rog21

Well, Mark has had his FD stuff even longer than me since he kept his when I moved to AF so his opinion probably out weighs mine. <br><br>

 

However, my copy of the 28-85 was not in the same league as either my 35-105 3.5 or my 50 1.4. I would be very surprized to see the 28-85 out resolve the 50 1.4 (a highly regarded lens in the SSC version and still highly regarded in the FDn mount).<br><br>

 

My sharpest FD lenses (in no particular order) were:<br><br>

 

50 1.2L<br>

50 1.4<br>

35-70 2.8-3.5<br>

35-105 3.5<br>

80-200 4.0L<br>

500 4.5L<br>

All history now as I have moved to Digital EOS (1DMK2N).<br><br>

 

 

Every one of these lenses would easily out resolve the 28-85 (IMO). I would re-shoot your test and be as accurate as possible with focus as that is all I can think of that would make the zoom out perform the prime (unless the prime has a problem).

The FD 200mm Macro is a f/4.0 just like the 100, so you're not getting any more speed. The 100 was sold with the FD 50-U life size adapter, so hopefully, the adapter will be with the lens when you look at it. The FD 100mm f/4.0 Macro is a highly regarded lens.

 

As for out of your price range, they look like fabulous deals to those who have switched to autofocus....

It still measures the returned light coming through the lens. In bounce mode, ETTL2 throws out the distance information anyway and measures the duration of the flash in the same way as ETTL1 did/does.

That's as far as you got, the word Costco? Did you bother to look at the comparison of the scanned MF images to the IDsII images? If you think a 4x5 properly scanned image won't blow away ANYTHING you can get from the 1DsII, you are seriously deluded (I have images from both and there is simply no comparison). That doesn't mean the 1DsII isn't a stunning machine, it just means it won't be competing with MF for resolution in this lifetime.... And Luminous Landscapes... give me a break.

 

The article is simply suggested reading, as I said, I don't care what he buys, but like anything else, if you have a specific goal in mind, you should read as much as possible before plunking down your dollars.

I don't care what you buy, but the 1DsII does not come close to MF in terms of resolution no matter what these posts say. You might want to read what a landscape pro has to say who uses both formats: <a href=http://kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm>Ken Rockwell speaks of Digital vs. Medium Format</a><br><br>

You said you wanted to turn pro, so this seems like a relevant article for you. The comments about the hassles of film/scanning/etc. certainly have merit though. I have found digital (1DMK2N) gives me enough resolution for what I do, but I'm not a professional landscape photographer (I shoot mostly sports).

Are you taking the len aperture ring off "A" before you press the depth of field button? Failure to do so would cause the error you're seeing.

I don't really disagree with you, however....

 

Why don't you think one is needed (forget the zooms for a moment). The 50 1.8 is sharp but suffers in the build dept. The 50 1.4 is soft wide open and has a questionable FTM focus ring (or clutch). Most pros that shoot sports like football or tennis have a long lens on one body, a 70-200 2.8 on another, and a 50 1.8 or 1.4 on a third. I'm betting they (and I) would love to have a 50 (or 55) 1.2 that is sharp wide open AND weather sealed along with all the other build features of L series lenses.

 

BTW, I'm crappy at predicting Canon stuff too :) I can sure want though....

Maybe it doesn't make sense, maybe it does (to Canon).

 

In the FD days, Canon sold the 50mm 1.8, 1.4, 2.0, 3.5 Macro, 1.2 and 1.2L all at the same time.

 

I had the 1.8, 1.4, 3.5 and 1.2L all at the same time (though I got rid of all but the L and macro eventually).

 

A new EF 50 1.2L should sell at a price point between the 35L and 85L (based on how the FD version was sold) which would put it around $1200.00 (much more reasonable than the 1.0 was).

 

I for one, would have a 50 1.2L if offered and it had the image properties the FD version had (or better)....

The only rumors I've seen are for a 50mm 1.2L and a second gen 85 1.2L. I'd be VERY surprised if Canon were to mess with the 300 2.8 L or the IS version of that lens as they are widely regarded as the best 300mm lenses you can get, period.

 

There has been some talk of a new 200mm 1.8L as well, but this would not have any effect on your target lens either.

 

The show is later this month if you are really worried. You could just wait and see....

Denis, what does my shot have to do with "sports shooters?" It is about the decisive moment I guess though. I was not about to lug my 500L around the Zoo with me and the Gorilla was too far away to shoot at 200mm, so the extender got me the shot that was otherwise not available. The 8 x 10 is excellent and I think a 16 x 24 would be as well, so for me... it works. YMMV

Some will say the 2XII give unacceptable results, other will say it gives acceptable results. I think the results with that combination are acceptable (for me). <br><br>

 

EOS 3, 70-200 2.8 L IS, 2XII, 400mm hand held:<br><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1196861-md.jpg">

Well, he has a ton of positive feedback and he's been on eBay for a good while. I'd go with him if I was in the UK. His price equates to $85.00 US, that is a good price for this service (IMO).

