robert_edelman1

<p>Please correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember from when I was investigating memory cards a while back that the actual response time in the camera may also depend on the size of the card. The larger the capacity of the card, the longer it will take to write. So some cards with slower speeds but smaller capacity might perform at a speed that is close to a faster card that has a larger capacity. The write speed therefore would be more significant for the larger capacity cards.</p>

<p>I have had many good transactions purchasing on eBay. I have had no problems and have received excellent prices on adaptors and filters shipped from Hong Kong. I also try to be careful. I check on and read the eBay seller ratings and feedback. If someone on photo.net recommends a retailer for an accessory, for example, I will buy from that party, rather than from an unknown party. Of course there are scammers, but they exist at all levels of selling (and buying). And if something seems suspicious, I avoid it.<br>

Before I bid, I determine the maximum of what I am willing to pay, and I do not let myself get caught in the auction trap of going higher than that amount as the auction progresses. A few years ago I bid on two different lenses from two different sellers on eBay. In both situations I was the high bidder, but lost at the last minute to bidders that offered the same bid as my highest bid. I lost each of these bids because the other bidder supposedly had submitted a bid earlier than I, but I could not find this in the bidding history. In both situations, a short time after I had lost in the bidding, I was contacted by the seller, stating that the purchase had fallen through, and that I could now buy the lens at my highest bid. I suspect that this was a scam to entice me to bid higher during the auction, and since I did not go for that, they were resigned to sell the lens at my highest bid. One or both of these sellers might have been legitimate, but I did not trust the situation, and I did not buy either lens. I did report my suspicions to eBay, and I have not had a similar problem since. Ebay has also changed some of its protocols since then. I have benefitted from purchases on eBay, and I will continue to use it, with my usual caution.</p>

<p>Recently posted on Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com) is the announcement of two new manual focus lenses from Cosina/Voigtlander with EOS mounts: Color Skopar 20 mm f3.5 SL II Aspherical and the Ultron 40 mm f2 SL II Aspherical pancake.</p>

<p>Tamrac manufactures the Express series of messenger bags that do not look like typical camera bags. They come in khaki and in black ultra suede. The Tamrac Adventure series are built on a similar chassis as the Express series, but are all nylon and do not have the ultra suede, and do not have a zippered pocket on the inside of the front flap (probably not a big deal). The Adventure series appear to have a more water resistent and durable outer cover, but at the price of appearing more like a camera bag. Both series appear to be well built and well padded, and are comfortable to carry.</p>

<p>Giottos Lefoto has some messenger-style and other designs that don't look like camera bags.<br>

www.giottos.com/Lefoto.htm</p>

<p>It seems obvious (to me, anyway) that the Canon EF 50 mm f1.4 is due for a make-over. I know that Canon has the 50 mm f1.2 L, but there are photographers (like me) who appreciate the smaller size and price of an f1.4 lens. Nikon updated its 50 mm 1.4 G in 2008. Sigma and Zeiss also believe that there is a market for these lenses. Considering this, I am surprised that Canon has not updated this lens.</p>

<p>I have a 5D and a 10D. I bought my 17-40L with the 10D, and I love the lens. I recently purchased a 24-105 L for travel. It has a versatile range, but I think the 24mm range is there to use for convenience. The 17-40 is a better wide-angle lens than the 24-105 is at its wide angle range. If I am serious about a wide angle shot, I use the 17-40. If I am traveling with the 24-105, and do not have any other lenses with me, I have the option of using the lens at 24mm, and then cleaning up the barrel distortion and chromatic aberration in post-processing. You have a great set of lenses, and lenses are a better long-term value than a body. If you don't need the macro, the 100 mm looks like your most dispensible lens (although it is a great lens). But the macro will hold its value long after that advanced point-and-click is yesterday's news.<br>

