anthony_thornborough1

I sincerely hope that the top-end Canon FF will percolate down to consumer level FF in the next few years. And that that's an issue of wait rather than weight.

Why aren't fast W/A any use on crop DSLRs? It just depends on how wide you wanna go.

 

And most people like a combination of focal lengths at their disposal, otherwise they'd get a pocket digital - voila!

 

And some people with big, long lenses want a heavier FF camera to counterbalance the heavy lens - voila!

 

Any expenditure is worth a little analysis.

It's not so much the bulk, but the weight. I got put off after using the EOS 3 with the BPE2 booster, which was a back-breaker - I'm sure Canon would have a big ready market for a vertical grip for the 40D series, just to allow handy vertical format photography. I can balance a spare charged BP511 better in my pocket, the way I used to carry a spare 2CR5 battery.

The pull of a 1.6x on a 40D is probably better than a commensurate crop on a FF 12mp 5D, shooting RAW in creative modes, though I stand to be corrected on that one.

 

The thing that sold me on the 40D was cost, the dust-reduction facility and lightweightness.

 

However, I miss FF badly at times. Seeing how a 17-40 f/4 L turns into a 28-65 is frustrating at times, though it makes a good travel combo.

 

I'm certainly going FF to replace my EOS 3, but am waiting for the 5D's successor to come out, come down in price after a year or so, and then envisage using the 24-70L + 85L lenses on that, and the 70-200L on the 40D all the time.

I've been wondering about this for years, ever since owning the '5/VG10 combo and being perplexed as to why such a straightforward, batteryless, lightweight and secure add-on which allows for easy photography in portrait format was never made for follow-on camera bodies.

 

I am also in the market for something like the VG10 for my '40D, but don't want the extra weight - two power packs?! - of the BG-E2N!

I am sure BV and I are not alone on this one!

Not really.

 

I use the 24-70 f/2.8 L only on my old film EOS 3 body, along with other heavier optics.

 

Yours and my D40, both, use the 17-40 f/4L (28-65ish) and 70-200 IS f/4L (110-320ish) lenses. These are light and you would be better-off buying a 50 f/1.4 as short-portrait etc 'filler' optic for your D40, IMHO, if you feel the need.

Agree with Chris JB and Robert Lawler.

 

I have both lenses - 85 f/1.8, and f/1.2LII - and I use the slower one when travelling further afield or when risk factors dictate using the cheaper optic. But they are both excellent, the f/1.8 being especially good for close-ups with an EF12ET extension tube for things such as jewellery on a woman's ear, face-painting on a child.(I have not used the ET on the LII because of the way the rear element protrudes, and a fear of scratching it when taking the said ET on and off).

 

My normal arrangement for the f/1.8 is to keep the 12ET on it, which I generally get better results (of the kind I seek) than with the f/2.8 Macro 100. But that's purely subjective.

 

There is definitely more 'sparkle' with the LII stopped down, and it gives you the edge when opened up, and it also balances very well indeed ~ it's heavy, but not the giant marble I imagined it would be: not tiring to use for prolonged periods, as it's so stubby compared with using a fast telezoom at a commensurate focal length. AF is a breeze (I never owned the Mk1 version) but slightly less 'snappy' than the f/1.8, but it never seems to 'hunt' the way the slower optic/faster (FTM) USM f/1.8 can do - the LII always seems on the mark.

 

I would recommend the 85 LII for those using both FF and 1.6X arrays, but as you've already got the top-end EOS 1 in a concert environment it's a non-brainer. It'll balance superbly and won't disappoint.

Thanks Robin,

 

I obviously need to consider a Canon Type S screen(s) for my EOS as the slowest I use are f/4 (17-40 and 70-200IS) and normally use f/2.8 or faster. Umm, interesting!

Love the tactile qualities of film and still use an EOS 3 (and 5) but it's becoming increasingly marginal which means we can kiss goodbye to colour print/neg film before too long. The only aspect of that prediction that I lament is that we won't be able to buy 120 roll colour neg, such as Kodak Portra 160 VC. But as long as there's good quality monochrome and tranny products such as Fuji Provia 100F I remain content.

