scott_ferris

Hi all,

Richard you are right, the 70-200 f2.8 IS used with an Extender

2X II gives you a maximun f stop of 5.6 used with the Extender

1.4 II your maximum f stop is 4 (you loose one stop)

Francis, you are pushing your luck with a 70-200 zoom and

stacked extenders but you have obviously read or heard of the

tecnique. I believe the use of the extension tube to prevent the

protruding front element on the rear extender fouling the rear

element of the forward extender works on the fast L series

telephotos over 300mm and they CAN still focus on infinity,

(because they can focus past infinity normally), but it obviously

won't work on your 70-200. Just using the tube will also not allow

infinity focus but will allow AF, the use of one 2X extender will

allow AF and infinity focus and will give you an effective 140-400

f5.6.

Take care all, Scott.

Hi there Walter,

Just to add my cents worth, I use two 1V +PBE2 (exactly the

same as a 1VHS) but I bought them seperately, the reason I did

this was two fold, I got a very good deal and I wanted to be able

to use the 1V without the PBE2 which means you need a grip

GR-E2 to hold the battery, this comes standard with the 1V.

This can be bought seperately, and makes the camera much

smaller and lighter and less noticable, all the better for close up

candid work. On the down side it is noisier without the PBE2 and

the frame rate is slower.

Any 1V is a 1VHS if you put the PBE2 onto it. Any 1VHS with the

PBE2 replaced by a GR-E2 is a 1V. The camera bodies are

identicle, choose what frame rate you need and go from there.

Best of luck, Scott.

Hi Tim,

The point is that whilst the one lens isn't going to sink a

battleship the differance between the kit zoom and the 70-200

f2.8 IS is considerable, and on first picking one up the majority of

people are very suprised at how heavy it is, this apparent weight

only increases during the day, particularly when you are either

letting it hang on a strap or constantly composing through it.

I personally have not had real problems with useing the lens but

even I find my arms aching after a long days shoot, (I just

covered a three day and night open air concert) it's just a

genuine consideration that a new user to the lens should be

aware of, take care all, Scott.

P.S. Nice shot of the racecar, where was the historic meet ?

Hi Paul,

How important, to you, is your photography ? Only you can

answer that. If it's important enough you won't mind carrying the

lens, it is a burden, but the results are very very good I use the

70-200 f2.8 IS with a 2Xmk II and the 12 and 25 extension tubes

and it is an amazingly versatile lens. As you said once you get

into this type of equipment you really start to run out of excuses,

other than familiarity, this will either stifle you or encourage you.

You won't go wrong starting your upgraded system with the 70-

200 f2.8 IS. Take care, Scott.

Hi Chuck,

Just a follow up to your continuing dilema, I've used the f4,f2.8

and the f1.8. I've also used three versions of the f2.8 my money

went on the earliest version of the 2.8, the only advantage of the

IF version as far as I can tell is the non rotating front element for

when you use a polariser, if your after narrow DOF the use of this

filter is probably not a priority, I hardly ever use mine and I can

just slide back the integral hood when I do want to use it.

Useing the 1.8 was fun but it is very difficult to use to good effect

especially wide open, even when I had the money I didn't buy

one. Now the 300 f2.8 is worth every cent and is much more

useful. Take care, Scott.

Hi Chuch get the 2.8, it is a fantastic lens and the ideal starting

point for a tele inclined semi interested photographer. I was

quite a keen photographer for years then got a 200 f2.8 and

never looked back. The DOF can be used to great effect at close

distances it will really push your focusing abilities, you can

always use the 2.8 as a 4 you can't use the 4 as a 2.8, it's not

heavy just well balanced it's not too big and they are so cheep

now it's a joke. Build quality on all the Fd 200 f2.8s is very high

don't worry if you can't get the latest internal focusing version, I

never bother upgrading from my silver ringed version.

If you think you might take your photography further getting the 4

will only mean you have to get the 2.8 at a later date, best wishes

,Scott.

Dear Askin,

Just a note on my personal experiance of candid portraits, (my

favourite subject).

