thomas_brabant1

I knew I had sinned as soon as I sent this question.. I should have expected that my thread would be demoted to this.

 

That's OK, you all just keep on seinding your messages while you are at work, on your boss' time.

I have followed this Canon thread for a few years. I notice that there are so many

more messages sent during the week, than during the weekend. (This past

weekend included.) I just wonder where and when these messages originate: at

home, while on your own, or during the week, while many of are you probably

are on somebody else's payroll.

 

I guess my thinking is is a little bit slanted about all of this, because I was self

employed for over 45 years.

 

Now please, give me a place to duck, before you throw the dishes after me.

After all, I love you all and love the information I receive.

 

Tom

I can't resist this advice on taking pictures of children, even though it may be old hat. Get low. Don't just stand up and take pictures of them downward either in crib or floor. Get on child's level, and your pictures will improve 100%. Bend those knees! And that's somewhat easier to do with a slightly longer focal length (like the 50mm on your Rebel), since the angle from photographer to subject can be a little less. Again, happy shooting. I envy you!

 

Tom

"simply want to take nice indoor low light pictures of my child"---this is what you said your primary purpose is.

 

So, another vote for the 50mm 1.8. In the 1960s 1970s, 85% of my pictures of my two sons were made with a Leica Summicron 90mm. That focal length was perfect for photos of them for years. And that is what the 50mm is to you on your Rebel, an 80 mm equivalant. For the fast few years, I have used the canon 50mm 1.8 with my grandchildren, with the same results.

 

Conversely, I used my 50mm rarely with the children, and that's the equivalent of the 30mm. Or have your cake and eat it to---buy the 50mm, and later the 35mm, as someone suggested, and have broad range for less $ than the 30mm

 

Happy shooting with that child. Take lots of them; they grow fast.

 

Tom

George, I am just a few years behind you, and really appreciate your comments. I started with some kind of box in the early forties, graduated to an Argus (A2?) a year or two later. Had the only flash attachment for a camera in a small town in West Kentucky. Made pictures of court scenes and other things because nobody else had the equipment. In the late forties, my uncle gave me a C3, and I was on my Leica way! I started processing my film and printing during that period.

 

No, I didn't turn out to be a pro, although I worked as a photographer during my last two years of law school. But I have been through so many of the Leica stuff you mention--111g, M2, M3, CL, Leicaflex, R-3, R-4, and R-7. Black and white, Cibacrome and all that. I have not been around the world 45 times, but a few. And I think my Kodachrome slides , if glued together, could replace the George Washington Bridge.

 

But LIKE YOU, I developed eye problems. Had to go to auto focus, at the least. Don't know how much I can go on. Digital is easier, but that also may pass me by visually.

 

But good luck to you. And always think about something I read years ago about photographty. If the camera is not ready, just click your eyes, and remember the scene. That's what I may doing in the future also.

 

Tom

I am curious about your question in two respects:

 

1. What size prints do you usually make-- 4-6, 5-7, 8-10, 13-19, etc. Because if you usually print 8-10 or lower size, this thread is meaningless anyway. You won't tell the difference.

 

2. Are you really going to relegate your photography after the next year to family reuions, birthday parties, vacations, and all that? Take the soccer pictures with your 30d and then buy a a point and shoot. I hope you don't take that route---my children have been gone for 30 years. But I enjoy photography in a different way, as I hope you should and will.

 

Tom

Lauri: I'll join the rest as a supporter of this lens. I bought a new one (a 2.8 bayonet mount) around 1968, and used it for 10 years or so until I switched to Leica reflex system. Great lens. I will never forget looking at the negatives from this lens the first time through an old Focomat 1c enlarger. They literally jumped out at me. It may have partially been lighting and contrast of the subject matter, but it still was an exciting experience.

Do you mean soft at 5.6 aperture setting, which would be f8 with TC? Or wide open at f4, which would go to f5.6 with TC? I recently bought a canon 1.4 TC for use with my 70-200. But because I think I have read that 70-200 holds sharpness better with a TC a stop or two down, that's the way I have been using it. I'll have to try some test shots. Be interesting to see your other responses.