 

Nikon are keeping the faith but Canon have written us film users off as dinosaurs, and the writing was on the wall back in 1987 - twenty years ago - when all-electronic mounts replaced the FD system. The big Voigtleitzleicauseretc will keep 35mm speciality film in vogue for decades to come. I have no affiliation with the company, but has anyone in the UK checked out what First Call have to offer with regards film, darkroom gear etc? Pretty impressive!

There's often no real change in the viewfinder when going wider than f/2.8, regardless of the wider apertures (f/1.8, 1.4, 1.2) because of the funny way that the patterned focusing grids work. That's what I was told, and half-believe. But you will a/ get massively increased shutter speeds in Av mode when going wider, and b/ sometimes see astonishing differences in the end pic.

It's all quite mad. Someone please explain how the EOS focusing grids fox you like that!

Go for the 70-200 f/4 IS L version. It's worth it if you want a relatively compact, lightweight and well-contructed lens. It's my only IS after 25 years with non-IS telezooms and its performance is stunning all-round. Just save the pennies and wait for it.

 

If you need extra reach there's the 1.4XLII extender which does not degrade performance in real life by very much.

 

However, if you don't need the quality difference in colour rendition and contrast between an L and non-L and want instant up-to-300mm, then the 70-300 IS USM is for you.

 

The drawback is the unusual 67mm filter thread (which applies to the non-IS version also), but I rarely use any filters on mine (and have old stock from my Mamiya 645 era, so it's not an omission based on any additional costs, just camera luggage).

 

If you genuinely can never envisage paying IS prices then the standard something-300 IS is your baby. Seems to me that you've maybe reached that decision already (?)

Hi Vicky,

 

If you're in the Bristol England area maybe we can get a gaggle for night-time photography in town - strength in numbers? Even Anne and I feel nervous sometimes when patrolling the streets with gear worth as much as a car, and very much on the learning curve with night-time shots.

 

Mostly use Fuji Provia 100F.

 

I think you've got a fine purchase with the EOS 3 (and we still have a 100% working EOS 5/VG10/60T3 too).

 

Good to know there's others still using 35mm film.

 

Tony T and Anne R

I have found the EOS 3 occasionally fickle, but majestic in performance 9 out of 10 times in all sorts of lighting. It is quick and responsive, though the PBE2 I got is permanently off (I wish Canon had made a vertical grip w/o power booster, like the EOS 5's VG10 but, alas, no), due to weight - and I use an 85 f/1.2 LII regularly, which balances very well on just the body (not the proverbial snout wagging the body).

 

One day, somebody with a very long memory will misquote me, but I'll probably go to the grave with the EOS 3. The only 'wear' issue is the hotshoe, where the three sprung Speedlite contacts drive gentle grooves into a plastic lip. The rest is as-new, even after eight years of use!

My partner and I still have and use an EOS 3 in conjunction with an 8mp Sureshot digital in the bag. This seems to work well, a combo of quality shots and grab shots, for blow-ups and scrapbook snaps.

 

The '5D's successor (announcement end of this month!?) will be a must-have and the film-based '3 will then start to gather dust, rapidly, on the outside at least.

The 50 f/1.4 micro-USM feels more fragile than my 85 f/1.8 ring-USM in both build and AF speed and, to a certain extent, quality. I would not, however, trade my 50 f/1.4 for an f/1.8, but that's maybe a self-fulfilling prophecy as I don't use the 50 f/1.4 as much as I ought ~ worries of the micro USM conking out, meaning a fear of using FTM with a micro motor, which means desired focus has to be spot on all the time.

 

However, I really don't like the 50 f/1.8's twirling end barrel with 52mm thread (vs the 50 f/1.4's non-rotating 58mm filter thread), which did it for me. But if you want to experiment with wide aperture the 50 f/1.8 is a great starter. At the price, you could drop-kick into the bin if it didn't satisfy!

 

If you want a fun, experimental optic you may be better off acquiring a Lensbaby.