I agree with NK GUY, a 300 f5.6 is not a very good choice. My

most productive lens is the 70-200, at 200 you get a very decent

amount of pulling power, the lenses are easy to work with and

can be used with a bit of subtelty. I have a 300 f2.8 and this is a

fantastic lens for the pulling power but you need an extra stop to

get acceptably sharp results and the subject movement can be a

real problem from a framing point of view.

I'd go for the 200 f2.8 a very sharp lens that works well with both

teleconverters, unless you can spend a lot of money on zooms

primes really can't be beaten. You can get away with at least two

stops over the 300 f5.6.

The majority of my candids are bright daylight, I also use provia

and I stii find I get down to 1/125 sec with the 300 at f2.8 as soon

as you get cloud or shadows. With an f 5.6 this would go down to

1/60 way to slow for hand holding a 300, I don't understand how

you can think of useing a tripod for candid portraits, tripods are

certainly not an option for the kind of candid portraits I do.

This is the answer to what telephoto lens to get if you can't afford

or want an L series zoom. The 200mm f2.8 L.

I hope this helps as I know how difficult it is to make choices

when there are so many options and opinions, the quality you

would get from the 200 would impress you I'm sure, take care,

Scott.

Hi Mike,

If an LP 1224 fits then an LZ1224 should. As I understand it LP

is lens pouch (very soft) and LZ is the white double zipped semi

soft type, the numbers are their internal sizes in cm width first

then height, so an LP 1224 takes a lens 12 cm wide and 24 cm

tall inc caps.

Hope this helps, Scott

Hi Jerry,

The short answer is no. The first thing is you can't mix ISO

ratings on one film, if you expose a film at other than its regular

ISO then it will need to be processed differently, longer for

underexposure (pushing the film) and shorter for overexposure

(pulling the film). The physical characteristics will change alot,

otherwise we would all be useing Velvia at 800 ISO !

Keep shooting, but don't change ISO during the roll, Scott.

Hi Richard,

I own the 135mm f2 and the 2xTC but haven't used them

together, I have a 200 f2.8 it works well on that but the real

reason I have it is for my 300 f2.8.

My comment is on the sharpness issue, with my 300 and 2xTC I

take surf pictures, I have one on my lightbox now, fairly standard

shot not a particularly interesting pic but although the surfer

takes up only a small part of the frame you can tell the time on

his watch. Thats sharp enough for me.

Good luck, Scott.

Hi Jeff,

Just a note on IS, (or rather my experiance of it)

IS does not shut down in AI servo and the IS does not, despite

what is continually posted and advertised, switch off when

mounted on a tripod. What it does do is shut down when it

detects no movement. This logically, is when its mounted on a

tripod but if the tripod moves/vibrates it will stay on.

To test this, put your camera on a table with IS on and press the

shutter release halfway, it will start up (you can hear the gyros

spin) and then shut down (you will hear a soft click), secondly

put your camera with IS on onto a not good enough tripod, press

the shutter release halfway, the IS powers up, tap the camera to

induce vibration and the IS will stay on.

I've found this useful as I can set up my shot (tripod mounted)

tap the camera, wait for the vibrations to stop and take the shot

before the IS switches off. Sharpness is excellent.

Many thanks, Scott.

Hi Cathy S,

Just a follow up to my earlier post.

For traveling telephoto stuff I don't normally take more than a

200. So I'd suggest the third lens would be either a 200 f2.8 L or

if funds stretch the 70-200 f2.8, though the latter is difficult to use

with any subtelty, and increases your weight again. The 2x TC

works very well on both giving you an effective 400 f 5.6 still with

good quality.

Surfing really needs a 600 min,(unless your in the water ) I use

my old Fd 300 f2.8 plus 2xTC even I can't strech to the EOS 300

f2.8 yet ! This old MF combo gives very good results.

My skateboarding is all wideangle now, I use a monopod and

cable release and hold the camera out over the edge of the

action, the beauty of auto everything!.

Lastly, Travel Photography, an English magazine had an article

on the Pushkar camel festival in their Nov/Dec 2002 issue. If you

can't get hold of one get intouch.

Take care everyone, Scott.

