isaac sibson

Nice one Steve... I knew the answer but would never have been able to explain it so clearly.

<img src="http://fishsponge.co.uk/miscfiles/tumbleweed.jpg">

The Sidekick will require a ballhead on which to mount.

 

Personally I would go with a Markins M10, and see how you go with it, and add the wimberley bits if you feel the need. The M10 will easily handle both the 300 and the 600 with any body you choose to put on it.

My guess (as an electronic engineer) is that the batteries are simply connected in parallel.

 

Advantages:

Simplicity of design

Can use 1 battery or 2.

Requires no electronics in the grip.

Loadsharing between batteries

 

Disadvantages:

Loadsharing between batteries

 

This obeys the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid!). Loadsharing is both an advantage and disadvantage, in that it means that batteries with different amounts of charge can be used without problems, but two fully charged batteries will both discharge together, rather than sequentially.

Not going to happen.

 

For a while I thought canon would come out with a new film body that replaced the EOS 3 and the 1v at a stroke, as the magnesium build of the 1v has come down in price (now in 20d and 10d), and bringing in a new AF and metering system. However, it hasn't appeared, and every month that goes by without it means its less likely again. There's no more money to be made from film cameras.

Remember that the required aperture is the worst case in the range.

 

For example, putting a 1.4X TC on an F4-5.6 lens gives F5.6-F8. However, this will NOT AF, even at the short end which is at F5.6. This is because the F8 aperture is smaller than allowable, so the AF is cut out for the entire range.

If there was going to be a reasonable return on it, canon would do it. I suspect that given that 35mm film cameras have taken a severe sales beating in the face of digital that an APS SLR making a reappearance simply won't happen.

I never had problems with mine which I bought second hand in 1996, and sold in 2002.

 

I can't agree with Carlo's comment on the 1N though, since it doesn't have a command dial to be reliable (or not).

Yakim - the front element does not rotate, correct. The focusing ring does.

Because of lack of FTM, focus ring that rotates externally while the lens focuses, focusing noise...

I use CF4-3 full time.

Internet forum reports that a new canon DSLR doesn't focus? Well I never!

Buy a second-hand 1v. The prices have taken an absolute beating with the advent of the digital bodies.

Once dpreview publish their review on the 350D, there will be some numbers to compare. I suspect that the 20D and 300D will be the benchmarks on the noise tests.

The canon 80-200 (cheap, plasticy F4-5.6 one) was always very good optically for the money and build. I'm not about to trade my 70-200 F4L in for my old 80-200, but it really had no "right" to be that good. I wouldn't be surprised if the 55-200 was a similar story.

 

I think the truth is that canon have not produced a "bad" 50/70-200/210 lens in the EF mount. It's a fairly easy (by comparison, not saying that I could do it) range to design well without fancy glass. If you start using fancy glass, you end up with some of the very best zooms on the planet, like the 70-200Ls, 80-200L and the rare 50-200L.

 

From my experience with sigma lenses, I'd be much more inclined to go with the canon. No issue with the build or optics of the sigma, but the compatibility issues with newer canon bodies and the very clumsy operation (compared to ring USM canons... I guess there's not so much in it compared with the cheap canons) killed it for me.

Which 24mm prime did you use?

Along with pictures, can you post your address and times of day when you're not likely to be around? Cheers!

Yes, this is normal behaviour.

 

The way that the teleconverters actually communicate the aperture change is simply to tell the LENS that they are they, and the lens communicates new information directly through the teleconverter. The 2X TC has no way to know that it has the 1.4X mounted on it (it has only 8 contacts on the back), and the lenses don't have a column in their look-up table for stacked converters anyway. It can only identify the TC mounted on the lens (so if you use an extension tube to mount the 2X on the back of the 1.4X on the lens, it will think it's F4).

 

The focusing is probably because it's trying to focus for F5.6 at F8. The tape trick results in similar issues with combos that should work (eg 70-200 F4L + 1.4X).

 

Did you get any example shots with the stacked TCs? I posted a few in this forum a couple of years ago with my 300 F4L IS and stacked TCs.

I bought two unbranded cheapies from 7dayshop. One of them can maybe fire the D30's shutter once before a flashing empty battery symbol appears, the other is capable of about 60-70. The original canon battery I have that came with the s/h camera outlasts it several times over. Moral - buy a brand name, even third party.

I have had about 27 36exp rolls out of a 2CR5 with my EOS 3, but that was in reasonable to warm temperatures. I've had as little as 2 with a poor quality battery in the cold.

 

With AAs in the PB-E2, if you use lithium AAs (available from most photo places) you should be able to get 120 rolls or so if you don't go silly with IS in the cold or anything. Alkaline AAs will not give you as long a life and are heavier, but they're very significantly cheaper than the lithiums.

If the lens is brand new it will loosen up a little with time and use.

The 80-200 F2.8L has a reputation for being sharper than either of the 70-200 F2.8s. On the pressure plate film should be completely flat, so the line of reasoning is not good.

 

What he might have meant is a reference to the microlensing of a digital sensor, which works best with light coming in at a normal to the sensor plane, rather than at an angle. The 70-200's more recessed rear element will improve this relative to the flush rear element of the 80-200, but it exists in order to provide teleconverter compatibility and existed on the original 70-200 F2.8L which came out long before anyone was thinking about designing lenses around digital sensors.

When I was 10, I started on an EOS 1000FN (Rebel IIS), and started in the (blerugh) PIC modes. Then green box. Then P. Then started to feel that I wanted to control things that the 1000FN wouldn't let me, so I moved onto an EOS 5 (A2e) and could now control other "automatic" features I wanted to such as AF mode, metering mode, in addition to making more use of Av and Tv.

 

Then I moved onto an EOS 3, and now use Av most of the time, with M and P occasionally. I also use a D30, mainly in Av and M (for flash work).

 

So yes, I would go for it. Start of with letting him take photos, and enjoy the experience of recording things without worrying too much about camera settings. Then explain what went wrong and why, and help him learn. If you get him to carry the cost or partial cost of the process, he will learn faster. :-)

I have the 70-200 F4L and 300 F4L IS. My father has the 17-40L and 135 F2L.

 

First point is that there is not a single bad lens among these four. Any combo will give you enough performance that the image is limited by your own skill (as this is definitely the bit I am contending with at the moment).

 

Second point is that no matter which way you go with these lenses, get the 1.4X TC. It is optically very good and I use mine a great deal.

 

If I were in your position, I would get the 17-40 for sure, and the 300 IS for sure. Then it's a toss-up between the 135 and the 70-200 (and I did consider the 135 for a long time). If you get the 1.4X, then you have 135mm and 190mm, 300 and 420. With the 28-70 being plenty usable at 70mm (unlike the long end of my 24-85), I'd probably plump for the 135 in your shoes.

 

But to stress it again, between the 135 and 70-200, you can not go wrong. Both are wonderful lenses.

Full Frame on EOS 3 <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1191679&size=lg">here</a>