eric_chi1

<p>I don't know the video side. But for still images, you can use Nikon MF lenses (AIS/AI) on D7000 just like in D700. You cannot AF of course. You will need to enter the lenses info into a Setup menu and select that lens after you mount it. Then the camera will be able to do auto exposure like A or S mode. Yes, use the lens aperture ring to control aperture.<br>

The D7K also has a range finder function to help you focus (turning right or left) and a green confirmation dot will show when focus achieved.<br>

Eric</p>

<p>Why would you want a 3rd party lens? It needs to be either siginificant better in IQ, or in price, or both.</p>

<p>Did the new Sigma satisfy any of the conditions?</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>No rules.<br>

If you are visiting a place where there is substances that may affect your glasses, use a filter.<br>

If ther eis a situation that the filter could affect the images and the images are improtant to you, why would you use a filter at all/</p>

<p>Use your common sense!<br>

Eric</p>

I just purchased 2 Canon 300 f2.8 IS. The first copy cannot focus. I sent it straight back to the dealer. They tested it and gave me full refund. The 2nd copy is still front focused. I sent it to Canon factory service at Irvine. They confirmed the problem and recalibrated the lens and send it back.

Though I agreed most people only posted their problems when they have issues, I think a much bigger percentage of people didn't even know they need to test their new lesnes or know how to test their lenses. They just assume that's their problem/techniques, or they just don't like that particular lens.

Eric.

1D MKII N will be great for flight shoots. It will let you acquire the initail focus much faster.

30D gives you the extra reach. So it is great for non-flying birds as the lens for birds is always too short.

Tim,

I don't have the old 70-200 f4L now. But the new 70-200 f4 IS I have now is very sharp. It's the sharpest 70-200 I ever bought, including 4 copies of 70-200 f2.8 IS and one copy of 70-200 f4L. I'd definitely recommend it, unless you already have a very sharp 70-200 f4L and you always shoot with a heavy tripod (so you don't need IS.)

Eric.

When you get your lens back from Canon, you will receive a statement of what they did. And you will typically see "calibrated to factory spec" or something like that. They are not going to just make your opne camera and lens match. If they calibrate, each is to its factory spec.

Eric.

Hi Venu,

I think the best place to check is the Canon service center. Or if you have a friend that's very good at photography.

When you send it to Canon, they will typically do a projection test and follow by a calibration. If not so sure, you can request them do a calibration of the lens in the letter you send with the lens. Most lenses come back are very sharp.

I'd also recommend you to read:

http://www.focustestchart.com/chart.html

It tells you about the sensors and how they work. This will help you to improve AF and not make user mistakes. And then at the end, it gives you a chart to shoot with so you can tell the Canon service center whether your lens is front or back focus and by how much.

Eric.

Canon is the right choice for sports. Canon's best lenses are the tele and long-tele lenses. Canon is never famous for wide angles.

If you really want a Canon wide angle, the newer lenses are better than the old ones. Either the 10-22 or the brand new 17-50 f2.8 IS are the best in Canon line. Both are EFS.

If you still have a good Nikon DSLR body, I'd use that for wide angle. You probably need two bodies for sports anyway.

Eric.

"How often does one pull out a 300mm lens to photograph something 4 to 8 feet away?"

You probably should search the web to find more info and images from 300 f4 IS. Canon even marked the word "macro" on it. It's a great lens for butterflies, flowers, and near by birds with great boken due to this MFD. Many buy this lens just for this.

Eric.

Hi David,

The 200 f2.8 is definitely better than all three versions of Canon 70-200 zooms. It's very sharp and have excellent colors. I have the 135 f2 as well. I don't agree the comments that many compare 135 f2 and 200 f2.8 and trash the 200 f2.8. If you want to trash 200 f2.8, you might as well trash all 70-200 zooms. And even then, 135mm +1.4TC still cannot compete with 200mm at 200mm.

For your question, do you know what's the most used focal length you like? I have heard there is a program that can show you a statistic of your used focal length. If you used the long ends more, 200 f2.8 is worth consider. But if the lens is for general usage, 70-200 f4 is an excellent lens to have.