Dear Alex,

After 25 years of Canon FD manual focus use I decided to go

EOS and did a very similar exercise, just a few months ago.

The film v digital argument is one that will run for a long time, the

truth is, there are very valid reasons for going either way. I'm sure

other people will give you long responses pointing out various

pros and cons.

What did I do ? Well I went 1V. Why? Many reasons, some of

which will apply to you some of them don't.

1, I wanted the wide angle. I know you don't.

2, I wanted a serious upgrade in flash ability.

3, I didn't like the amount of time and electronics I'd need for

practicle utilisation of the digital capabilities. I do a fair amount of

traveling.

4, I can take the picture I want in several frames with the films

I've gotten used to. I shoot almost exclusively slides. I don't need

the ability to take 10's of shots to check everything ( although I

still bin alot)

5, With a cheap scanner I can still digitise the images I want to

E-mail people or do some home printing with. I'd urge you to

take some slide film in the Elan before dismissing film

completely.

6, I sell some big enlargments, so the only competitor for my

bucks was the 1Ds, so the price differential was different in my

case. However my reasoning was similar, I got two 1VHS's for

nearly three thousand dollars less than 1 1Ds, that pays for a lot

of film !

7, I wanted the weather proofing of the top end kit. I know the

1Ds is the same as the 1V in this respect but is it a factor for

you?

There are a few minor reasons for my choice and I've probably

forgotten a few big ones aswell.

I actually got 2 1VHS's, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS, 550EX, 2xTC

and lots of bits and pieces for $8000 ish. The result is a serious

rejuvination of my enthusiasm and interest in my photography,

and my willingness and ability to take pictures that I wouldn't or

couldn't before. I now own some of the best 35mm kit that can

be bought, if I see a picture now that I like or am interested in I

know (within the limits of the 35mm format etc) that it can be

taken with what I have, this is pushing me, and I'm finding it very

stimulating. Don't forget the cameras I've been useing for 20+

years are also very good cameras, but time and tecnology have

moved on. I suppose the point of the last bit is that owning the

"best" film camera available has changed my thinking, I don't

think owning a digital (that will be bettered soon) would have

done.

I think the most important thing is lenses, I am not saying I won't

go digital, but the investment in the EOS lenses was done with

the thinking that they will go onto the next camera (probably in

the next 20 years !).

Whaterver you do Alex take pictures, best of luck, Scott.

New AA's+1V+PB-E2+small piece of tape=10fps.

It worked, Scott.

Hey Matt,

Just like Brent says again !!

I've stuck with Canon brand lenses, (even without the

compatibility problems some 3rd party lenses have). Whilst

there are some very good individual 3rd party lens examples,

macro being the one that springs to mind, my personal

recommendation is to get the best lenses you can, stick with

Canon, and build a system to suit you one lens at a time.

Take care, Scott.

Dear Matt,

What Brent said, go wide. For $300 you might even get a 20-35

f2.8 L (well used but good glass) If not again as Brent said a 24 f

2.8 or a even a used 20.

I travelled to New York last year for a month and 90% of my great

shots I took with a Canon F1N and a 28 f2.8 (I've since gone

EOS). My 300 came out of the bag for one shot and that didn't

work!

Get the best quality wide angle you can. England (the only part of

the UK I'm familiar with) is wideanglesville, the towns the

landscapes all of it. Have a great time, Scott.

Dear Cathy,

I have both lenses and I've spent time in India (see you in

Pushkar I'm going in 2004) so my cents worth might be, a cents

worth.

Bills comments are very good, as always. If your heart is set on

two zooms get the 24-70L first then the 16-35L, but bear in mind

this is a very heavy combination. The 24-70 is a much better

people lens and I like the extra 20mm over a 50, but the 50 f1.4

is a very good lens and is much lighter and a stop faster for the

low light stuff ( personally I'd rather go one stop faster on the film

and have the flexibility of the zoom lens, I also use a monopod

alot), the 24-70 does extend when it zooms but as pointed out it

is sealed, so is better protected from the all intrusive Indian dust

than most other lenses.