This guy has a good reputation and I will probably use him when mine comes due:

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Steven40@aol.com [mailto:Steven40@aol.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 1:57 PM

To: rogerbclark@bellsouth.net

Subject: Re: Canon T-90

 

 

 

Hi Roger,

 

 

 

Yes, I do still service the Canon T90 camera. You are right, the "EEE" malfunction is caused by dirty shutter magnets. To rebuild the shutter unit, clean and service the camera, I charge $125.00 labor, $15.00 for the internal battery and $10.00 return shipping. I give a six month warranty with my work and can turn the repair around in less than a week. Let me know if interested. I am located at:

 

Camera Clinic

295 Gentry Way #6

Reno, NV 89502

775-829-2244

 

At your service,

 

Steve

 

 

Don't know if that's the guy on eBay, but he's where I would go...

Had any experience with who? Maybe an eBay user name or a link would be in order here?

In the early stages of this, you can usually just press the battery check button under the side cover. Between films, exercise the shutter on high speed continuous mode with a high shutter speed (500th or higher) for a few dozen frames. Eventually, you will need to have the shutter serviced.

No, I don't think that is normal. I have never seen that with my 70-200 2.8L IS. I have allways used it on a film body though and wondered about that effect when I saw something like it in a thread about using the 2X with it.<br><br>

 

Well, this last weekend I was visiting my cousin and she happens to have a Rebel XT. Of course I couldn't resist trying my good glass on her DSLR.... and it just happens that I shot a photo of her cat.<br><br>

 

Full shot:

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/3988264>Cat</a>

<br><br>

Crop of whiskers:

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/3988287>Crop</a>

<br><br>

I do not see the effect in my shots. Since the XT is 8mp and a 1.6 crop like your 20D, I would think all else would be the same.

Before you spend the time and money to send it off, make sure it's not something obvious like dirty front or rear elements or a degraded filter....

You say they show on the Rebel's LCD display but not the reader, so why not upload them using the USB connection?

Sorry, I meant to include that the Lemur, Gorrilla, and Heron are the 2XII shots (this information is in the details section though).

I shoot with the 2XII from time to time on my 70-200 2.8L IS and am satisfied with it. Yes, there is some loss of quality, but it is not as bad as some might lead you to believe. Check out my Jacksonville Zoo gallery for some examples of shot with the 2x and without. These scan have had no processing done to them at all.<br><br>

 

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=263116>Jacksonville Zoo Gallery</a><br><br>

 

As some others have said, I believe the quality is better than cropping a larger image and when I need the reach, I use it. If you don't like the results, they are easy to sell.

Well, since I shoot a FD 500 4.5 L lens on my EOS-3 occasionally, maybe I can offer some insight into this for you.<br><br>

 

1) As others have said, it might be better to just pick up an inexpensive FD body if you want to shoot long lenses and especially if you want to shoot anything shorter than 300mm.<br><br>

 

2) If you are determined to use long FD lenses on an EOS body, try to find the genuine Canon FD-EOS adapter. You will know right away when looking on eBay or other sites if it's the genuine article as they sell for around $400.00+ and are VERY rare having been made to allow pro photographers with a large investment in long glass a way to make the transition to EOS a little easier. They were not available to the general public<br><br>

 

3) As you noted, you lose autofocus and auto diaphram control. Most people shoot these lenses wide open anyway as you lose a stop with the adapter to begin with. The adapter also multiplies your lens focal length by 1.26 (so my 500 4.5 is a 630 5.6 on my EOS. You set your body to aperture control and it will read 00 in the viewfinder but will expose properly.<br><br>

 

4) Yes, you do lose some quality, probably about the same as the 1.4x extender when used on FD lenses with an FD body. That said, you can get very acceptable (IMO) quality. Maybe Hans Martens will chime in here as he shot both a FD 300 2.8 and a FD 500 4.5 extensively with his EOS gear before getting the autofocus equivelent lenses.

His site is at: <a href=http://www.wildpicture.com/>this location.</a><br><br>

 

The bottom line for me is that the EF 500 4.0 is so expensive that I kept my FD lens out of financial sanity...<br><br>

 

Lastly, there is a good site at mir.com that covers what works and what doesn't with the Canon adapter (note: the non-canon $40.00 to $80.00 adapters on eBay render poor results by all accounts, don't bother with these). The address is: <a href=http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdeos.htm>Mir Site.</a><br><br>

 

Good luck!

<b><i>5. If I choose to use a MF lens, does the beep sound when subject is in focus or it's only up to my eyes? Which focusing screen do you find most appropriate for MF? Ec-I? Other?</i></b><br><br>

I imagine all 1 series are the same, film or digital for this question. No.<br><br>

I shoot a 500 4.5L with a genuine Canon EOS-FD adapter on my EOS-3 and focus is up to me, no beep from the camera.

I'd start by cleaning the row of contacts on the motor drive. Since the power winder is able to supply power to the aperture control circuit, the motor drive must be failing to do this. It's either a bad contact or broken internal contact in the motor drive.

Hans, thanks for the reply. I too like that body and it will prabably be my first digital body. I'm using an EOS-3 right now and still shoot mostly sports, water-skiing and Motorcycle racing mostly. The one thing on the 3 that I would miss terribly would be the ECF (Eye Controlled Focus). It was the feature that allowed me to switch to autofocus and also the feature that kept me from buying the 1V (I tried both cameras together before purchasing the 3).

 

What were you scanning with and can you compare the results from your slide scans to the results obtained with your 1D?

 

Good to hear from you again!

Hans, long time no talk to.... what have to converted to body wise? Have you gone digital?