r._j.

I use the EOS-3 film body for my photography, which includes sports

events. It reaches a top motordrive speed of 7fps with the PB-e2

power booster. I have never felt much need to go up to the EOS-1v HS,

even though you'll always hear that its 10fps motordrive is "great

for sports photographers". (No it ain't, it's overkill!)

 

However I am curious to know whether the EOS-1v HS might offer

quicker AF speed on my lenses?

 

My kit is 15/2.8, 24/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.2, 70-200/2.8 IS, 300/2.8 IS,

400/2.8 IS. I also use Canon tele-extenders for the long lenses, plus

a couple of TS-E lenses, which cannot perform AF in any case.

 

Can I get better AF performance than the EOS-3 offers? Or is it more

a case of the lens design affecting AF speed, not the camera body?

Old habits die hard. I am a professional photographer and use flash on manual mode literally 99 percent of the time. As long as you know what you're doing, manual is easy enough to work with.

 

I know what I want to accomplish with my flash and I am happy to dial-in the settings myself, rather than rely on a chip to understand my aim.

 

Portable strobe (flash) is the most useful type of lighting around due to its extreme portability and the fact that the results are superb when done properly: fill-in, bounce flash, dragging the shutter, flash-and-blur images, etc.

 

Because I use manual mode all the time, I have not yet bought Canon flashes. I use Metz. If you want to dedicate the flash, just buy the appropriate SCA adapter. Own two types of camera, such as 35mm/digital and medium format? Fine, buy two SCA adapters, not two flashes.

The writing's on the wall. May be time to buy a longer lens. Sounds like you've tried this tele-extension thing quite a bit.

The Canon 200/1.8 is a woefully heavy lens. Nice for gymnastics. Great lens, no doubt, but it's the weight of that particular lens that bugs me, compared to any other 200mm.

Thanks for the comments. I use a Manfrotto ballhead (Art. 168) and a variety of lenses on every shoot. I posted this message in the Canon EOS forum, but it was moved here.

 

It seems I need the Sidekick arm, which will turn my existing Manfrotto (Bogen) ballhead into the Wimberley style of head.

 

The Sidekick can apparently be quickly and easily removed on occasions when you want to use wider/shorter lenses.

Can anyone comment on the usefulness of these Wimberley devices when

attached to Canon long lenses?

 

I use the 70-200/2.8 IS, 300/2.8 IS and 400/2.8 IS lenses and I am

curious about the Wimberley product's helpfulness.

 

The existing tripod-foot on these lenses can (sort of) be used as a

carry handle. The Wimberley brings the lenses closer or lower to the

tripod, I think), so the possibility of a carry handle is no doubt

diminished, although you won't miss the (ahem) miniscule tripod

foot 'carry handle' on the 70-200/2.8

 

What exactly are the Wimberley foot's advantages?

I would like to know if the orientation of the wires leading from the

TC-80N3's jack (attached to the camera) can be rotated in some way?

 

When the remote controller is plugged into the camera, the wires lead

upwards. This sort of assumes that the camera will be below your eye-

height.

 

I use large-ish tripods and the camera is at (sometimes above) eye-

height, so the wires and the remote controller handset need to be

down lower. Can an adjustment be made to fix this orientation issue?

Yakim's link contains the following comment: "A camera with a manual focus assist aid in the viewfinder screen is a useful accessory, as is a magnifying attachment for a viewfinder so you can see the camera?s focus screen more clearly".

 

Where do I get one of these? I use the standard focusing screen supplied with an EOS-3, although I mas planning to switch to the EC-B screen with the split across the center of the microprism area. I used these on my old camera system and found them helpful.

That's *sort of* true, Maynard. The IS Mode-II is okay for panned shots - in fact, that's precisely what it's for. And you only use panning on *moving* subjects. Race cars are the obvious example, but you could try it on cyclists, or ice skaters also... and the list goes on...

Just a thought... you don't really need a 80 (or 100) to 400 zoom range on catwalk pix, or do you? You need a 70-200/2.8 and a 300/2.8. How fast (or slow, as the case may be) are those zooms you mentioned?

Do you have the instruction booklet?

 

Although I do and have done the Calibration procedure several times (4 horizontal points and 4 vertical points), the camera does not correctly detect where I am looking. It always thinks I am looking towards a point which is several dots left of where I am actually looking.

I would not buy any strobe that lacks a secondary head.

 

(It acts as the fill-in for bounce shots when the main flash head is bounced off the ceiling and thus lights the subject from above, which is generally considered a lighting no-no, much like overhead sunlight at high noon.)

 

For this reason I do not use Canon flash units. I prefer Metz.

 

The secondary fill-in head will lighten those eye sockets, plus the neck, which can otherwise be rendered shadowy from overhead bounce.

 

A properly done bounce flash pic looks as good as a shot done with studio flash. Flash is the most useful and most portable type vof lighting gear available for that very reason.

As I wish to purchase a polarizer for these lenses, please clarify

something for me: Can they both use the same polarizer, so I don't

have to buy two filters if I don't want to?

