rog21

Well, I would start with this thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003i4u <BR><BR>

As as previous owner of both the 70-210 4.0 and the 80-200 4.0L I can say there is no comparison between them, the L lens is superior at every focal length and aperture. After I shot just one roll through the L lens, I put the 70-210 on eBay.<BR><BR>

I have no direct experience with the non L 80-200, however it is supposed to be a respectable performer, but not up to the L lens.

Isaac, you said "However, it may be that the older 80-200 F2.8L or recently discontinued 70-200 F2.8L are better buys than the sigma."

<BR><BR>

I've seen no evidence (other than one post from someone in the UK who said it's not on the UK site anymore) that this is true. The 70-200 2.8L (non-is) is listed for sale on B&H and Adorama AND is on the Canon website. What makes you think it's been discontinued?

You might take a look at Bob Atkins' site as well: <BR><BR>http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/x-300.html

Puppy Face, yes I had problems with the LCD. Not fading out or anything, but intermittent problems where it would just not work at all. I'm sure it was either a loose connection inside the camera or a cold solder joint. The camera worked just fine, but it's a little tough selecting modes, etc.<BR><BR>

I wish I had thought to have Canon upgrade the firmware to include CF19 while it was there as I will eventually have a need for it. Alas, I hoped they would have automatically done that (since it costs them nothing), but no joy.<BR><BR>

It's all working perfectly now, just added a 550EX flash, 2XII extender, and a 70-200 2.8L IS to the kit and I'm off and running again!<BR><BR>

70-200 2.8L IS -- Wow, what a lens! I owned the 80-200 4.0L FD lens before switching to AF and loved it. This lens is everything that one was plus another stop of light (and up to three more with IS).<BR><BR>

Kelvin, what have you decided to do about the crack?

Chris,<BR><BR>

Both of the "popular camera shops" that this site promotes still have the non-IS 70-200 2.8 for sale. Canon USA also still has it listed on their website.<BR><BR>

I wouldn't hold my breath...

There is something very wrong with either your lens or your camera's lens mount. Try the lens on another body to verify which. If it's the lens, demand a replacement from Canon. You are the only person reporting this severe of vignetting on this lens (that I've seen here on photo.net at least). I've shot mine wide open at 24mm many times and have seen no vignetting at all. Take a look at the pictures used in the review of this lens, not one shows anything like what you're seeing. Another reason to suspect it's your particular lens or your camera body...

George, thanks for posting back, it makes so much more sense that way :)

Mark, the 35-70 2.8-3.5 is (IMO) sharper than the constant F4 version wide open. However, if you stop them both down one or two stops, they are pretty much equal. The problem there is you are then shooting the F4 version at 5.6 or 8 and this can really take a toll on flash batteries and recycle times. The minus of the 2.8-3.5 lens is the variable aperture if you're not using TTL flash metering (I.E. T90 and 300TL flash). <BR><BR>

35-105, I still recommend the Canon lens. I don't think handling is any issue at all. In fact if you're using a body with a motor (built in on the T90 of course), it balances quite well (IMO).

Sorry Isaac, I miss spelled your name in the previous post...

Mark, thanks for responding. I have two questions:<BR><BR>

1) I'm looking at the sandhill crane shot in the birdsasart link above. This was shot with the 2xII extender wide open (F8). It looks really sharp to me (even with the extender which should soften the image some), were your images not this sharp (maybe your example of the lens was defective)?<BR><BR>

2) You didn't comment on the Bokeh (see Isaak's comments above). Every shot I've looked at, the Bokeh seems about as nice as my 500 4.5 (which is very pleasing to me at least). Can you confirm the donuts out of focus Isaak talks about or post a lower res picture for us to see?<BR><BR>

Thanks!

I'll contribute two items:<BR><BR>

1) The EOS-3 does have DEP.<BR><BR>

2) Adorama has many sales persons, I'd choose another.<BR><BR>

I handled the 1V and 3 extensively before settling on the 3. I could not tell which was which without looking (they weigh almost the same and the controls are identical). The eye controled focus is what did it for me (Nikon has no such thing). I always hated that the autofocus cameras focused where they wanted instead of where I wanted. I'm very happy with my EOS-3 and expect it to last as long as my previous FD bodies (2 A1, 2 F1N, 2 T90), starting from 1973 I've never had a Canon body fail (though I had my Dad's A1 CLA'd for the squeak problem).<BR><BR>

I say find a sales person who really knows the EOS-3 and go through it with him/her before you decide between it and the Nikon, you will be pleasantly surprized. Also, search this forum, I don't think you'll find many reports for EOS-3 bodies giving up ever (much less after "just a couple of years."

Isaac, I have looked at all the shots in the reviews of this lens posted above and can't see one example of the donut out of focus (bad bokeh) you mention. Do you have an example shot we can see, all the samples out of focus areas above look like very nice bokeh to me.

I think the Canon 35-105 3.5 would go head to head with anything out there and probably win most of the time. It is a very high resolution and very contrasty lens.<BR><BR>

I suggest you read this review: http://www.kjsl.com/canon-fd/lenses/reviews/zoom-review.html<BR><BR>

I found it to be the perfect FD wedding lens. I like the other lens you mentioned also (35-70 4.0), but found the 35-70 2.8-3.5 to be sharper.