You should try a "point-and-click" before you buy one. Despite its weight and bulk, I prefer to use the 5D. I like the viewfinder. I like its high-ISO capaility compared to a small sensor point-and-click. I do have an S70, but it is rather large. If I were to chose a smaller camera, I would consider one that is truly small enough to fit in a pocket, such as the S90. The Lumix GF-1 is significantly larger than the S90 or Lumix LX3, but it has the larger size sensor.</p>

<p>JDM, the Zeiss looks like a fun lens to try. It is only f2, though. <br>

Peter, your answer is very helpful. What could be better than the experience from someone who has both lenses. Thanks to you both.</p>

<p>I'm sorry that you have had the problem with your 40D. Congratulations on using it as much as you do. It seems as if the camera is not worth repairing. With so meny actuations, after the mirror box is repaired, the shutter might fail a short time later. You can probably buy a gently used 40D for about the same money as replacing the mirror box and the shutter. </p>

<p>In regard to your surgeon friend, have you thought of the Canon SX10is? It is capable of macro, and has a hotshoe, which may be helpful for use with macro mode. It also has a long zoom reach for those times when you don't want to get too close to the surgical field. Finally, if the camera is only used occasionally, the AA batteries are more useful than a proprietary battery. The OR staff may forget to keep a proprietary battery charged, but there always seems to be AA batteries around. It is still a "point and shoot" of sorts, but the extra size should not be a problem.</p>

<p>Stephen, I have to agree with you that motion blur and focusing accuracy are more significant to image quality than the small differences that are found between quality lenses. Still, the images I get, for example, from the EF 200 f2.8 L (using some sort of support, of course) are special.<br>

Thank you for mentioning the feel of a well-damped manual focus lens. I think that is an important reason why I miss those older manual focus lenses. Some of the autofocus lenses also have a good feel when manually focused. This is particularly the case with some of the macro lenses where, as you know, manual focus is often used. The EF 50 mm 1.4 lacks that dampened feel when it is manually focused.<br>

I can't try any EF-S lenses as I have a 5D. As you know, the larger sensor on the 5D is more demanding on lenses, as it will show optical aberrations that are cropped out by an APS-size sensor.<br>

Yes, the Contax/Yashica lenses with an adaptor is a less expensive alternative to the ZE lens. Still, considering that the lenses are used and are out of warranty, the C/Y lenses are still not cheap.</p>

<p>Thanks, Mark, for your input. Glad to hear from another FD user. Perhaps Canon will update the EF 50 1.4 with a ring motor and more robust mechanicals. After all, as you say, optically it is a good lens. I was just wondering if the contrast or some other optical property would make the Zeiss more or less desireable for some people. Obviously, much of this is subjective. </p>

<p>I have been intrigued about the Zeiss ZE 50 mm f1.4. Maybe it's nostalgia for the all-metal lenses of yesteryear. I have used the Canon EF 50 mm 1.4, and I find that it is a reasonably good lens in regard to image quality. It's small and light. But it is fragile. It may be my imagination, but I loved the photos that my FD 50 mm 1.4 (breech lock) produced compared to the EF version, even though both lenses seem to have similar optical designs (7 elements in 6 groups). The EF lens that I used was not a "bad example", as it was serviced by Canon, so I know that it was working properly. The best way that I can put it is the EF version doesn't do much for me. It's OK, but not great. Maybe I'm asking too much. That is why I researched the Zeiss EF. I also researched the Sigma lens, but have pretty much ruled it out because of its size and focusing issues. The Sigma also appears to not be as sharp compared to the Canon when it is used with smaller apertures.<br>

I know that the Zeiss is manual focus, and can be used with focus confirmation in EOS cameras. It is built by Cosina in Japan. One can buy other Zeiss 50 mm 1.4 non-ZE lenses and an adaptor for EOS and save some money, at the cost of having to use stop-down metering, etc., but I want to stay with the ZE version for this post. From the reviews that I have read, the ZE is soft at 1.4, but sharpens by 2.0. The background blur (bokeh) at f1.4 has been criticized as being too harsh. It supposedly has high contrast (I have seen it described as "microcontrast", whatever that means). Most of the information that I have looked at about the Zeiss is 8 months old, or older. So, I am posting these questions for those of you who have experience with the Zeiss ZE 50 mm 1.4:<br>

