consideration of the nodal point, less than primary. I used to own a rail with click-stop that could be rotated. You aligned the rail according to the focal lenght (this was a 35mm setup) of the lens you were using. I forget which company made it, but for export from Japan it was sold under the name "cherry" -- they also made nice mechanical self-times are cables and such. To be honest, some of these devices (not Rollei or Cherry) are so basic that you might as well use a center level and ball head, and fix it later either in softwatre, or post-printing with a paper cutter!

I understand and sympathize with the previous reply; yes, these situations arise and on a once-in-a-lifetime shoot like a wedding, you should have clear paperwork. But, were it me, I would shoot her again, AFTER she articulates what she found less-than-satisfactory in the first shoot. This will, at the very least, make her focus on what she really wants. I would avoid altogether any legal sort of talk, mostly because she is not complaining about you or your artistic or technical skills. You could also ask her to bring pictures of someone is a "pose" she hoped to duplicate - which would also make her think about what she wants. The fact that a beautiful woman told you, upfront, she didn't photograph well, tells you something. I would seek confirmation from other photographers or models who have seen the pics; derive guilt, if any, from their comments!

I measured many cameras in my collection and the sizes are all over the place, as you guys already found. A Kodak Medallion predecessor is 58x84, a Kodak Medalist appears to be 57x83, an old Voigtlander is only 54x82, etc. etc. I have an unlabeled 6x9 roll back for a 4x5 camera, and it is by far the largest at 57x87. Problem is, it doesn't matter how big the neg is if your carrier or printer is 54x82, like many are. The smallest ones are not that much bigger than a big-frame 6x7, like a Pentax 6x7 which wastes very littel space, and yields 2 more pics per 120 roll.

Raid,

My lab partner experienced the same findings a few years back. He experimented a bit, and was able to "make" the 90-180 match his other macro lenses, by using an old Kodak Wratten Series filter -- sorry I dont remember which one, nor does she. Her lens was stolen on a trip, and she has yet to replace it. This is a great lens. Not just great for Vivitar, but great for any company. You would have no problem selling it if that is what you choose to do, though you might regret it. I am in the U.K. and the lens is much more expensive here. In Canon FD, the lens would run about $350 US dollars; I suspect it is maybe $100 less in the U.S. at a store, maybe $100-125 less at an auction site. A zoom macro is a real find, especially this one.

This is not directly on point here, but it might apply, and I

couldn't find any such discussion on 95mm filters. I did not realize

this, but I have been told quite a few older and newer monster teles

used 95mm and 100mm filters - as did some aerial units and 70mm

cinema cameras. Of course, I cant really prove this, but I was told

it by people I consider knowledgable regarding older gear. It turned

out VERY valuable information for me. Just the other day I was lucky

enough to come across a Kowa 500mm lens. In the hard case were 6

95mm filters (3 b&w, UV, polarizer, and warming). I bought the lens,

and sold it within a week for what I paid for it - but I kept the

filters, which make them, essentially, free to me. Not everyone

would consider such a purchase, just to get the filters, but they are

so d^&* expensive! [not sure I can swear on Steve's board]. I add

this because if my sources were right, for many people it might be

worth it to make a mental note of other earlier uses, in case you

came across aerial stuff or cinema stuff - which if you live in the

U.S. is often unloaded routinely by the states, government, and

military. I have not identified other 95mm lenses made now, and the

aerial stuff I have found thus far is unique to a particular camera;

and often these are push-on filters with a fractional diameter. But,

you never know, there could be other filter treasures out there.

Ken,

Please update this down the road, so we would know if the "repair"

was a success (I guess I dont see the obvious connection between the

problem and the wording for the repair done). Also, if you dont mind

me asking, were you charged for the repair, or was it covered in some

way?

