isaac sibson

<p>There's something extremely interesting about the vertical grip - it is not back loading (like BG-E4, BG-E7, etc) but rather end-loading (like the EOS 1D series). This is the first time that a BG grip has been end-loading. </p>

<p>I guess we will find out February.</p>

<p>I note that the pictures of the forthcoming 200-400 F4L IS 1.4X show that the IS mode switch offers modes 1, 2 and 3. Whilst we're all familiar with modes 1 and 2, what is mode 3? Is it a manual control to put the lens into the hidden "tripod mode" IS as featured on other large IS lenses? Or something else entirely? Perhaps an exposure-time only stabiliser? Anyone have any info?</p>

<p>Obviously these things are very branch dependant. For several years while I was a student I used to frequent the Civic centre branch of LCE in southampton. They were the local canon pro centre so the staff were knowledgeable, not pushy and condescending (as many high-street shop employees can be on technical products). They would also cut good deals and between the various photographically active members of the family we spent a lot of money with them in preference to shops elsewhere. </p>

<p>JDM-</p>

<p>The point that my father was making is that all ring-type USM lenses allow full-time manual. These include the very earliest USM lenses, such as the 300 F2.8L USM. The only ones that don't are the cheap micro-motor USM, which are basically kit lenses and the 70-300 IS. </p>

<p>Simple rule of thumb (and the oddball 50 F1.4 is the only exception I can think of): If it is USM and has a focus scale window, it has ring USM and offers full-time manual. If there's no focus scale it's micro-USM and has no FTM. </p>

<p>The 50 F1.4 has a focus scale and FTM, and from a functional point of view is meant to be indistinguishable from ring-USM. It is only the fragility of the weird internal mechanics that makes it remotely relevant that it is not ring-USM. </p>

<p>I think it's actually a flaw with Tripod Ring A. </p>

<p>My 70-200 F4L and its successor 70-200 F4L IS have both been loose in my Ring A. The tripod ring has barely been used so it's not wear (unless the lifetime of the stuff is about 2 minutes). </p>

<p>My father's Tripod Ring A II locks up tight where mine is loose. I think there's a reason that canon produced the II. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Canon EOS Elementary school fact 101 </strong>-- for over 22 years, since the dawn of EOS, all Canon EF lenses work on all EOS bodies.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately no longer true.... The new mk III extenders are only compatible with the EOS 1v and digital bodies. They will not work on other film bodies. </p>

<p>You've two bodies there that have plenty of capability. </p>

<p>I had the canon 35-80 USM, and the 70-300 APO Macro. </p>

<p>Start with the 35-80. It is, by all accounts, dismal. It also means you have nothing approaching a wide-angle. </p>

<p>The 70-300 was ok - optically on a par with canon's alternatives (with the exception of the 70-300 IS), but mechanically rather irksome (rotating barrel with focus, no FTM/USM, etc). Nothing special though, and that was on film... digital is rather more ruthless with lenses. </p>

<p>I would be very very inclined to spend the money on some lenses to go with the two bodies you have. </p>

<p>For a wide-angle, the 18-55 IS is a very nice little lens. To improve significantly upon it optically you need to go with the much more expensive 17-55 F2.8 IS. However, that might be a good lens for future use if you stick with crop-frame. </p>

<p>Canon sell 4 70-200s currently. All of them are fantastic lenses. For our lovely lighting conditions here in the UK (read grey) I think IS is invaluable and to that end just spent a fair bit of money on upgrading my 70-200 F4 to the IS version. Given the lenses you have, you might find the F2.8 version just too cumbersome, plus at just shy of £1700 it's far from cheap either. </p>

<p>What is the date code on the lens? if it's below UT1000 then could this be a manifestation of the ray-of-light flare, reflecting something internally sourced in the body (eg infra-red emmission off the sensor perhaps)?</p>