What is your experience with this lens? Is it difficult to focus, even with focus confirmation? Do you need a different focusing screen, or can you get by with the standard 5D screen? Are you pleased with the photos that you get with this lens? What are its weak spots, and what are its strengths? Is the lens worth the extra cost as compared to the less expensive Canon EF 50 mm 1.4?<br>

Thanks in advance for you input.</p>

<p>Sorry about my previous remark. It wasn't helpful. I was tired, and I hadn't eaten dinner yet. <br>

Now that I have had my supper and am more rested, I've been thinking about the choices that are available. I, too, have also given some thought about lighter weight and convenient-to-use alternatives for travel photography. For low-light photography, of course the larger the sensor the better. Cameras such as the G11 (and S90) are at a handicap in this regard compared to APS or 4/3 sensors. Maybe the larger photo sites and the new processor on the G11 and S90 will surprise us, but we just have to see. There is always the possibility of using a tripod or monopod, or smaller desktop tripods, but they defeat the goals of compact, light weight, and convenience.<br>

I thought about the Canon Rebel/Kiss series (this is the EOS forum, after all). For about the same price as the Lumix G1 with its kit lens, you can buy a Rebel Xsi with its kit lens. Yes, the Rebel kit is about 200 grams (50%) heavier than the Lumix, but the Canon body is only 1.25 cm or less larger than the Lumix in any of the three dimensions (height, width, depth). The Rebel and the kit lens together will weigh almost the same as the 24-105 f4 L lens alone. The Rebel and the kit lens together will weight much less than 50 % of the combined weight of the 40D and 24-105 f4 L. If you want an auxiliary flash, you could save money and use your Speedlight 580 II. or you could save some weight and room with the Speedlight 270EX or Sunpack RD2000, both relatively small, lightweight flashes. With the Rebel/Kiss alternative, you can cut down on weight and size compared to what you are already using, maintain the benefits of a DSLR (such as an optical viewfinder and the larger sensor), and maintain the flexibility of using all of your lenses and flashes on both the 40D and Rebel bodies by staying within the EOS system. <br>

If you want a much smaller camera (fits in a pocket), consider the S90, but it too has not yet been released, and it does not have a hot shoe. There is the Panasonic Lumix GF-1, which also has not been released. The GF-1 will be about twice the price of the S90, and will also be more expensive than the Rebel or Lumix G1 options.</p>

 

<p>Uh, the G11 has not been released yet.</p>

<p>I am not an economist, but might the prices be a result of the relationship of the yen to the dollar? <br>

I have noticed that some Canon EOS products are hard to come by. I was wondering whether Canon deliberately has cut back during the recession to avoid excess inventory and to maintain prices, or whether new products are soon to come out (such as at the end of September), and Canon does not want old inventory to be around. <br>

Then again, maybe Canon had to cut back on production so that the employees could go home early and make babies!</p>

<p>If you really want to talk depreciation, think about automobiles and trucks. You might then feel better about digital cameras. <br>

When the M8 first came out, I asked a Leica executive whether they would be able to service the camera for 30 years, as they did for their manual cameras. He replied that they were limited by those who supply the electronics. Once the inventory of electronic parts ran out, then Leica would no longer be able to repair the camera if the problem involved those parts. He implied that for the long term, Leica was more confident of being able to provide service for the mechanical components.<br>