 

Tom

Thanks for your many comments on possibility of electrical shorts with confirmation adaptors. I am tempted to restrict my use to the adaptor that does NOT have the confirmation. About the only two Leica lenses I used on my 30D are the 21mm, and I don't need confirmation on that because I use a smaller aperture for landscape.

The other is a 280 APO Telyt, which is so heavy for me that I usually have it on a monopod or bean bag and can take much time to focus. Plus I bought a Canon 20-200 zoom and don't use the 280 much anymore anyway.

 

Thanks again, Tom

I obviously mis-fired on my question on this thread re the confirmation adaptor's possible electrical problems on a Canon 30D. I'll try a different thread here or on the Leica forum. Thanks anyway.

 

Tom

Point out the differece in the two opinions about the problem, but what is to be gained by your snide little comment? What did that gain you, except to try to blow up your ego?

 

Tom

Had planned to start a separate thread on this. But why not here.

 

I use a Canon 30d. Have used two or three different adaptors for Leica lenses on same. The Novoflex works fine, but the paint seems to be wearing off, which worries me about flakes of paint in the camera, etc.

 

But my main concern is a "confirmation" adapter which I have used, particularly with a 280 APO. The confirmation helps to some degree in focusing. But I have read somewhere that the contacts on the adaptor have caused some Canons to suffer electical problems, big time. HAVE ANY OF YOU SUFFERED THIS PROBLEM?

 

Tom

Since I have for some 5 years used this paper, in conjunction with many other papers, and found it very satifactory, I was interested in this thread. And thank you for the imput from many.

 

But what irked me about this thread was the last by Fran, who said:

"Maybe it's time to educate yourself a little better before opining here."

 

Maybe you should educate yourself a little better about manners and respect before "opining here".

 

Tom

Stephen, with your list of Leica film equipment, as a opposed to your Nikon DSLR, do you actually use any of the Leica equipment? I went through the same sequence as you, I think---from M2, M3, CL, R3, R4, R7, most of which I have bought and sold over the last 40 years. But all I use now is a Canon DSLR. I still have a Leica enlarger in the basement, gathering dust. I just wonder how you use all those cameras.

 

Thanks, Tom

Tom, I have a similar problem. I won't begin to bore you with all the Leica M and R equipment lenses I have bought, and sold some, since my introduction to this fine equipment around 1965. STill have way too much of it.

 

The R lenses I have keep mainly because I had hoped to use them on a DSLR. Well, I bought a Canon DSLR about two years ago, after about 6 years with Digital P/shoots. And the R lenses were a little disappointing because of trouble focusing.

 

Which brings me to a factor you did not mention. How is your eyesight? I am getting much sharper pictures with ANY autofocus camera that I now use. I am 74, and I think the focusing ability of my eyes waned without my realizing it. I just hate to admit it. Having said that, I still haven't sold anything!! So here I am.

 

Be interesting to see what you do!!

 

Tom

I bought a new 35mm 2.8 Summaron for an M3 back around 1972. One of the sharpest lenses I had ever used up until then. Later, I bought a CL, w/o the 40mm lens, and used the 35 on it with good results, along with a 90mm. Then somebody stole it, with the 35 on it. So I bought a new CL, with the 40mm. Comparable results with it. BUT, I HAD THIS PROBLEM: somehow, the way I held the camera while shooting, my finger would often move the focus ring of the 40mm. Don't know how or why. I had never had that problem with the 35mm. My fault, obviously, but just thought I would throw that out to see if anybody else had ever had that problem with the 40mm + CL.

 

CL was a neat camera, as were the M cameras. But I moved to Leica R cameras, because at the time I was taking a lot of vertical format pictures, and I had difficulty focusing with the rangefinders vertically---would have to focus horizontal, and then switch to vertical to take the shot. Maybe that was where I was moving the focus ring. I'll never know, unless some of you can perhaps tell me if or why you had a similar experience

 

But but both lenses great---if in focus!

