mark_saperstein

Does anybody have a recommendation for a repair shop (in the USA) that

can fix a Carl Zeiss Jena lens (medium format, P6 mount)?

 

Thanks.

--Mark

My personal experience with the Mk1 and MkII is that the resolution is basically the same (which is very, very good), but the colors from my Mk1 are more accurate. The difference is subtle, but I can see it.

I purchased the plastic adapter ring in December directly from Canon for $28.02 shipped to my door.

You can find the number of shutter actuations from the EXIF info. Please look at this link:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/72050/0

The Canon MTF charts indicate that the 24-70 f/2.8L performs better

at the 24mm end than the 70mm end. Does your lens behave this way in

the real world?

 

Also, how noticeable is the difference in resolution and contrast

between f/2.8 and f/8 on your lens, both at the wide end and the long

end? I am not interested in comparisons to other lenses, just how

this zoom behaves.

 

Thanks for your input.

--Mark

I concur with Bob Katz. The 17-40 f/4 beats the 20mm f/2.8 at f/4 (especially at the edges!). The 20 at f/2.8 is very poor. I had read mixed things about the 20mm prime before I bought it (used thankfully), but the critics were right. The 17-40 is a gem.

Take a look at this diagram:

http://www.pbase.com/image/18920257

 

As you can see, the area that the 10D uses to focus is not the same as the squares you see in the viewfinder. I believe this is the cause of much frustration for 10D users. The center focus point is best because of the cross-hairs. I usually use the center point to focus and then re-frame the shot (if there is time).

Andrew,

The 70-200 f/4L is relatively light (especially compared to its f/2.8 big brother). It does not come with a tripod collar because it is not absolutely necessary. The tripod collar is very convenient (I have one), but not necessary. The lens mount is tough enough to hold this lens -- even on your Rebel Ti. There is a black tripod collar that also fits this lens, and for some reason it is less expensive than the white tripod collar.

For those of you in the USA, you can order the plastic tripod mount adapter directly from Canon USA. It cost me $28.02 including taxes and shipping.

For those of you in the USA, you can order the plastic tripod ring adapter for the 100mm macro directly from Canon USA. It cost me $28.02 including taxes and shipping.

 

Places like B&H only sell the adapter with the tripod mount ring, which costs around $140.

Carsten,

The optical quality of the 70-200 f/4 if very, very good. The optical quality of the 135 f/2 is outrageously good. In small 4x6 prints you cannot see much of a difference, but by 8x10 you can. The f/2 vs. f/4 is the key difference in my mind. The 135 f/2 can be used in more situations than the 70-200 f/4.

Dhiren,

I bought the newer USM version earlier this year. I read a lot about it before buying, and there seemed to be a consensus that it is a better lens than the non-USM lens it replaced. It is a fantastic lens, both for macro and general telephoto.

 

One other thing, the non-USM takes a 52mm filter, while the USM takes a 58mm filter.

Gil,

Check out this article:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/sensor-cleaning.shtml

 

Good luck.

Mike,

It sounds like the 70-200 f/4 zoom would be great for your needs. I currently have the 70-200 f/4 and the 80-200 f/2.8. You can buy the 70-200 f/4 new (with a rebate now) for under $600. A used 80-200 f/2.8 goes for around $550 - $650 on eBay. The 80-200 is a bit sharper than the 70-200, but the 70-200 is still great. The main difference is weight. The 80-200 is a tank. The 70-200 is very manageable. If you are going on hikes or traveling, the 80-200 can be a burden. It is true that you can achieve more backgound blur at f/2.8 than at f/4, but it is still there at f/4. There are trade-offs in every lens buying decision (unless you are wealthy and can buy them all). Good luck.

I currently have the 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4. I recently sold the 50 f/1.8II. With the 10D (same sensor as the 300D), the 85 feels a bit too long sometimes. However, I absolutely love the quality of the shots I get with it. I agree with a prior post that color rendition is the biggest difference between the 50 f/1.8II and f/1.4.

 

So, for general purposes I think you are better off with the 50mm (or 35mm f/2). But if you have portraits in mind, the 85mm is really special (as long as you have enough room between you and the subject).

Aaron is correct. Relax. Just start shooting. Experiment with different settings. Fill up the CF card. Check out the results on your computer and try to learn what worked and what didn't. It takes years of practice to get it right.

Darrell,

Here is a link to a very good explanation of histograms:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml

I was at our largest local brick and mortar camera retailer yesterday, and they told me that the 10D is backordered, but they are receiving them regularly. They do have plenty of 300D's. I'll just add two thoughts to this thread: 1) by keeping the supply of 10D's tight, the street prices will likely stay at current levels; so, 2) there will continue to be $600+/- price difference with the 300D going into Xmas shopping season.

I think you made a typo. The USM 50mm is f/1.4. There are 2 versions of the 50mm f/1.8. The first version (Mk I), has a metal mount and is considered by most folks to be superior in build and optics to the newer version (Mk II), which has a plastic mount. I had the f/1.8 II, and now I have the f/1.4. The f/1.4 has better optics than the f/1.8 II. It is slightly sharper, better contrast, and much better colors. The only problem with the f/1.4 is that it is prone to chromatic aberration when it's wide open.

Hope this helps.

--Mark

Mark,

I use the 17-40 with my 10D and am very pleased with it. I would suggest that if 24mm is your favorite length and you are worried about distortion, you should consider the 24mm ts-e f/3.5 L for landscape work.

If you are going to be taking indoor photos of people, you will want the 24mm f/2.8. That extra 4mm makes a difference in close quarters. My best advice is to start saving for the 17-40 f/4L. I generally prefer primes to zooms, but the 17-40 is invaluable to me when shooting indoors (and it is very sharp).

--Mark S.