By the way, I'd suggest do NOT touch the new 70-300 IS. There are so many variations in quality for this lens, it's not worth to even try. (There is one post in dpreview.com today or yesterday that the IS on his 70-300 IS just died. How long has that lens been in the market? Less than a year. What a quality! The 70-200 f4 is much much solid performer.)

Eric.

For what I remembered: the 300 f4 IS has a MFD of 4.9 feet. And the old 300 f4 is about 8 feet. That should make your decision easier.

Eric.

To me it's good as I like portraits and nature. There are so many times that I hope my lenses are longer. The crop bodies make super-tele lenses a reality for me. I cannot afford those 300 f2.8, 400 f4.0 kind lenses without the crop bodies. Now my 200 f2.8 becomes 320 f2.8, 400 f5.6 becomes 640 f5.6.

I have no need and no plan for the so-called FF camera body.What's the point? The 8M pixels is alrady enough for my use. No idea why I need to go back to the old film days. And I think Canon 10-22 EFS is possibly the sharpest wide angle Canon ever made. With EFS, I get the best wide-angle, and the best and cheap teles.

Eric.

Eric.

I uses a Lens Pen to clean up my 20D sensor as Arthur Morris

suggested.After I tried to blow off the dust with my 20D in sensor

clean mode, then use the pen to clean. Afterward, I found there is

always more dust (and much bigger size) in the sensor.

Then I found, I 'll have a lot more dust on the sensor by simply

trying to blow off the dusts with my blower.

My questions, is my camera really that dirty that every time I use

the blower it just make things worse? What's your experience?

I always ended up using the Copperhill method. Usually two in a row

will make the sensor totally clean.

Eric.

Howe,

I'd suggest you to consider the new 70-300 IS. It's very sharp optically and color is great. It does have a problem that at the 200-300mm end, the vertical orientation shots could be blurry. This seems happen to "most" copies of this lens, but not to "ALL" copies. But its performance at 70-200 is really great.

I have tested my 70-300IS against my 135 f2 and 200 f2.8 (both are sharper than 70-200 f2.8 L IS, but I do not have 70-200 f2.8L, non-IS). And the 70-300 shines at same aperture.

The 70-300 IS does have a poor build. But it is also much lighter than the 70-200 f2.8. And the IS makes this lens so useful.

Eric.

I like my 18-55 kit lens a lot.

One of the thing make it special is it's very light and thus a joy to have at hands. And the optic certainly is fine.

I certainly like to the IS on my 17-55. But tripling its weight and having a much bigger size with this new 18-55 IS, I really don't think it's that usable any more.

With the new big price tag, I'd look into Sigma and the new Tamron as well.

I have a Giottos 1001 ballhead and a portable/small Gitzo tripod. The

base of ballhead is kind slippery that I cannot make the ballhead

stay firm in the tripod. Whenever I trying to pan with the ballhead,

I may well ended up un-screw the ballhead from the tripod.

Is there any way I can increase the friction between the ballhead

base and the tripod head or there is other way to install ballhead

more securely and firmly?

Eric.

I have read a few posts that their IS unit got replaced after some very heavy professional use in a year or two.The IS unit seems to be the source of problems for this lens.

I don't think the zoom is ever a problem.

Eric.

You don't need to decide whether all primes or not now.

Shoot as you go and pick up good lenses that you need along the way.

Eric.

DK,

The first time I returned my copy to OneCall, the saleman actually asked me whether that's becasue the poor tripod collar. So this is a well known issue at least to that shop. I'm actually very amazed at the tolerance Canon customers have toward this lens. I used to have a 100-400L IS and I added a tripod collar to my 200, both are silky smooth and both cost less than the 70-200L IS.

The 70-200 IS is indeed very useful. But it's too heavy and that's one of the reason I still keep my 200.

Tom,

My use for 70-200 IS is for flowers, butterflies, and near-by flying birds.

Eric.

Tom,

1. Per your question, "Has anyone experienced any problems? ", this lens is one of the famous Canon L's and it is also well known for problems.

Just search here and www.dpreview.com for Canon 70-200 IS and read them all, there are many postings. Some boast how good the lens is, and many cliamed the problems they have, like causing err00 in your camera (which happened to me too),...