<p>The 135 produces wonderful images. There is something special about it. </p>

<p>You can use the 1.4X and 2X TCs on the 135. The 1.4X provides decent results, but the 2X is disappointing. The 1.4X gets you some of the extra reach you are thinking about.</p>

<p>I don't see why not having an FF body is a con against this lens? It's a great lens on both formats. </p>

<p>Combined with a 25mm extension tube, it's a great butterfly lens on APS-C: <a href="../photo/1616037&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/1616037&size=lg</a> </p>

<p>I don't think the Tamron you mention is a reasonable "competitor". The zoom that has sidelined the 135 F2, both for my father and myself, is the 70-200 F4L IS. However, every time I use the 135 and look at the results, I remind my father that I want first refusal should he ever sell it...</p>

<p>I wouldn't call it boring... I like 35mm. I often find that my wide angle shots are taken at 24 or 35mm on my 24-105 (and exactly the same was true on my 24-85). I think probably it's because it's "familiar" rather than boring - it's covered by every standard zoom under the sun and is a focal length that's taken for granted. I prefer it to 50mm as a standard lens (since both 35mm and 50mm are about equally far from the "true" standard of 43mm. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 35 L is the one L prime that has not gone to a MkII (apart from the comparatively new 50L)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And the 135F2L. Perhaps in both cases because they don't need to? The 14 and 24 were always reviewed as (I admit I have no personal experience of either one) as somewhat disappointing lenses, while the 50 F1.0 compromised a lot for the F1.0 aperture - these lenses all needed updating, while I suspect the 85 was updated more to get rid of the electronic manual focus and the old M1 USM motor than for optical reasons. The 200 F2.8L was quite rapidly replaced by the mk II simply to change the hood design. The 400 F5.6L soldiers on as well, of course. </p>

<p>Perhaps canon should concentrate on some more affordable primes? 50 F1.8, 50 F1.4, 35F2, 24 F2.8 are all begging for updates. Nikon are coming out with ring-USM consumer lenses at these points, and canon need to catch up. </p>

<p>Excellent!</p>

<p>I started off with my first SLR (an EOS 1000FN aka Rebel S II) when I was 10. Scary to think that was almost 20 years ago...</p>

<p>If I shot that today I'd be happy with it. I definitely agree with Sarah (second time today!) that it should be printed and displayed.</p>

<p>And buy him a 35 F1.4L for his birthday ;-)</p>

<p>My 5D and 24-105. 5D2 obviously if you're buying new stuff. </p>

<p>The 24-105 may only be F4, but the stabiliser gives more hand-hold benefit than a non-stabilised F2.8. Braced against things you can achieve some absurdly low-speed shooting. The longer end may also be useful for isolating some detail or getting something on a stand that you can't get too close to. </p>

<p>Here's an example. 5D @ ISO 1600, 1.3 seconds, 35mm F4, braced against a gate:<br>

<a href="http://www.askisaac.com/images/fire/firecar1.jpg">http://www.askisaac.com/images/fire/firecar1.jpg</a><br>

Foreground lighting was from a passing car's headlamps, no flash. </p>

<p>If you're going to use a flash, a 5D2 of course forces that to be an external flash. </p>

<p>If a wider lens is needed, then the 16-35 is the obvious choice. I have the 17-40, but without IS the F2.8 will become more relevant. From my experience of such shows, I would not likely find much need for a lens longer than the 24-105. </p>

<p>I own a Manfrotto 441 Carbon One (now discontinued) and a Markins M10 head. From what I know now, I will say a few things. </p>

<p>First of all, I will never own another Manfrotto carbon tripod. On a trip to the seychelles I was left with a Duopod and a monopod when one of the legs separated. The cause of the separation was the failure (snapping in two) of one of the expanding collars inside the tripod leg which holds the leg to the hinged top part. This collar was made of cast magnesium alloy - as an engineer it's a part that I would have thought would be spring steel (which would have added about 5g to the weight of the tripod). Poor Design. </p>

