joseph_wei

<p>I know this thread is a few years out of date, but I wanted to put in my two cents for Dave - he's a terrific, upstanding guy and does great work on all sorts of cameras. So far, he's worked on a Rolleiflex 2.8C, a Nikkor 10.5cm f/2.5 LTM, and a Tokina 12-24mm f/4 lens for me, and checked out several other cameras that I've brought to him. The lenses and the Rolleiflex came back in wonderful shape, and he even tuned up things that I hadn't thought of asking him about (including evening out a bent "foot" on the Rolleiflex back that I thought was un-repairable). All this for reasonable prices and excellent service. He even took in a friend's Voigtlander lens with a missing focusing ring screw and custom-made one to fit - "no charge," he said. All in all, Dave's work is top notch and I can't say enough about his friendliness, easygoing manner, and professional repairs. </p>

<p>Giovanni,</p>

<p>The camera works fine when set to aperture priority and any aperture is selected (other than "A," of course). The camera selects the appropriate shutter speeds and fires as normal; I checked this with the back open and listening by ear as well. When set to manual mode (aperture and shutter dial both off "A") or shutter priority (aperture on "A", shutter speed dial at any speed), the shutter fires erratically or doesn't fire at all. The power winder has fresh batteries in it as well - it winds as normal when aperture priority is selected, but "sticks" along with the shutter when set at the other modes mentioned above.</p>

<p>You mentioned that you had other F-1Ns with circuit board problems that caused this. Does this mean the camera will be difficult or impossible to repair? How did you fix the problems you had?</p>

<p>I recently picked up an F-1N after a long time away from the FD system - the camera looks great and I got it for a really good deal. The problem is that it seems to work only on aperture priority mode. (The camera has an AE prism and a Winder FN attached). Whenever I switch the shutter speed dial to any speed other than the "A" setting, the shutter fires at a very erratic speed (1/2000 sounds like 1/30 or 1/15, etc.) With the lens set at "A," and the shutter set at any setting other than "A," the camera refuses to fire at all - the meter needle shoots up to 32 as long as the shutter button is pressed. </p>

<p>When set on aperture priority mode, the camera fires and meters normally. </p>

<p>The weird thing is that when I take out the battery, the camera's mechanical shutter functions perfectly at the usual 1/2000-1/60 + flash and B settings. It's only when the battery is in the camera that it locks up and fires erratically. I changed the battery twice, just to make sure it wasn't a power issue, but it still does the same thing.</p>

<p>What do you think is going on? The camera was previously owned by a gentleman who evidently took very good care of it, but hadn't used it for the past 10 years or so.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My best travel kit consists of an FDn 24mm f/2.8, 35-70mm f/2.8-3.5, and a 85mm f/1.8 with my AE-1 Program - never needed anything other than these lenses. I used to bring longer teles with me - either a 135mm f/2.5 or a 200mm f/4 - but I didn't use them enough to warrant carrying them everywhere.</p>

<p>I've never used the 35-70mm 3.5-4.5, so I can't comment on it, but I've owned and used the constant f/4 and f/2.8-3.5 lenses and have never been let down by either one. As previous posters have noted, the 2.8-3.5 is a bigger, heavier lens with better image quality than either of the smaller versions, but the constant f/4 version is really sharp and contrasty also. You can't go wrong with either the f/4 or f/2.8-3.5 lens.</p>

As far as I know the only locked lens in the Canon US Navy line up was the 100mm f/2.8, which was used for aerial photography with Canon T70 bodies. Your lens may have been used for ground work - see this link: http://cameraquest.com/cf1mil.htm

I compared my 20D with a friend's 20D today, and was shocked to find that my 70-200mm f/4L misfocused with both cameras! At the same time, his 200mm f/2.8L focused perfectly with my 20D. So, it looks like the 20D is not at fault.

 

I'm finding it really strange now that the 70-200mm f/4L would work so much better with the Rebel XT, and be terribly off with the 20D bodies. The 50mm isn't as bad, but it's not as great on the 20D bodies as it was on the Rebel XT - I'm just going to chalk that up to the variation in the 50mm that Peter talked about. How could the 70-200mm f/4L vary so greatly?

I've really been having bad luck with EOS equipment lately. I posted earlier

about having a 70-200mm f/4L with a blurry left side (which I will be taking to

my local service center soon), but something else has come up. I recently

switched sold my trusty Rebel XT to upgrade to a 20D, only to find that the 20D

consistently focuses in back of the subject. I ran a test with a ruler and the

camera on a tripod with mirror lock-up in order to confirm this. I will be

taking the 20D up to the Canon Irvine Service Center to have it recalibrated at

the same time as the 70-200mm f/4L. I have a 50mm f/1.8 II that was tack sharp

with the Rebel XT, but now will not give a sharp picture with the 20D.

Surprisingly, my 17-85mm IS works just fine on the 20D body, as it did on the

Rebel XT.

 

My question is, if the lenses that I had before worked perfectly with my Rebel

XT, do I need to send them in to be recalibrated too? Will simply recalibrating

the 20D fix the problem? Also, have any of you noticed any exposure problems

with your 20Ds? I keep thinking that the colors and exposure were less washed

out and more smooth with my former Rebel XT compared to my current 20D, which

seems to give colder, slightly overexposed colors - is this proven, or is it

just me? How would I correct this in camera (without resorting to unnecessary

Photoshop manipulation that I didn't have to do as much when I owned the XT)?

Thanks again for all your help!

I've used both versions, and ended up keeping the new-FD 85mm f/1.8 - it was much sharper wide open, for some reason. The breechlock lens also had a stiffer focusing ring, which made it more difficult to use (this was just on my sample, so don't expect them all to be the same).

