gary_russell

Nigel:

 

For the kind of info you're seeking, check out the Canon Camera Museum at http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/f_camera.html. The discontinued EOS 1n HS is just a 1n with an E-1 booster on it so it's dimensions (under specifications) are probably accurate for your needs (156mm high vs the regular height of 112mm for the 1n anyway).

 

Gary

I have several dust-bunnies under the front element of my 28-135 IS also. Out of 6 lenses I have--five of them zooms--this is the only one that's experienced that problem. While the 28-135 is a fine lens optically, the rather loose construction exacerbates the dust problem I think.

 

I checked with the Canon Service Center in California (the closest one) and was quoted a $89 repair/cleaning price last year. However, since the only thing the dust particles are bothering is *me*, I've just learned to live with them as they don't effect the image quality at all. And no, compressed air won't get to the particles if they're under the front element; it'll take a professional cleaning job.

Justin, both the older and now II series Canon extenders have a protruding element that prevents many lenses from being mounted--the EF 75-300 IS among them. Canon's list of lenses that will accommodate the extenders is accurate, other lenses simply will not physically attach.

 

Both Tamron and Kenko make TC/extenders for EF lenses that may work, at lease they'll fit on the mount but I'm not sure if they'll allow the lens to report the proper exposure information as the 75-300 was really not designed to be used with a TC/extender. I know the third-party extenders will work very well with EF lenses that are designed to accept extenders--if not in terms of image quality, at least functionally.

 

If you want to get a telephoto zoom that will work with an extender, my advice would be to consider another lens; for instance the EF 70-200 f/4 is an excellent performer and will accept both the 1.4 and 2. X extenders without any problems. I know it's more cost than the 75-300 but in the long haul, my guess is it will better meet your needs.

You may want to consider the EF 20 f/2.8 (.25M mimimum focusing).

And for some very unique close-up/macro effects, add the 250D or EF

12 extention tube.

Josh, I'm sure what's going on is Custom Function #2 is set to "1".

That's the setting to intentionally leave the leader out so you can

rewind and reuse the film later. Open the side door and push

the "C.Fn" button and use the main dial to get to CF #2. Set it

on "0" and at the end of the next roll it will rewind the film

completely into the canister.

Joe, you admit to owning a Sigma lens??!! Well, there goes the

reputation ;-) Thanks though for the inside track and heads-up on

the pending EF 24-105 L. My 28-70 L may get some bag time when those

become available.

 

<p>

 

I'll avoid lockers too.

Joe, I've got THE answer and absolute solution to your lens-

lust...get the Sigma 28-105 f/2.8-4 Aspherical IF!!!! Knowing that

you're partial to Sigma lenses, I don't know how this didn't come to

mind without me suggesting it! And of course the Sigma will so

impress you, you'll totally forget about not having those measly 4

extra mms on the wide end. And the good part is when you sell your

EF 28-80 L after you buy the Sigma, you can still use your 72mm

filters! What a deal, eh?

Mario, the MR-14EX is suppose to mount on the MP-E 65 directly, and I

believe that macro lens gives you life size to X5. Also, the ML-3

should mount on the MP-E 65 without an adapter ring as the flash

heads on both units are the same (mounting) size. I currently use

the ML-3 on a 180 f/3.5 macro (with a 72C adapter ring) and with

certain subjects, and under some conditions, get nice macro shots.

I'm going to be parting with it one of these days however to move on

to the MT-24EX.

If you're using a 52>58mm step-up ring to accommodate your filters, I

believe your only option is a 58mm threaded screw on lens hoods.

These come in rubber (collapsable) or metal (rigid) mostly. If

you're not close to a camera store with accessories, there's lots of

hoods on Ebay.

Pete:

 

<p>

 

The PB-E2 and BP-E1 work fine with NiMH batteries. The PB-E1 unit

has a caveat saying that the older ones without a "*" symbol should

not be used with lithium batteries--I'm unsure how that relates to

NiMH batteries, maybe someone with more expertise could tell you.

 

<p>

 

I do know that the older PB-E1 unit is out of production so they'll

be a little more difficult to find. I have seen a unit or two on

Ebay though. On a person note; after using the PB-E2 on an EOS 3 and

then on a 1v, I found it too heavy and bulky so for the past 6 months

or so have been using the BP-E1 on the 1v and really enjoy it. I

never did use the vertical controls much anyway, and like you, don't

need the added fps.

"Pros do not use Sigma"? Joe, National Geographic photographer Jim

Richardson would be surprised to hear that. Check out

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0104/feature1/zoom3.html

and scroll down to see what lens he used on a great shot of the

Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River.

I don't know where Joe gets his information on Sigma lenses, but it's

certainly contrary to what I've read, heard, and experienced. Half a

dozen years ago Sigma's lens quality was somewhat suspect but with

the advent of the EX series the optical and build quality

improvements have been notable. Also, if for some reason a Sigma

lens has an incompatiblity problem with your Canon camera, Sigma is

very good up doing a quick upgrade.

 

<p>

 

If you check at Photo Review, you'll note there are quite a few

owners/users of the new 100-300 f/4 EX that rate it very highly. I

just bought the new Sigma 180 f/3.5 EX Macro and am totally impressed

at how good it is optically. And it had no problems regarding

compatibility with my 1v right out of the box.

 

<p>

 

Sigma like any other lens manufacture has some dogs but I wouldn't be

put off just by the Sigma name these days--it just depends upon the

specific lens. Even Canon has some mediocre lenses--the 75-300

f/4.5.6 IS that I once owned is very soft out at 300mms for instance.

Don't be too sure that the approximate $3K price tag is going to last

long (if that's what it is). There may be some competition from the

Nikon camp with it's new D100--which I understand will be going for

about $2,100-$2,200 or there abouts. If you aren't heavily invested

in Canon lenses, jumping ship for the Nikon won't be unheard of if

it's considerably less in price.