I have a friend who is a security consultant (moslty Canada, U.S.,

Israel, Japan). He claims the "hand check" is a joke, and he always

recommends places stop doing it altogether. The reason is that you

cant tell anything from a hand check. Would you bet a large sum of

money that people couldn't enclose something other than film inside

120/200 rolled film spools, or a 35mm canister? If you would like to

make the bet, he would like to take you up on it (this is now part of

the demonstration he does as a consultant). If you wouldn't bet

money on it, that says something about the situation. I am not a

stock shooter, but know others who are. In some cases, within North

America where they work, they now have the film sent to their hotel

or destination via UPS. They do the same on the return, or have the

E6 done at the shoot end. Others ship it UPS to their agent or

normal lab. It is unrealistic to think the airlines will, with the

current circumstances what they are, go out of their way to

accomodate special demands for photographers. The rationale, at

least among security people, is that the film companies say the

machines are safe - and who are they to question it. Also within the

security framework, there is little sympathy for a people with $3-10k

in camera equipment and 50-150 rolls of 120/220 film. If it is

a "job", then find another way to do it and pass the expenses on to

the client - or so I have heard people say (though I dont necessarily

buy the argument). If it is a hobby, then you arent any different

than the guy who takes his family to Hawaii coming back with

pictures, and if the security system is good enough for him, then it

is good enough for you - or so I have heard the same people say

(again, not sure I buy it). Short of Kodak/Fuji taking some stance

on the matter (and putting "pics" above security right now might not

be a great move, publicity wise), it might be more and more common to

have to process on the shoot end or some stop in between.

I am no expert on Delta, but I spent last month in the U.S. and never

did find a dealer with this lens in stock. Yes, it is on the

websites of B&H and Adorama and the like in NY, and even places in PN

and the West coast (if you need to avoid NY sales tax), but they

don't have the lens in stock. At least three places told me they

have never had the lens in stock, and just assumed distribution was

delayed. Maybe there is another problem involved? I still haven't

seen any analysis of the lens in a magazine, though some places show

a picture and tell you the basic specs - but that is about it. I too

noticed it didn't appear on the Delta site when I looked, but that

was 30-60 days ago.

Any chance someone has a repair manual or digital picture of what the

internal components are supposed to look like? I recently bought 2 of

these A2's as parts cameras, but suspect now the only thing wrong with

them is the pop-up flash and the command dial (which someone else

already removed from the top plate of the camera). I cant say for

sure that what is in this little jar I got are the correct parts, or

all of the command dial parts! If what I have is it, no wonder the

thing breaks all the time. Anyway, if you have anything useful, or

any advice, please email me or post it here. Thanks. (I have digital

pics of the little parts, which I could send if someone thought they

could identify them: release button, dial itself, metal cap which

mounts to backside of dial, retaining screw?, metal rail/lock lever,

spring -which looks too big and I have no idea where it goes, very

tiny metal ball, two busted plastic tips, microscopic washer made of

plastic?).

Last time I was in the States, I had a good experience with "Midwest

Camera" (I think now at midwestcamera.com). A good supply of stuff,

especially wider lenses. If you need advice, call and ask when a MF

user/employee works. I also got a great deal on the 150mm and 200mm

lenses from Ritz Camera - not the department store/mall outlet, but

the family camera buisness of the same name. They rae in the

Southwest U.S. and have a website and photo bulletin board. I have

also bought 35mm stuff from them and always been pleased. They are

at ritzcamera.com or ritzcam.com or some such thing.

No, You definitely do NOT need this feature. In fact, I don't know

of a single aerial person using the mirror up function. There are

too many other factors in aerial work, and it simply doesnt offer the

same benefit it would in a landscape at slower speeds.

just reread my post. It sounds almost sarcastic. I didn't mean for

it to. I just noticed a Garland 6x9 just ended on ebay. With Symmar

135 and boards, it was less than $500 (had I known in time, I might

have bought it!). If anyone is curious, the photo is still showing

on ebay (item number 1326040649 if the link fails) =

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?

ViewItem&item=1326040649&r=0&t=0&showTutorial=0&ed=1012604571&indexURL

=0&rd=1 I used one of these Garlands once, and it doesnt get much

lighter than this - and decent 4x5 lenses are all over the market. I

emailed a friend in France who has used the Horseman thing on demo

(at least I think it is this new product). He used it on an EOS 1, I

believe. He thought it was great, but, of course, didn't actually

buy one due to the price. He claims he has a regular customer who

saw it, and copied it - making his own! I am not so adventurous or

skilled, but it is an idea that comes to mind when you see a product

that looks great, yet you stand there shaking your head at the price

(like when I see a 6x12 back that costs as much as a motorcycle!).