 

Also, does the standard drop-in filter holder (supplied with these

lenses at the time of purchase) accommodate a polarizer, or do I need

to purchase a special holder for the polarizing filter?

Wall bounce depends on wall color (white or not) and its distance from the camera and flash.

 

Sto-fen are more designed for widening the beam of light. That makes the flash more effective on ultra wideangle lenses. They are not exactly designed for softening the light, more like widening it.

 

I use a Metz bounce diffuser, which clips onto the top of the flash head rather than covering the flash head the way a Sto-fen does. Lumiquest make similar devices to the Metz product. Looks different but has a similar effect. (The Metz one only works on Metz flashes.)

Simon, I shoot major event, including indoor sports. I had my eye on a 200/1.8 for that very reason. However, I have decided NOT to buy it. Here are my reasons:

 

there may be an IS version in the pipeline; the lens is woefully heavy for what is only a 200mm focal length; it ain't cheap; you can only get them second-hand these days; although only second-hand, they command a premium price that puts many people off, including us pro's; the 70-200/2.8 IS lens is 1.3 stops slower, but the IS makes up for that, and, combined with the 70-200's more 'petite' dimensions (if there is such a thing amongst white lenses!) the 70-200 thus becomes a better low-light worker.

 

Remember that the 'IS' function on the 70-200/2.8 effectively makes it much more hand-holdable than a non-IS telephoto - generally.

 

I may take another look at the 200/1.8 if it ever becomes available in an 'IS' version, but based on my findings with the 70-200/2.8 it might be hard to justify the extra cost and weight of the 200.

 

Finally, many believe that the 1325mm f2 Canon lens is the 'replacement' for the now discontinued 200/1.8.

As I am now ready to buy in the short-term can anbyone advise me

where I might find an MTF graph of the 20/2.8 versus the Sigma

20/1.8?

 

I must admit I like the brightest viewfinder possible (1.8 over 2.8)

but unless I plan on using the lens at wide open apertures, the

faster aperture of the 1.8 may not be crucial.

 

How much difference in optical performance is there between these

lenses?

 

Also, owning Canon-only equipment means all my gear goes back to the

one place for servicing, not a variety of workshops.

Serious condensation is the same as immersing a camera in water. No different. Rolls of film also get condensation. Put them back inside the canister, don't have them loose in extreme temperature changes!

.... portability, weight, the fact that the hood does not need to be deep at midday (with the sun directly overhead) or at night (away from bright hotspots of light), such as the fact that in-built retractable hoods (on lenses that feature them) are never very big yet camera companies still manufacture the lens that way.... but it's the weight and portability that I'm thinking about most of all. Some hoods are as long as the lens and almost double its size in the canmera bag.

I am looking for shorter lens hoods for the 300 and 400 2.8 IS

lenses, something smaller than the standard hoods the lenses are

supplied with. Has anyone found anything like this? I'd like to keep

the original hoods intact if possible.

Quote: "The Canon EF 15mm Fisheye has the best MTF of any Canon wide

angle lens, zoom OR prime" - this was a comment made in another

thread. This being the case, why is the 20/2.8 out-done by the Sigma

20/1.8 which is half the price? I am the owner of the Canon 24/1.4

which is also considered an under-performer. Curious to know why

Canon has slipped so badly with its wideangle performance.

What has that got to do with the 400/2.8 and DO lenses?

The IS function takes some getting used to. Makes you dizzy when it wobbles the picture while you're looking through the viewfinder. It also drains batteries, so switch it off when you don't need it.

 

As for your track shots, the Mode II of the IS will prove very useful for streaked/panned shots, if you don't already know it.

 

As with most long lenses, I don't use the matching lens hood. I use a shorter one. That makes it less bulky.

 

Overall, I'd say the 70-200mm f2.8 Canon IS lens is larger than many other (independent) 70-200 or 80-200 f2.8 lenses, such as the Tokina (manual focus) which I previously owned.

 

I think Canon is one of the few mfrs with faith in the 135mm focal length these days.

Curious to know the advantage/s of the 'DO' lens over the 2.8 lens,

if any?

I was using a 400mm f2.8 lens (from another system) but now use Canon

EOS film cameras. The 400/2.8 is hefty for traveling, while the

300/2.8 (without hood) is actually quite similar in size to my 70-

200/2.8 IS USM lens.

 

Hence, I no longer want to travel with anything longer than the

300/2.8.

 

I wonder how others feel about this. A 300mm lens is not really

a 'monster telephoto' in my opinion. It's quite manageable and with

the IS becomes reasonably safe to hand-hold in good daylight

condiitons if necessary. Comments?

Curious to know how the various post-wers around here clean thedir

Canon lens glass?

 

The multi-coating on lenses is 'baked' on, according to my camera

tech-o, so it isn't easy to remove the coatings and, hence, normal

periodic cleaning (if and when required) should hopefully not harm

the glass if done properly. Perhaps that's a big 'if'. Micro-pore

cloth, lens cleaning fluid?