rog21

Well, it's tuff shit as Brian says.<br><br>

 

Bob, yahoo has underlined links in my browsers...and I expect most of the other sites you quoted do also, it's something you have done... <br><br>

 

This doesn't bother me enough to debate it, but this is certainly not the standard, just Brian's standard (and that's all that counts if he is the web master here).

I�m sorry, but I disagree with Mr. Mottershead�s assertion that underlined links are no longer the industry standard. There is no supporting information at the W3C website and the Government 508 Accessibility guidelines still REQUIRE links to be underlined since color blind people cannot discern between some color combinations. <br><br>

Based on the other thread that Gordon pointed me to (thanks), no one is going to change Brian�s mind on this issue, so it�s probably a lost point�<br><br>

I have over 200 sites in my favorites list and this is the ONLY site among them that has done away with the industry standard underlined link...<br><br>

I am a professional web developer with Microsoft Certifications and I have taken and passed the 508 compliancy course, so I believe I have some background to address this issue.<br><br>

Can I live with the links the way they are? Sure, but it is annoying to me and that may have an effect on my usage of this site.

The short answer is no. I regularly use a FD 500 f/4.5 with Canon FD-EOS adapter on my EOS-3 without issue.<br><br>

The non-Canon adapters you're probably seeing on eBay and elsewhere are very poor quality and not worth using IMO.<br><br>

Be aware that if you go with the Canon adapters there are two.<br><br>

1) Macro Adapter - can mount any FD lens, but you lose infinity focus. Primarily for close up and Macro photography.<br>

2) FD-EOS Adapter - can be used only with certain longer focal length FD lenses and retains infinity focus. Primarily for professional FD users that had a large investment in long (white) telephoto FD lenses transitioning to EOS. Quality of this adapter is on a par with the 1.4X extender (very good).<br>

 

<a href=http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdeos.htm>You can read about the adapters here.</a><br>

Why have you changed the default link (underline) to highlight? The

industry standard is to underline links. It is sometimes very

difficult to see a link now when it's just a highlight (color

change) from the regular text. Here is an example of a <a

href=http://www.photo.net>link</a> that might be difficult to pick

out...

The Canon 35-105 f/3.5 is one of the best zoom lenses ever made, so if you can get that one for $100.00, go for it. <BR><BR>

The Canon 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 (they never made a 3.5-5.6 that I know of) is a very light and optically decent lens with one molded aspherical element. The lens is nearly the same size and weight as a 50mm.<BR><BR>

The Tamron is nothing special, but not bad either. The extra reach of the 35-105 might be useful for travel though.<BR><BR>

You can see more information on the two Canon lenses <a href=http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/50135.htm#35-105mmNEW>here</a>.<BR><BR>

<a href=http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdeos.htm>This link</a> contains a list of the lenses that can be used with the Canon Fd-Eos adapter.<br><br>

Only the 85-300 zoom from your list will work.<br><br>

I agree with Jay. I find the 70-200 2.8 IS with the 2XII-TC to be a wonderful combination.<br><br>

 

I can shoot from 70 to 400mm hand held without problems. I too don't feel you need to stop down to get acceptable results with the TC.<br><br>

 

See my <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=263116">Jacksonville Folder</a> for examples of shots with and without the 2XII, all hand held.

I don't know of anyone who makes them, but..<br><br>

You can just buy one form B&H or Adorama and give it to your Optician. He/she should be able to remove the current element and put in a custom ground one about as easily as making one for glasses frames.

The following comments are from Bob Atkins and were found in the EOS-3 review area:<br><br>

 

Two comments:<br>

(1) Don't give up hope of seeing a data back "one of these days". Canon are aware of the issue. <br><br>

 

(2) You won't fog Konica 750 IR film, and the Kodak IR film will fog on the edge (perforations) but not far into the image. Some reports say the Canon bodies with IR film sensors are quite usuable even with the Kodak film. You just have to try it and see. <br><br>

 

-- Bob Atkins, November 9, 1998

<hr>

Without Diopter control I've had to trust the Eos3's AF more than my own eye sight, and I can say that it has never left me down.<br><br>

-- Mick J , May 09, 2003; 09:58 A.M. Eastern

<hr>

Diopter eyepieces ARE available for the EOS-3, I have one on mine. Why would you do without? I use the eye controlled focus heavily and it works fine with the diopter eyepiece (mine is a +1).

<br><br>

Roger

Paul, no big deal at all. I read it one way (Bill read it correctly). If it makes anyone feel better, I think Canon SHOULD have the LCD change to reflect that the shot will be evaluative metering when the flash goes active in ETTL mode :) <BR><BR>

When I first got my EOS-3/550 setup and read about ETTL in the manual, I was surprised that the LCD didn't change. After all, if they can show a flash ready indicator in the viewfinder, they can probably alter the LCD content just as easily.

I never said it shot other than in evaluative, I was referring to Paul's initial post: "having set the EOS 3 to partial metering on Tv mode,when i turn my 550 EX on in ETTL,partial metering automatically reverts to evaluative metering,, thats normal right??" <br><br>

 

My EOS-3 does not change it's indication of spot, partial or whatever mode I have it in when the flash goes active, Paul seems to indicate that his does...