The 16-35 is an amazing lens, prior to owning one my widest

lens was a 20mm and the differance is, well amazing. However

your personal style should dictate if you are a tele pick people off

type or a wider people in their enviroment type. It is a heavy lens,

though not as heavy or as big as the 24-70. But its scope is

fantastic, get up the camels nose (don't let it spit on you) and still

have the camp and hills in the background in focus. You might

consider the 17-40 but you do loose another stop and your only

increasing your focal length overlap, I didn't consider it.

My rambling is coming to a close, if your mainly a head and

shoulder (plus a bit of camel) shooter get the 24-70, if you can

face carrying two tons of kit get the 16-35 second, if you can't

face that, and it is a very valid point, I'd go for the 24-70 (it will

practicely live on your camera) and then get a 14 prime, however

I'm not sure how much weight you'd save. If you only travel with

one lens, get the 24-70 f2.8 L, you will not regret it or miss many

shots.

Take care and have a great time in India, Scott.

P.S. It IS great to own both.

I think the question should be, "What were Bogen thinking of

when they designed there QR system". I don't think you can

blame Canon for this one, however I do feel bad as I

recommended that you get the TB.

In use though I rarely find the need to tripod mount a 200, and as

you said the main reason for getting the TB was for use with the

2X converter, for which I would almost always use a tripod. I

guess what I'm saying is work on handholding the 200 with 7E

and BP-300.

Keep taking pictures, Scott.

I've noticed big flare sometimes withmy 70-200 f2.8 IS, but not

enough or often enough to analise it, no real problems with the

16-35 f2.8 though. It might be a caricteristic exagerated by your

particular style or composition preferances. I have done sunsets

with both with no exessive flare. I think the flare issue is more

noticeable when the sun is at a 60-70 degree angle to the front

of the lens, but not in the frame.

Don'y know if this is any help but hope you can enjoy your lenses

more, Scott.

Dear Tim,

Mine did, and it wasn't mentioned. I'd have thought they all did, if

you get them from reputable dealer.

Take care, Scott.

Not much is the short answer, the zoom range is too small and

its too slow for the apparent gain in functionality. Two medium

priced primes can do the job better.

I do like the 20-35 f3.5 L, that is a much more useful lens.

For the landcapes its a good choice, for people not so good.

But who am I to raise doubts in your mind ? If you want it and can

afford it ( $400 is not a bargain) get it use it and if you don't like it

sell it. But I never didn't like an L series lens that I bought.

Take care, Scott.

I just tried that trick with my two 1V's,

Without the trick done my batteries (duracell alkalines) read full,

with the trick done one didn't have enough battery power to

switch on but the other did and switched to the ultra high speed

setting. Unfortunately they are both loaded with customer film so

couldn't blow it all off. I will though!

Take care all, Scott.

I agree with nearly everyone and i think good FD stuff can be had

for a song.

However I think a dream system being built for a fraction of the

cost of an EOS system is pushing it. I recently went the other way

Fd to EOS ( didn't sell any of my Fd though) because you can get

a 17-35 f2.8 L AF for very similar to a good 20-35 f3.5 L MF and a

good F1N with motor for very close to an EOS 3, now I know ES

has stated that he is not in the L series market and for that

reason I think he is making a good move so for once it looks like

everyone is happy.

One last note, I wouldn't dismiss all the zooms, I used the 35-

105 f3.5 TWO TOUCH for years and still think it's brilliant.

You realise it's people like ES who drive the Fd market, in 5

years he will be a lawyer or something and will be able and

willing to pay mega money for that unobtainium Fd 200 f1.8L.

Good luck all, Scott.

No I haven't but then I don't have a D60 or any MF lenses ! I'm

sure there is a point to doing what you did but i don't understand

what it is. However this is not an insult, I turned my 1V into a

pinhole camera by making a small hole in an old body cap. Mind

you this didn't cost me anything and it didn't make my camera

bigger or heavier for no apparent gain.

Take care Ron, but more importantly, keep taking pictures, Scott.

Dear Jim,

Get the bracket, don't be cheap! It will stress your 7e way too

much.

Take care, it really is a well spent $80, Scott.