Jean, that's fine and I agree. He said the 24-85 was heavier and that the 24-85 was dimmer, simply wrong...

To George Zhang who said:<BR><BR>

Downside to 24-85mm: <BR><BR>

 

1. Worse distortion at the wide end 2. Dimmer viewfinder 3. Bigger and heavier <BR><BR>

Well...<BR><BR>

1) Is questionable if one is worse than the other.<BR>

2) Since they are the same speed 3.5-4.5 for 24-85 VS. 3.5-5.6 for 28-135, that just wrong.<BR>

3) The 24-85 is 13.4 OZ, the 28-135 is 18.9 OZ, so that's just wrong as well.

The short answer is, since you don't think you'll miss the wide end, you should go for it.<BR><BR>

I have the 24-85 and my friend has the 28-135 IS which I have used. I can't see any difference in image quality at all. I'm sure as the light falls off, the IS will be a huge advantage though.<BR><BR>

As for distortion and vignetting in the 24-85. First, I have never seen vignetting in this lens period. As for distortion, maybe if you're shooting something with a lot of parallel vertical lines you might see some, but for normal shots, landscapes, candids, etc., I seriously doubt you could detect any significant distortion. I shot a number of 24mm shots at our Holoween party as well as many landscape shots and have yet to notice anything disturbing.<BR><BR>

I find the short end very useful which is why I chose this lens over the 28-105 3.5-4.5 or the 28-135 IS lens. Now if they came out with a 24-135 IS with the image quality of the other lenses mentioned here, I'd be all over it :)

If they do add IS to the 70-200 4.0L version, it will sway a lot of people who might otherwise be on the fence between it and the 2.8 IS version. I went for the 2.8 IS because of all the reasons posted above and especially because I occasionally shoot with the 2XII extender hand held. I don't think I could have taken <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/1196851">this shot</A> with the non-IS 4.0 version of the lens unless I had a tripod or monopod with me.<BR><BR>

I also happen to think that the extra weight of the lens actually helps keep camera shake down (unless you get tired to the point of fatigue), I have the PB-E2 power booster on my EOS-3 for the same reason.<BR><BR>

That said, the 70-200 4.0 is a stellar performer and certainly easier to carry around. I had the FD version of this lens and loved it though I sometimes wished for that extra stop.

Why don't you call Canon and ask them? I just had the LCD panel repaired (replaced maybe, I don't know) in my EOS-3. They had to pretty much take the camera apart to diagnose and repair the probem. The cost was $135.00 plus shipping. Since you know exactly which part needs to be replaced, they should be able to estimate the cost over the phone. At least, that's where I would start.

I just sold a T90 to a guy using eBay. He asked about the manual and I pointed him to the same site mentioned above.<BR><BR>

 

He emailed me a couple of days later to say he ordered one from Canon. It seems they still have them...

"Btw it can hardly be on the mirror if it's clearly visible in the viewfinder. The mirror isn't in the focussing plane after all."<BR><BR>

 

You have obviously never had anything on your mirror if you believe that... The reason I needed to clean mine was that it was quite visible (and annoying) in the viewfinder.

What camera and lens was that again? The A1 is an FD mount body and the EF 50 1.8 is an EF mount for EOS bodies...

CF-19 re-assigns AF stop button on lenses to other functions. The function is primarily targeted at the longer IS lenses. It allows such things as pressing the AF stop button on the lens changes your EOS-3 from One Shot to AE Servo and others. Maybe someone will post the list, I think there are 4 settings.

Bill Goldman said: "I would not risk using them with the EOS-3, or the EOS-1, 1N or 1V, for that matter either. Besides, there is no practical advantage as the camera performance is not enhanced in any way and they are very expensive to boot."<BR><BR>

First, my PB-E2 specifically says lithium are ok to use, so I don't see any risk there.<BR><BR>

Second, there is at least one advantage to lithium, they are quite a bit lighter, that can help your neck...<BR>

Since the BP-E1 was originally for the EOS-1, maybe the warning has to do with the body. <BR><BR>

 

The PB-E2 for the EOS-3 allows Lithium, Ni-cad, whatever, so if you're using the BP-E1 with a EOS-3, I'd think you'd be fine.

 

<BR><BR>I might email Canon and ask just that question to be sure though.

I might also spend a few minutes and make sure it's actually on the focusing screen, it might be on the mirror.<BR><BR>

If it's on the mirror, you can clean it, but you have to be very, very gentle (did I say gentle) to keep from scratching it since it's a first surface (the coating or silvering is on top of the glass, not under it). I have successfully cleaned the mirror on one of my F1N bodies with a very soft cloth and my own breath (boy does that leave me open...) when the mirror damping foam became so old it came off on the mirror. <BR><BR>

As others have said here, if it isn't too bothersome, just leave it.<BR><BR>

However, if it really gets you and you just have to get it out of there, but are afraid, I'd have the Canon service center do it for me.<BR><BR>