2. I have bought and returned 3 brand new copies last year. The lenses are not comparable to Canon 200 f2.8. (But this may not be important to you.) The tripod collar is not smooth (in all 3 copies) and considering its price at $1700, you will be surprised at what a quality you get.

3. A year after I returned the 3 copies, I realized this is such a useful focal length range and I do desire/need IS, so I put out $1600 for my 4th brand new copy. And this time, I setup my mind that I will not return (since its poor quality or quality standard). As long as the focus is close enough, I will accept it and send to Canon service center for calibration if need.

I received my 4th copy. This copy is probably the best copy I got. But it still have a not vey smooth tripod collar, and the lens is not that good at f2.8, but fine at f4.0. So I keep it and send it to Canon service center for calibration.

5. After all, this lens has very useful focal range. And this is the only version that has IS, so you do not have other choice. It's image quality is very good. And other than the hevy weight, it's a joy to use. Although I do enjoy my Canon 200 f2.8 more.

I think it's worth to get for the IS alone. I won't boast its IQ if you ever see images from Canon 200 f2.8, Canon 135 f2. But if you don't have those primes, this lens is great.

Eric.

Hi Dan,

Thanks very much. I now understand that for macro, move the lens forward/backward will solve the focus issue.

For Rakesh,

Weight is still an issue for hand-held. Only you can decide whether you can handle the lens+camera+flash+(possibly)flash-bracket.

Eric.

I don't know Sigma 105. But compare Canon 100 macro and Sigma 150:

.The Sigma is sharper but heavy. Comes with tripod collar which is great but adds weight. The weight will become a factor whan you hand-hold and add a flash, and probably a flash bracket. Sigma 150 AF relatively slower than the Canon. I brought mine to a butterfly garden. The AF speed sucks (with Canon 20D) and I have to change to use my Canon 200.

.The Canon 100 is sharp. But it excels at its AF speed and light weight. The lens didn't come with a tripod collar and it is not designed to add a tripod collar either. I bought this one after the experience in butterfly garden.

I think teh Sigma has better image quality and better boken. But the Canon is light and AF faster.

Eric.

Both lesnes are excellent and worth the investment!

You probably should go rent a 70-200L IS or at least go to a local store to try it. It's heavy at 3.5 lb. But still handhold-able for some people and not for the others. Only you can tell whether it is too heavy for you.

If weight is no problem and you don't care people watching you with a very big white lens, I'd suggest simply go buy the zoom. It is just too useful, especially the IS. I think it's worth all the extra dollars you pay for it and is a very good investment.

If you are a PJ, go and buy the zoom.

If you are not the above, then you are probably like me where the zoom is too heavy.

I have the 200L and it's a great lens. The images from it make me "Wow!" so many times!

It's also very versatile. It's a great head and shoulder portrait lens by itself. Add a extension tube, it's a great macro lens. Put on a 20D (or any 1.6x camera body), it is a 320mm f/2.8 lens, very good for nature and zoo. Add a 1.4TC, you get 448mm at f/4, still great for bird. And you will enjoy it's relative light weight. (It's one pound lighter than 300 f/4.)

The only problem is it is not a zoom (so you see the problem loop back.) That's when you can fill in 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2 etc. All great primes.

But sometime you may still miss a zoom.

Eric.

Just another thought for you.

I no longer walk around with my DSLR setup ever since I bought a Fuji F10 a few month ago.

The digital P&S's have kept improving their quality to a degree that it's now comparable to DSLRs mounted with those normal/consumer lenses. And they are pocketable. There is less and less benefit for those "walk around" lenses setup (at least to me.) The P&S will normally covers 35mm to 100 something with very good close focus distance. And I would seriously think why do I ever need a DSLR walk-around lens in this range.

Nowadays, most of my lenses are purchased for their superb quality. I have Canon 200 L f/2.8, Canon 400 L f/5.6, Canon 100 f/2.8 macro, and probably Canon 135 f/2.0 in the foresee-able future.

And I enjoy walk with my Fuji F10 very much due to its great image quality and very very light weight.

I suggest you think more about what you really want to do before buying/changing lenses.

Eric.