Thanks for all your advice! I contacted Canon this morning, and I'll send the lens to them in a few weeks (after I finish shooting some important photos that I absolutely need the lens for - I'll simply crop out the soft edge, since the rest of the lens is so sharp). I considered returning the lens, but that would leave me without a lens for the photos I need to take and the seller would have to get it repaired anyway, in order to sell it again.

 

I wonder how hard it'll be to actually get UPS to pay for the repair - the box itself doesn't look like it has any significant damage (other than one dented corner), and the lens itself was extremely well packed. If this lens of the same batch that Puppy Face encountered, then it may well be a factory problem; the seller may not have noticed it earlier, since he primarily used the lens for landscape photos (and I've noticed that the softness definitely disappears once the lens is stopped down to 5.6 or 6.3).

I recently bought my first L lens - a EF 70-200mm f/4L - off of Ebay. The lens

is very sharp, and I was really happy with it until I noticed some problems with

the left side of the picture. At wide apertures (4-4.5), the left side of my

photos is blurrier than the right side, which is fully sharp. Pictures taken at

these apertures of flat objects show that the left side is soft - to the point

that it looks like motion blur or uncorrected coma. Everything else is killer

sharp.

 

I confirmed this by running the lens through the classic "newspaper test" - I

put the lens on my Rebel XT (which has never had any signs of focus problems) on

a Gitzo tripod, leveled it with bubble level, used mirror lockup and self timer,

ISO 200 - JPEG large, and took pictures of an evenly lit article taped to the

wall. Again, the left side showed up as blurry, while everything else was sharp.

 

I'm in communication with the seller of the lens, and he's not sure what to do,

since he tested the lens before and found it to be sharp. Has anyone here had a

similar experience with this kind of problem? Does Canon do repairs on used

lenses like this - and if so, will it be prohibitively expensive? (I'm a college

photo student and spent most of my budget buying this lens already). Any help

will be appreciated!

That second photo is amazing! I like the depth and colors.

Rolleiflex Automat with f/3.5 Tessar, Minolta Autocord with f/3.5 Rokkor, Contax II and 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar, and Crown Graphic with 135mm f/4.7 Xenar

The Automat and Tessar are a first-class camera and lens combination. My Automat from 1949 has an uncoated viewing lens and a coated Tessar 3.5 taking lens; it produces very sharp photos with a certain "feel" to them that's distinctive. The camera itself, though it looks like it's been through a lot in its lifetime (worn-off paint, dings and dents on the body, a flaking mirror) is smooth, rugged, and extremely dependable. I always enjoy taking it out for a spin.

I believe it's a fast-focus peg (not a very useful one, since it's a bit too short), similar to quick-focus levers on TV and other camera lenses. By grasping the peg, you can turn the focusing ring faster and further than simply gripping the rubber ring. I know Kowa and Hasselblad sold similar accessory pegs for their lenses.

Before you do anything to the camera, have you tried changing the battery? My AE-1 Program does that exact same thing when its battery is running low.

Although I use my FDn 85mm f/1.8 much more than the 135mm focal length, I'm also a fan of the FD 135mm f/2.5 - it's fast, sharp, and has wonderfully smooth out of focus highlights - and as the previous poster mentioned, it's very inexpensive right now. It's a very well built lens too - solid metal construction and a very hefty, indestructible feel. I've tried a few 100mm lenses, but they were too close in focal length to the 85mm, and not nearly as fast.

The A-1 has a very sensitive meter (reads down to EV -1), a very good LED readout of shutter and aperture in the viewfinder, has slow speeds down to 30 seconds, has aperture priority (as well as program and shutter speed priority modes), and is relatively lightweight, yet durable. Sounds like a good choice for you.

FDn 24mm f/2.8, FDn 50mm f/1.4, FDn 35-70mm f/2.8-3.5, FDn 80-200mm f/4, FDn 85mm f/1.8

Any FD lens works well in black and white - tonal range and contrast is really more dependent on your processing than anything else. My 85mm f/1.8 has excellent out of focus highlights, as does the very economical 135mm f/2.5 breech-lock lens (this last lens goes for about $50 or $60 these days, has a very wide aperture, and is well-known for having creamy, out of focus highlights while being very sharp at the same time).

Across the Bay, in Oakland, is a little one-man store called Icamera - or International Camera (different from the International Camera mentioned in one of the posts above) - it's on 1444 Franklin Street. This store is FULL of gems; shelves and shelves of Japanese and some German gear; lots of SLR stuff, but also older rangefinders and folding cameras. Not too much in the way of medium format or large format. If you can, drop by this place. The prices are about average, and some are overpriced, but it's worth a look. The man who owns the shop and repairs cameras is very polite if you spend some time talking to him. The website, I think, is: icamera.com

The glow is probably caused by an film of oil on the "gleaming, immaculate" Radionar lens. I have a Rolleiflex Zeiss-Option Tessar that also looks very clean, but experiences noticeable flare because of an oil deposit on the lens. The effect doesn't hurt your photo, of course, so it's a toss-up whether or not you want to clean the Radionar or keep it as-is.

 

As the previous poster noted, most triplets perform best when stopped down to f/8 or f/11, producing results that aren't much different from four-element lenses.

Excellent shots - the composition, sharpness, and tonality are great! I'm assuming the lens was a Tessar?

 

Btw - number 2 photo is flipped horizontally (the characters over the gate are inverted).

My dad also gave me his AE-1 Program that he used in grad school - I used it from sixth grade up until now (I'm in college), and am still using it. It's a great, study camera with all the features you could need for most general photography - just goes to prove, all the more, that it's the photographer that makes or breaks the photos, not (just) the camera.

That last shot looks almost three-dimensional - the muted colors are very nice too; reminds me of color slides from the 1940s. Is the Elmar uncoated?