<p>I chose Manfrotto because I though the flip-locks were better than twist-locks, after experiences with a cheap and nasty twist-lock tripod. Having subsequently tried a couple of Gitzos, they are a different league entirely and the twist-lock system is superior. </p>

<p>So, I would buy a Gitzo legset instead of Manfrotto. </p>

<p>On the head, I would suggest a Markins Q3. It will easily cope with the kit you mention and rather heavier also. It's small and light. What it is not is cheap. There's plenty of good ballheads out there, but none with the same blend of performance, small size and low weight. When I bought my M10 it was the smallest Markins head, but it is overkill for my kit (5D, 300 F4L IS largest lens, similar size/weight to your 70-200). </p>

<p>I also agree with Sarah's comment about other sources of flex/vibration. It is very noticeable in the tripod ring B on the 300mm lens, that moving the ensemble on the head (on a markins head you set a tension that allows the kit to be moved when you want but letting go of it leaves it in the last place you set) results in significant viewfinder movement as the ring flexes and releases. I have not noticed such a problem on the L-plate on the camera body with shorter lenses, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility. </p>

<p>My father, Robin Sibson who often posts here, is currently on holiday, but I'm sure he'd have something to add to this. He has used the 1.4X quite successfully with his TSE24, giving a useful near 35mm length. A few posts from the archive:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RlOf?start=10">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RlOf?start=10</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00WtJH">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00WtJH</a></p>

<p>Addressing some of your specific questions, with telephoto lenses the 1.4X is significantly better than the 2X. I've never managed to get really good performance out of the 2X II that I have but have had many good results with the 1.4X (on canon 70-200F4L and 300 F4L IS lenses). I don't know how they will play with the TS lenses but I'd stick with the 1.4X. </p>

<p>I've not noticed the extenders add distortion, but I have noticed additional Chromatic Abberation with them. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Gunjan, D60 is a Nikon. Canon's is a 60D ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Canon produced both... the D60 being canon's second consumer DSLR (and third overall), and the 60D being its great great great great grandson. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I also found the Ec-CIII better than the Ec-N in the EOS 3 (which I bought from my father, who posted above, when he bought his 1v). Yes, the Ec-N is brighter, but what is the benefit of the brighter screen when it offers so little texture that there's no snap at all for focus? Whilst the Ec-N was not as bad as the Ed series screens (for the EOS 5) in this regard, I found the grainier CIII nicer to use. </p>

<p>I disagree with Geoff on the 70-300 vs 70-200 F4L IS. I personally would rather have the 70-200 F4L IS with a 1.4X than the new 70-300. The new lens is heavier, no doubt is F5.6 at 200mm and with the wider zoom range it is unlikely to match the superlative image quality of the 70-200. I also like the internal zoom of the 70-200. </p>

<p>The only thing really of interest in these announcements to me is the new 1.4X TC. If it offers an improvement in CA performance over the old versions (which are optically the same) then I will be tempted to buy one. </p>

<p>Of course, I'll be keeping an eye on what the second hand price of 300 F2.8L IS mk I lenses does now...</p>

<p>If the OP was using Bulb then they could not have been in an automatic mode. </p>

<p>My guess on this is that the flash is popping up to act as the AF-assist beam, and then since it is up it fires upon taking the photograph. Try setting custom function III-7 to 1 or 2 (instead of the default 0). </p>

<p>I use Sandisk cards, but I will not buy another one. </p>

<p>A colleague of mine was buying Sandisk Ultra II SDHC cards for his EOS 450D, and had no problems with them - they would write at 15MB/s. He went to buy some more recently, and received newer model cards labelled "Ultra 15MB/s*" - the * referring to "Up to 15MB/s". These cards would only write at 8MB/s. He queried the difference between the Ultra II he had been sold the cards as by the merchant and the Ultra, and got his money back. He went to another merchant and bought more cards being sold as "ultra II" and once again received "Ultra 15MB/s*" cards. These cards would only write at 4MB/s. </p>

