everheul

I'm with Jim on this one. Why would I get an EF-s macro that will not be interchangable with my film camera, especially since there are some excellent macro lenses that are reasonably priced that will have enough coverage for full frame and APS.

 

The only EF-s lens I gave any serious consideration to was the 10-22, but I have decided to just keep my 24mm on my film body and scan the negative or slide. We'll see if I cave in and buy the 10-22 just to avoid the pita of film scanning.

The two on the right were taken with a vivitar 100mm f3.5 macro. Only the one on the left was with the 85mm.

 

This is my only gripe with the 85mm. To get closer than 3 feet you need to attach the extension tube, thereby loosing infinity focus.

The pic on the left is with the 85mm with the kenko extension ring.

btw, I agree with Glen. The 135 f2.0 is a fantastic lens (especially for indoor sports or theater) with a much flatter perspective than either the 85mm or the 100. Great for adults who happen to be afflicted with a big nose and could benefit from the flat perspective.

 

On a film camera I stick with the 85mm for portriats, especially with my kids. I dont want such a flat perspective that it looks like my kids faces are smushed against a piece of glass. your mileage may vary.

I'm not sure you will see much difference in perspective with the 85mm versus the 100. Here is a set of three pictures (ignore the text, as it was for a previous post a long time ago).

 

One was shot with the 85mm 1.8 and extension tube, and the other two were shot with a 100mm lens. Can you pick out the 85mm shot? All shots were on film.

The now discontinued technical pan film is very sharp but very contrasty and needs to be developed in technidol or other similar developer. You might be able to order some at B&H.

 

Percieved sharpness in the final print isn't only from the film, but how it is processed and printed.

 

Are you doing your own developing and printing?

Pro photo on blackstone, in the same shoping center as Herb Beaurs sporting goods. They do all formats up to 4x5

OOPS my bad. I brain farted and wrote assuming digital reb. The 17mm zoom should be excellent.

I don't know if you plan to stay with the APS-C sensor when you upgrade. If you do plan on staying with this format, then the EFs 10-22 might be something to look at. It's 200 over budget, but it will give the same fov as a 16 to 35 would on 35mm. I know that I would want the option of going ultra wide if I were going to the Grand Canyon.

 

If you plan to upgrade to a full frame sensor, then the 17mm zoom mentioned above might fit the bill.

I have the 85mm f1.8 and the 135 f2. I have only had problems with this lens hunting with low contrast objects. Other than hunting with low cow contrast subjects, the lens focuces pretty fast, even with the 1.4x tc.

Ron

 

You didn't mention if this is for a film or DSLR with 1.6x factor. For portriats the 85mm was on my film camera 90% of the time. On my 20d the 50mm stays on most of the time.

 

I have a 135mm lens that I find a little long for my taste for portriats, even on a film body. The 135mm works great for indoor-low light sports and for theater. On the aps size sensor you will get the same field of view as a 210 would give on a film.

 

If you do opt for the 135mm length, it might be worth it to save up and go for the 135mm f2, as it can be used with the 1.4x tc

FWIW:

EXIF data: Aperture priority 1/250@f1.8 with 85mm f1.8

ISO 1600

Raw/med jpeg

Contrast mid high

sharpness mid high

color saturation mid high

w/b Cloudy

All custom functions 0

I've seen this (occasionally) on a few test shots at 1600 raw images

(but not with the embeded jpegs, either large/fine or med/fine) I

have not yet used the noise reduction feature yet.

 

What on earth is that strange pattern of discoloration, and why does

it only occur on the raw images and not the embedded jpegs?

 

I searched the archives and found nothing of this nature mentioned

with the 20d.

 

Thanks<div></div>

Amen. 90% of the time, my questions are answered with a brief search.

Even with my A2e (Eos5) the focus is good with prescription glasses. With sunglasses doesn't work at all.

Ron, only you can answer if it's better to get a wide or an 85mm lens. It comes down to which one do you think you will use the most. If you are just starting off, it might be a good idea to get the zoom. This allows you to assess which focal length you do most of your shooting. Then save up for the prime of your choice. FWIW the 85mm f1.8 is my favorite portrait lens (film camera)

 

With all due respect to gil, I don't buy into the idea of just using one lens (focal length) to make you learn better. Just my humble opinion.

Scott, you say that you feel the 1.6x is dead in the water. Is this simply because of the inherent limitations of the smaller capture area, or more because Canon hasn't upgraded their wide angle formulas to beter correct for CA?

 

I just got my 20d today and held back from getting the 10-22 zoom for two reasons: I don't know if Canon will stick with the 1.6 sensor, and I'm not sure if the performance will warrant the $800 price tag.

 

Looks like I'll continue to use the 24mm f2.8 with film for enlargements to 8x10, and my mamiya 6x9 or 6x7 back & 50mm lens combo if I know I want enlargements beyond 8x10 (expensive scan/prints though with the 6x9)

 

In any event, I'm looking forward to making the leap to digital...still unpacking my package from B&H :-)

Thanks guys, looks like these guys are scam artists. I'll probably stick with my old standbys at B&H or Adorama

Greg:

when I called the gentleman confimred the price, and answered yes when I asked if it had a USA warranty.

 

I'm used to dealing with Adorama and B&H and have had good experiences with both, even when problems have been encountered they delt with things quickly and to my satisfaction.

 

Rob:

Thanks, I will check it out the site you recommended.

I'm going to buy a 20d, and called A&M after seeing an ad for a 20d

at $809 with USA warranty. It sounds to good to be true, just want

to hear from anyone who has delt with this vendor.

 

Thanks in advance

I had this happen on a lens that got condensation droplets on the internal elements (shooting skiing pics at -10f, and didn't have the plastic bag sealed when I went indoors for a beer...oops) The droplets dried and the residue caused exactly the same pattern you are getting.

 

I am at a total loss as to why you are getting this pattern with a new lens.

I love tri-x in acufine or x-tol, but you don't have your own darkroom.

 

Have you considered shooting color film (NPZ) and de-saturating in photoshop? The b/w in my whopping 3 picture "gallery" was desaturated color film.

 

Below is what you can expect from tri-x in acufine.

If you have your heart set on slide film then Astia will be good. How will you be going about getting a print?

I'm assuming use of a 35mm camera.

 

A 20x30 from a handheld 35mm is like playing tennis with a pinng pong paddle. At least use a tripod. I'd probably opt for print film (reala) Forget superia. I might use Kodak 400UC if I needed a little pop.

 

Shooting 35mm will probably leave you a little disapointed at this enlargement.

I just bought 10 rolls of astia from B&H, it's not discontinued.