No, that's not normal. My EOS-3 retains whatever metering pattern I select when the 550 goes active in ETTL mode.<br><br>

I can't find anything in the EOS-3, 550, or Hove EOS-3 manuals that says it should change either.<br><br>

Does this happen no matter what metering pattern you select?<br>

I agree with Paul, if you're going to be shooting at 400mm all the time, get the longer lens. However, <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1196861>you can get very good results with the 70-200 2.8 IS and 2XII extender.</a><br><br>

I only need the 400mm reach every now and then, so the extender made sense for my lighter walkaround kit. When I know I'm going to be shooting somthing longer, I take a longer prime (500 4.5L).<br><br>

I think it comes down to how you'll use the lens most of the time.

The converter you point to on eBay IS a genuine Canon converter for longer lenses. It gives a 1.26 magnification and a loss of 2/3 stops. To see a list of the lenses you can use it with, <a href=http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdeos.htm>see this link.</a> <br><br>

Be advised, this adaptor works great with some bodies, and not so great with others (like the EOS Elan-7/7E). I use it with an EOS-3 and a FD 500 f4.5L (resulting in a 630mm f/5.6) with excellent results.

My EF 70-200 2.8 IS has been nothing but amazing for me. After the first session with it, I forgot all about how much is costs and how much it weighs. Even with the 2XII extender, it's very impressive. <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1196846> Here is a sample of what it can do</a><BR><BR>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1196885> And here is a shot with the 2XII, hand held at 400mm</a>

I recently walked through the Jacksonville (Florida) Zoo with my 70-200 2.8IS and the 2XII. I can honestly say that I'm completely satisfied with the results. <BR><BR>

 

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1196861>See this shot</a> for an example. This was wide open, developed and scanned at the local drug store and uploaded without modification.<BR><BR>

If you look at the other photos in that folder, there are some with the 2X and some without for comparison.<BR><BR>

Your results may vary, but I think this combination is perfect for this type of outing. I would not hesitate to publish photos taken with this combination.

That is not the Canon FD-EOS converter.<BR><BR>

I agree with Hans, the genuine Canon item is a very good piece. I use it with an EOS-3 and FD 500 4.5L and get very good results. The resulting lens is a manual focus 630mm f/5.6. <BR><BR>

See the MIR site for more information on the <a href=http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdeos.htm> FD-EOS adaptors</a>

That's pretty normal for the T-90. As someone said above, the shutter magnet sticks somewhat without regular use.<BR><BR>

My solution with my own T-90s was to exercise the shutter on high every couple of months if I wasn't using it. Just set it to H and shoot a few continuous bursts of 12 to 15 frames (without film of course). All three of my T-90s did this at least once, so I wouldn't panic, just keep using it. If the error won't clear for you, take the lens off "A" and push in the stop down lever and then release the stop down, put the lens back on "A" and proceed to the above sequence of exercising the shutter.

That's funny, I'm looking at my can of WD-40 right now and it says lubricates right on the front along with cleans, loosens, etc...<BR><BR>

 

Try reading the can before telling us what's not on it...

Well, I'll have to eat some of my words, but here goes... My information was somewhat third hand, so I decided to research it a little and found that I was wrong. WD40 does have solvent as well as a water repellent, so I would recommend having the camera CLA'd ASAP. I still don't think it will do any real damage, but time is probably your enemy here. <BR><BR>

If anyone cares to read about WD40, try this link: http://www.wd40.com/AboutUs/our_history.html

I agree with Psul aul, WD40 is NOT a solvent (at least when it was invented) and in fact was developed for the missle industry as a moisture repellent for electronic circuit boards, so may not have hurt anything. Have it cleaned by a professional..

Markus, I just did a quick count in the review thread and came up with 21 positive (or at least not negative) responses. Yours and one other where the only negatives. Don't you think all of us would see this problem right away? Not everyone shoots every shot stopped down to f8 or better. I have three (admittedly not enough for a true test) rolls of film shot with this lens, I don't seem to have any vignetting at all. <BR><BR>

I will be shooting some this week, so I'll mount the lens and take a white wall shot wide open and stopped down one and two stops. I'll report what I find when I get the film back.<BR><BR>

Phillip's reviews are usually pretty good, I just can't believe with all the film he shot and posted, he wouldn't have pointed out such a severe problem if he saw it, even before cropping or whatever.<BR><BR>

I'm also puzzled about the 50 1.8 showing this problem. I've been reading photo.net for a long time and have never seen the 50 1.8 and the word vignetting used together (not that I've done a specific search for that mind you). I don't own that lens, so can't comment from my own experience there. <BR><BR>I've been shooting Canon since 1972 and can honestly say I've never seen a canon lens as bad as your pictures illustrate. I certainly wouldn't have kept one that performed that badly...

Isaac, you have been searching for an example all this time? We may have to come up with a new nickname for you (some sort of terrier or something). Do you happen to have the whole image to look at? The close up of the out of focus portion doesn't mean as much to me in an "out of context" condition like this. I do see what you've been talking about now though. It was never a lens for my own consideration, I was just curious. I would buy the 500 4.0 or the 300 2.8 personally, just more usefull focal lengths for the type of telephoto shots I take.

You should have posted this in the FD forum rather than the EOS forum, I'm sure there would be many more responses. <BR><BR>

Try this thread for someone who could repair the unit: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0040bL