Leica does not seem to be into planned obsolescence. After all, Leica still provides service on its older cameras, unlike a certain Japanese camera manufacturer which stopped servicing those cameras which had its older lens mount design. (To be fair, it is admirable but not cost effective for a large company producing many different models to maintain parts and trained service personnel for all of those products for 20 years or more.) Leica has worked to maintain compatibility with its older lenses. It seems as if Leica realizes that pushing off obsolescence is important in maintaining the value of its brand, and helps to justify the prices of their products. I believe that Leica will do its best to keep all of its products in service as long as possible. The M9 looks to be a great camera. I wish Leica well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'll vouch for the Tamron 28-75 mm f2.8. I have owned one and liked it a lot. It is relatively small and light, and rugged. I would try a particular lens out first, as this model (when it first came out) had a reputation for variability amongst individual samples of the lens. They also come with a shade and a 6 year warranty.</p>

<p>I want to thank all of you kind people for your helpful responses. G. Dan Mitchell's extensive answer was particularly informative. I am well aware of the light fall-off and distortion issues, and they don't bother me that much. After all, they can be improved in post-processing, and are a fair compromise for the versatile range of the lens. I am most interested in sharpness, contrast and color. I asked the question because I recently tried a used (circa 2006) sample and was not happy with its sharpness or chromatic aberration. It was also acting spastic trying to focus in lighting that was not that dark. I had extensively researched the lens, and I was surprised and disappointed with how poorly the lens behaved. After reading Dan's comments, I think that the sample I tried had "drifted out of adjustment", and was in need of service. I returned the lens. I think that unless I can find a very nice used sample, I will buy a new one. As you know, the Canon L lenses hold their value so well that a new one with full warranty and return privileges is not that much more than a used one.</p>

<p>I know that the early production 24-105 L lenses had a problem with glare. I am debating the merits of buying a used lens versus a new lens. Are there any issues to be concerned about on a lens built in 2006 compared to a lens built in 2009, aside from the ususal issues such as internal dust? Thank you.</p>

<p>I have been happy with Canon's repair facility in Irvine, California. The turn around time is fast. I have had one lens repaired (rebuilt is more appropriate) and a 5D repaired for impact damage. The lens was repaired perfectly the first time around. The 5D was not initially repaired to my satisfaction. When I called to report this, my call was immediately handled (almost no hold time), and a label for free shipping was sent to me by email. The camera was returned in a few days, in perfect condition. They will give you a quote before repairing the camera. My wild guess is that your camera repair will cost between $350 to $500 dollars. Despite the repair return (stuff happens), I would use them again.</p>

<p>Canon's 300 mm f4 L IS is about $1200 new, a lot less than the 300 mm f2.8 L. A teleconveter would not work well with the f4 aperture. But with the resolution of the 5D mkII, you might be about to crop (digital zoom). You might want to rent a lens or two to try them out. Lensrentals.com is a good place to rent. </p>

<p>I know people have strong feelings about Ken Rockwell (kenrockwell.com), but he has a new post on the Leica 90s, including a comparison chart.</p>

<p>You might want to wait a few more weeks, when the SX1 will come with RAW file capability. Then you can decide whether you wish to pay more money for the SX1, which has better video, longer zoom, but less megapixels, compared to the G10. Also, you have to decide whether you want the benefits of the proprietary battery on the G10 or the convenience but increased size and weight of the AA batteries that the SX1 uses.</p>

<p>I love the 200 mm f2.8L, which I use it with a 5D. It is fast to focus, quiet, has good contrast, and is sharp. It is well made, it is relatively light, and not too conspicuous when used without the lens hood. I use it mostly for available light photos of stage performances while I sit in the audience. I use a monopod, or I rest it on my backback which I have placed on my lap. You do lose the versatility of a zoom, which I sometimes miss, as you cannot "zoom with your feet" when you are sitting in the audience. But the stages I shoot are not huge, and I can sometimes move around, so one focal length seems to be acceptable, especially for the price. Optically and mechanically, you cannot go wrong with this lens. You have to decide how important a zoom and IS are to you.</p>