 

<p>

 

Also, I agree with those who think the D60 is a nice unit and seems

to have addressed some of the down-side issues that existed with the

D30.

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is an excellent lens, I use to have one and

got some great results. It even does nicely with their 1.4X

teleconverter. The best idea, as Lee said, is the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L

with the EF 1.4X extender though. I've also got that combination.

Since the 70-200 IS and the new II series extender have been

introduced the older 70-200 f/2.8 L and EF 1.4X have come down in

price considerably (or found much cheaper on Ebay) so that's the way

I'd go.

 

<p>

 

The new Sigma 100-300 is suppose to be a good lens but you can't beat

a fast 70-200 for an awful lot of situations.

Thanks Duane. I appreciate your comments and suggestions. In the

past I saw a ring light with a regular slip-on diffuser panel...I

thought it was for the Nikon unit but may have been one of the third-

parties like Sunpak.

Let's make that....."or some suggestions on something "homemade"

that's *NOT* too hokey".

Sagi:

 

<p>

 

I change film all the time, and if I haven't shot a full roll, remove

the film from the camera when I get home as part of my camera

cleaning regimentation. What you have to do to re-load the film

after you've put it in is, 1) put the EOS 5 in Manual and dial in

1/8000 shutter speed, 2) put the lens cap on any lens you have

attached, 3) switch the lens to Manual Focus, 4) cover the viewfinder

so no extraneous light gets in, 5) push the shutter button until the

film is advanced to the frame number where you left off.

 

<p>

 

Some people will advise you to leave an extra frame in between where

you left off, and the number you're going to start on, but I haven't

had any problems with over-lapping exposures.

 

<p>

 

From your description, looks like you had the idea of it, but didn't

switch the lens into Manual Focus mode so it was trying to focus with

the lens cap on...and couldn't.

I have recently gotten an ML-3 Ringlite as a less expensive way to ease into the use of that kind of lighting with macro shots. I'm wondering if anyone is aware of a flash defuser made for that unit (possibly by a third-party manufacturer) or some suggestions on something "homemade" that's too hokey. Thanks.

Brian:

 

<p>

 

My 100-400 L will not AF with the Tamron 1.4X Pro (white one) on an

EOS 5 (A2e), the combination does work with a 1v however. Excluding

the protruding element, I think the Tamron is set up to work just

like the Canon OEM extender.

I know zip about Canon's two ringlites (usually) for macro photography so wanted to ask, will either or both fit on a Tokina AT-X 100 f/2.8 Macro lens? I believe it has a 55mm filter thread. Also, due to the position of the ringlites in relation to the lens, I suppose that they are not well suited for portrait photography?

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

Karen, I think your general purpose lens needs could be handled very

well with the EF 28-135 IS. It's a very good zoom with a nice range

and the image stabilization feature comes in handy for low-light

situations.

 

<p>

 

You didn't specify what kind of sports you'd be shooting but you may

want to consider the 75-300 f/4.5.6--I believe the one without IS is

in your general price range--for outdoor/field sporting events.

 

<p>

 

For a faster lens for low-light conditions, you will be faced with

higher lens costs. For instance I shoot my daughter's baton

competition's in a gym (flash is not allowed) using the 70-200 f/2.8

and even with that I have to use 800 ISO film.

 

<p>

 

If you need a faster lens for sure, you may want to consider just

buying the 70-200 f/2.8 and using that for the candid shots you

mentioned, and it's also a good portrait and wildlife lens too if the

subject is not all that far off. I see also that several of these

lenses are now being offered on Ebay probably with sellers intending

to get the new IS version--if you don't mind buying a pre-owned lens.

Javier:

 

<p>

 

I believe the lens your friend let you borrow is the EF 80-200 f/2.8

L. This (black) lens was the predecessor to the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L

which was introduced in 1995 and was offered in the off-white color.

A friend of mine also has the (black) 80-200 and likes it very much.

The optical quality of the 80-200 is suppose to be as good or perhaps

better than the newer 70-200. The main difference in the two lenses

(I believe) is the 80-200 doesn't have the USM allowing for full-time

manual focusing, as does the 70-200, and it won't accept Canon 1.4X

and 2X extenders.

 

<p>

 

I don't have any experience with the Sigma 175-500.

If you really want to ease into your (eventual) lens accumulation, one

I'd recommend looking at is the Tokina 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 as a wide zoom.

A remarkably nice lens for the money...a little under $200 US. Sort

of one of those lenses that shouldn't be as good as it is.

 

<p>

 

Also another thought Javier is to consider some of the zooms that have

recently become available that start at 24mms. You get a fairly wide

short end but are able to reach out a little more for added

versatility.

Hung:

 

<p>

 

That the "2700 Eros = 2600 USD" didn't make clear this was a MSRP

figure, I am indeed encouraged about a better street-price. It may

even be within budget parameters for us mortals as that is, I believe,

about the same MSRP as the 100-400 IS I was able to swing (when it

sold for $1,700 due to short supply). As an aside, and please excuse

if this has already been discussed, would you happen to know the

reason the DO lens will have a green band? Will that be the "DO"

distinctive band color as is red for "L" lenses?

Has anyone seen images produced using the 400 f/4 DO IS yet? Or any

critique of it's optical quality? The $2,600 USD projected price

seems like it's coming in a bit high for a lens that was trouted as

being less expensive to build with materials costing less.

 

<p>

 

I'm not too excited about image stabilization being put on a lens

like the 17-35, but that new battery pack Michael mentioned sounds

interesting...if it has (some) vertical controls. The PB-E2 is just

too massive and heavy for me but I miss not having vertical controls

on the BP-E1.