<p>He raised the matter with Sandisk directly, who verified the cards authenticity and had him check their speed with their own program (which returned the same result). They said that the new "ultra" cards match the previous "ultra II" cards for performance. They finally said that the cards were "within spec" and have stopped responding to his emails. </p>

<p>I took a little time to browse through the sites of Sandisk and Lexar, and while both at the lower end (sandisk ultra, lexar platinum) use the nefarious "up to XXMB/s" (meaning any lower speed is in spec), when you get to the more expensive cards (eg Sandisk Extreme, Lexar Pro 233x) sandisk stick with the "up to..." speed rating, while lexar switch to "guaranteed minimum sustained write speed". </p>

<p>I think this is a poor show on Sandisk's part, and them saying that a 4:1 variation in write speed between cards is "within spec" and not being prepared to quote minimum speeds for professional-grade cards (presumably in order to hide behind this "within spec" get out clause) is cause enough for me to take my business elsewhere. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I remember correctly the EOS-3 was the first film body to support E-TTL, and was introduced alongside the 550EX</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Minor correction Dad... It was the EOS 50e and 380EX that debuted E-TTL, followed by the EOS 500N. I guess that's down to the product cycle rather than anything else. </p>

<p>EOS 1000FN (aka Rebel SII), back in 1992. </p>

<p>The next 18 years saw an EOS 5, EOS 3, EOS D30, EOS 20D and finally my current EOS 5D. </p>

<p>To add to Dad's comments above...</p>

<p>The 300 F4 + 2X is a non-starter in my book. I've tried and tried and tried again, since way back when with my EOS 3 (which was able to AF with that combo). I have never had a single shot out of it that I would consider acceptable. </p>

<p>The digital picture website's lens test charts suggest that the 300 F4 + 1.4X is better than the 100-400 @ 400, but my own experience is that the differences aren't big. The major issue is CA. AF speed is ok, but not blazing. </p>

<p>However, it is very rare that I'm tempted by the 100-400. At 300mm the prime is not only more significantly better optically than the zoom, but one stop faster and with better AF performance. I have the 70-200 F4 so the shorter end of the 100-400 is of little interest. The real killer blow<em> in my opinion</em> is the handling - the 300 has a much better weight balance, especially compared to when the 100-400 is set to 300-400mm. </p>

<p>None of these lenses exist in a vacuum though (regardless of the comparisons that may be made re the 100-400's dust-collection capabilities). What lenses will you be using it with? The 300 F4L IS quite naturally partners the 70-200 F4L lenses (plus a wider lens of course), while the 100-400 and 24-105 make a nice, wide-range combo. For travelling I can see the 24-105/100-400 combo making a great two-lens kit while I am carrying around the 24-105, 70-200, 300 and 1.4X to get the same coverage. </p>

<p>The EW-83J works on the 24-105 on full frame without vignetting, even at 24mm. </p>

<p>Indeed. Like I said, I think Nikon are coming out with some fantastic lenses - the 14-24 and 200-400 are both great and the latter is a lens I would very much like. It is just that for my purposes, shooting the things I shoot in the way that I shoot them, Canon on balance have the better lens selection for me. YMMV and all that...</p>

<p>My real point was that when making the comparison between manufacturers people place far too much emphasis on the body. I was talking to a colleague earlier who has a Pentax K7, which from all I've read is a very nice handling body. I've read good reviews of the Sony A900 body also. However, in both those cases those manufacturers do not offer anything in the big/fast glass market, nor anything like the range of specialist lenses that Nikon and Canon do. I think it's most important to build the system around what you need, rather than try to build around a particular body. For example, if you were set on extensive use of tilt-shift lenses then no matter how much you preferred the Sony A900 over the 5D II, the 5D II would remain the better choice. </p>

<p>No, we won't... the analogous Canon lens is the 70-300 USM IS. The AFS VR 70-300 doesn't offer internal zoom, tripod mount or F4 aperture at 200mm. For my purposes I don't need my zoom to go to 300 (having the 300 F4). </p>