charles.

-----<div></div>

ive used about 4 different unbranded ones (keep losing them too) and have had no problems, they seem to last just as long or longer than the canons.

orlando florida, michael. it travels.

 

http://www.afsc.org/eyes/about-the-exhibit.htm

<div></div>

<div></div>

not trying to troll, but it sounds like you would be happier with a slr, atleast for wide aperture lenses.

,.,.<div></div>

<div></div>

i do this on my A2 alot. i dont even need to skip a frame, you probably dont either... try it once on a couple of unimportant shots to make sure its safe and from then on you can save those frames you would be skipping.

<a href="http://www.reedservices.com/standard.htm">http://www.reedservices.com/standard.htm</a>

ive searched all over and cant find much info not related to CF4...

theres no manual on eosdocs. im specifically interested in the CF

for MLU, but since i dont know what any of the others are i dont

really know if i want them so a whole list would be great. thanks

for your help.

<div></div>

.,.,<div></div>

<div></div>

With all of the films being renamed or discontinued ive found myself

a bit confused. see <a

href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?

O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=194527&is=USAW">http://www.bhphotovide

o.com/bnh/controller/home?

O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=194527&is=USAW</a>... is this the old

supra? or a different name for one of the current offerings? any

insight would be appriciated.

,,.<div></div>

,.,.<div></div>

its too bad the test wasnt done on a FF body. id like to see the difference in corner sharpness in the "real" corners, the difference here @ f2 & 2.8 is almost shocking. this test also doesnt address the barrel distortion in the 1.4 (it may not even apparent on digital though). sometimes i even liked the bokeh on the 1.8 when i had it, particualrly when say there were little gaps of light poking through whatever was in the background, i actually like those little pentagons. the 1.4 certainly handles better though.

 

all in all though, i think for most people the 1.4 may not be worth the cost if they shoot digital. if they need a little more speed they can just bump the iso up a notch. ofcourse sometimes theres just no substitute for a faster lens.

::<div></div>

i personally cant live without the rear dial, and the features that the 10 has that the 100 doesnt dont really compell me. so i would keep the 100, though i havent played with a 10 for more than a minute or two.

 

you might also consider selling both and getting a eos5/a2.

<div></div>

read this related thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Obb

 

one day im gonna take a shot on film with my 35/2 and ET-65. it doesnt vignette the viewfinder at all on my eos100, but its not the best viewfinder by far... ill try to remember to post back here if i take the shot.

i own the sigma 20 and have enjoyed it very much. i chose it over the canon 20 because i had read that though the canon is nice and sharp in the center, the quality falls off quite a bit closer to the edges... also the sigma's speed is very nice (though it is soft below 2.8), and i got a pretty good deal on it. i cant speak to any color cast on the sigma as i havent processed any color rolls since i got it a couple months ago. the sigma is quite big, but i dont mind that till i have to stow it in my bag...

 

if you shoot film/1d/1ds, or in low light, and dont mind the size from what ive read & experienced the sigma may be a better choice.

<div></div>

im pretty sure the sigma 18mm is 3.5 also, maybe theve made more than one version though. whats so odd about f3.5?