How many people would go to this trouble, and especially this

expense? The thing is pricey to say the least. You could pick up a

used Garland mini-6x9 (which also takes 6x7 and 6x6 Graphloc roll

backs) and a handful of lenses for the same amount. If you did need a

great deal of movement, why not chuck the P67 altogether and put a

decent roll back on a 4x5 view camera? Doing this gives perspective,

and decent depth of field - which the 6x7 Pentax definitely lacks in

almost any portable setting.

I am one of the few -I suspect- not using Velvia or Fuji on a regular

basis. I always considered it a specialty film. The slides are

stunning, but the color saturation, to me anyway, is quite unreal.

Blue sky comes out bluer than the sky was the day it was shot, and if

I wanted that, I could probably produce the same using other films

and filters (same with green). I use Kodak's VS often, and am happy

with it (in fact, I used to use EPP, and was quite happy with

that!). But, I readily admit, that if you want super-rich colors,

Kodak is a step behind Fuji. As for improving their film, well, that

presupposes that returning enhanced colors is the goal of slide film

making, which it might not be for some people (but, like I said, I

know I am in the minority here). If you shoot for travel magazines,

or many other types, you could digitally alter almost anything like

this anway. Heresy to the purists, but I see it done everyday, and

the pic quality in most books/mags is rather limited anyway. It all

depends what your goal is, I guess.

I think you are exactly right about this being a 35mm lens. I had a

friend read through all his brochures, Photokina literature, etc.,

and there is no mention of a P67 4.5 500mm lens. And, when you

search this lens you always come back to the 35mm configuration. As

you say, they look the same, and the tapering is ununual. This is

not to say the lens is necessarily worse than the P67 500mm.

Although the edges would probably be soft on this 4.5, the center

could well out-perform the p67 500mm; it might all come down to what

you would use it on. While it might not make a great landscape lens,

it might turn out to be great for astro work. For instance, I have

seen photo credits in astronomy magazines read "Pentax 6x7 & Takumar

500mm f4.5" - so people have used it with some success. It might

also be a great lens for small wildlife and what not, and it would

definitely weigh less than a P67 500.

I think the stories about possible 220 problems were infered from the

original JCII test of the first P67. Their comment was that in

trying to get 21 frames out of 220, the flatness of the first frame

(and I believe this is the only frame where they suspected this would

be true) was not always perfect. The camera design may have been

tweeked a bit since then. Regardless, I have never come across

anyone who had problems with 220. I have two friends who use 220

almost exclusively, and regularly put 20+ rolls a week through their

cameras. Neither has found any quality difference between 120 & 220.

I remember reading drastically different assessments of the 150mm

lens (I still think it quite sharp). It seems the same thing is true

of the 200mm lens. At one time I owned both versions of the 200mm.

After numerous tests with tripods far better than mine, I was unable

to distinguish the old and new versions of the lens on my standard

16x20 prints. Since I didn't need the closer focusing of the newer

version, and since someone offered me more than I had paid for it, I

let the newer version go. I have loaned my older version lens to

friends who comment "maybe that 200 I used to have was better than I

remember". But, it is possible mine is sharper than the one they

owned. I am, unlike a few people I know and most of the people on

this board, VERY happy with my old 200mm. I dont have any trouble

getting real sharp shots, and my tripod lineup is far from top-of-the-

line. The one caveat was hinted at by Steve: best not to hyperfocal.

It just raises another debate, but I believe this is generally good

advice for almost any medium format lens beyond the so-called normal

focal lengths. As for the 200mm, I love mine. If you are in the

States, you can often find a mint, original version for around $325 -

and if you don't like it, you can probably get $300-325 back on the

used market if you decide to sell. Then again, if you are in a big

city, you could always rent one for a day and see for yourself. The

135 is sharper (55mm, 75mm, 135mm is my ranking of the sharpest), but

the 135 is a less useful forcal length for many people, especially if

they have a 105, 150 or 165; the 200mm is a really nice focal legnth

in 6x7.