The 50 f/1.4 isn't as good as the 85 f/1.8 in many respects IMHO, but I haven't tried the 50 f/1.2 L, and perhaps I never really gave the 50 f/1.4 enough of a work-out. I always was a fan of Canon's remarkable 85mm lenses.

I agree with Marc on the 'wish list' front but stick by my original statement that adding an 85 f/1.8 would open up a different world. Not only in the portraiture aspect, but also by adding a 12ET extension tube and shooting at f/5.6, at roughly the lens's peak sharpness with an ET, you get a very, very good close-up lens.

Compared to the EOS 3 the 5/A2E is much quieter. I agree with the comments about ambient noise blanking out the 5's motor, mirror & shutter, though it was nonetheless a favourite with wildlife photographers who thought the 1N, and definitely the 3, were too noisy at times.

 

The command dial on my old 1994-bought 5 (serial I can't remember, but low in that series) worked perfectly for six years right up until when I traded it in towards an EOS 3. For all I know it's still going strong?! My 1999-bought 5's command dial (serial 2201540) failed within a year, was fixed by an indepedent repairer and still works today. There seems to have been a defective batch of parts made in the late 1990s but hopefully any such errors would have mainfested themselves by now (?)

 

The 5 still is a very good film camera IMHO, though my now 10+ yr-old model does overexpose a tad. I use it for 100 ISO b&w film mainly these days.

Hi Jonny,

 

The 85 f/1.2 L is spectacular, and such fun to have and use.

It balances very well too - it's not the 'giant' some people say it is. I can use it for extended periods, more so than, say, even a small telezoom, or the 24-70L.

 

When I first got into Canon EOS in 1994 I quickly realised that the 28-70L and 85L would suit most of my needs. The moral of the story is that, by waiting, I wound up with a 24-70L and 85LII, so I know any faults are purely my own!

Good to hear that the design is the same Peter. My old clip-on was perfectly round so it didn't matter how exactly you popped it on. The fitting was strong enough to cope with wind, but gentle enough to be knocked off - which is a bonus. Rather the hood went flying than the lens mount was damaged by a nudge.

The 85 f/1.2 L bayonet mount is a pain in this regard!

Jonny Mac is right in my experience, although I would add:

 

The 70-200 will have more 'wow' factor and and will make you want to buy an L-series standard zoom to go with it once you realise that you won't use the telezoom nearly as often as you thought, so you'll end up buying both sooner than you planned!

 

The 24-70 won't offer a significant edge over your 28-135 IS in many situations so you might be disappointed and wish you'd bought the telezoom instead! So you'll end up buying both again at rapid speed!

 

As you plan on doing that anyway, it's just a case of which one you want first and how unbearable the interlude is!

The 24-70 L is great and the f/2.8 advantage very useful, but if you're used to zooming out to 85mm and beyond you will miss that extra reach.

 

I use a 24-70 f/2.8 L and 85 combo for 90% of the shots I take, to the extent that I bought an 85 f/1.2 L to 'replace' the 85 f/1.8 (I use both primes still).

 

Trading back and forth will waste money. You're better off adding 1-2 primes for speed, depending on your needs (e.g. 28 & 85 f/1.8s) and keeping the 24-105 IS, IMHO.

My old one clipped over the outside. Does the new MkIII bayonet on then? Haven't bought a replacement (which I need!)

The combination with a Canon extender (converter) isn't possible. I can't say about third party converters but believe they are also not compatible (but stand to be corrected).

 

It sounds like you should consider the 70-200 f/4 L without IS, which is remarkably inexpensive at the moment.

 

You may be better just waiting and saving towards a 135 f/2 L which you could use with 1.4XL and 2XL converters for 135, 190 and 270 options and superb results.

 

The only thing I'd put between my 85 f/1.8 or 1.2LII and the camera body is a 12 ET extension tube, which is used to create a pseudo-Macro (which I find produces more pleasant results than my 100 f/2.8 true Macro at the kind of close-up magnification I like best, but won't focus out very far.

Ouch! I empathise.

 

This scenario is why I've made do with the f/1.8 version all these years.