 

Tom

Thanks again to each of you for your help. I think you confirmed kind of what I had figured; that I should probably stop down a stop or two. But, as my original thread indicated, I was a little puzzled by what I had read about stopping down to f11, which is three stops down from f4. I have had little experience with extenders. I bought a 2x exender for a Leica 280mm APO about 15 years or so ago, and never could really appreciate it. However, the Leica 2x extender has the same problem as the Canon 2x extender, it just doesn't give near the image quality as the 1.4. (At least from what I have read then and now.) And that's understandable. But thanks again. Tom

Dan, you came through with a definitive answer. You are saying that the sharpness of the 70/200 is probably sharpest at f8 and f11, not above. I guess that would hold through with my 1.4 extender. My compliments to you for a simple answer for a question that I tried to complicate! Thanks. Tom

I guess the guts of my question is whether appurture selecion makes a signafiant difference in sharpness between the 70-200 whether you use it with or without the exteder. I am convinced that it makes little difference without the extender, maybe one stop, but don't know about with extender. And that's what this thread was all about.

 

Thanks for you imput. Tom

Thank, Colin Your last sentece probably answered my question; that stopped down to f11 creates the greatest sharpness for the 70-200. I had no idea it would be that high (low), because without the 1.4 extender, I could not tell that much difference betwen f4-8, etc.

I have looked at previus posts, but can not find this answer.

 

I use a Canon 30D, and with it a canon 70-200 f4 for some pictures. Love the

results. Recently had a horse polo picture englaged to 24x36. Great sharpness.

 

Just purchased a 1.4 extender from B&H to go with it. Have tried a number of

pictures with different results. My question, finally, is: WHAT IS THE BEST

APERTURE TO SET FOR THE 70-200 Z00M? This question derives from a post that I

read somewhere that with the 1.4 extender, best results with this lens is with

the aperture shut down to f8 or f11. Does is it really make THAT much

differene in sharpness between f4 and f8 with the extender; it does not make

that much difference without the extender---all are extremely sharp.

 

Thanks in advance. Tom

You will love Leica lenses, BUT: I have found my old Leica lenses hard to focus on the 30d. I have an old Leica APO 3.5 (?) Tylet 180 lenses (the one made in Canada in the 1970s), which is one of the sharpest lenses that I ever used on my Leicas. But really had a tough tme focusing in a hurry. Even my 280APO 2.8mm was easier to focus. (for whatever reason). I have used the canon magifier and/or a confirmation adaptor. I finally gave up early this summer and bought a Canon 70-200 f4 zoom. Was a dream to use after the leica 180.

 

I hate to transmit this, because the leica 180 was my very favorite lens with Leica Rs. But it just does't do it with the 30d

 

Tom

Thanks again, Colin for your comment. I meant to ask you before about one of your earlier answers. I think you indicated that upsampling would not make much difference. Why is that?

 

(Hope this thread is not so old that this question won't be read)

 

Tom

Colin--good idea. My job may be easier now. For years, I printed 16x20s on Cibacrome, and then 13x19s digital, would mount them on a 16x20 board, and put them on a easel in my law office. Because people would often pick up such picture from the easel, and view it at a fairly close range, I was always very concerned about "close in looking" sharpness.

 

With the pictures that I am thinking about sending off to have made into somewhat larger prints, I would have them framed and stuck on the wall, which should somewhat eleviate that "close up" look.

 

Anyway, I plan to adhere by my usual proceedure for making large pictures--include some large dominent subject in the picture which is really sharp--in focus, etc. That gives what I call an "illusion of sharpness". Anybody who has shot 35mm for years, as opposed to larger format, really should appreciate that.

 

Thanks again

 

Tom

Thanks again to all of you. I have accessed West Coast Imaging and have ordered some paper samples from them.

 

I do plan to print a small portion of any proposed print file "in house" before ordering. (Printing a cut, I call it---really a crop) I used to do that frequently when I first started printing 13x19s on my old 1270 with pictures of about 7M taken with an Olympus.

 

I just noticed in my original posting that I referred to "sunsharp mask". I wish somebody would invent something like that---maybe it would be easier to use than "unsharp mask".

 

Thanks again.

 

Tom