jeff mein smith

I've had a 5, a 3 and now a 1V. They are all magnificent tools, but the 1V is my favourite, being very robust, fast-focussing and quite small (although it couldn't be called light!). I'd get the 1V, partly because, as Canon's last and best film camera, it's also something of a collector's item.

Ni, see if you can rent an 85 to try; it gives me fabulous artistic control over the look of a shot. 1.2-1.8 looks like a painting, 4.0-5.6 is razor-sharp with 3D punch.

Different horses... My EOS 1V with an 85 1.2L Mk2 on the front delivers beautiful skin tones and a 'life' to shots (Kodak Pro 100) that I feel isn't matched by digital, which still looks rather flat. However, if I were to print huge prints, or simply practise with no printing costs, I'd use a 5D (not the 8 mp 1D Mk2).

I've just returned from India where I used my 135L and 1.4x extender carried in a Crumpler 5 Million Dollar Home (EOS 1V minus PBE2)and it was perfect for street shots/portraits. For the larger lenses I use a Crumpler backpack, which holds camera gear, water, coat etc, and the zip-against-your-back provides good protection against light-fingered locals. Could you carry your other stuff in a small bag to be left in hotel rooms?

Steve, I've had two of these lenses in the last year: the first was quite soft (no better than my old 24-85)at 2.8, and I was offended at comments about user error. If you know you weren't doing anything silly, get Canon to check it. My second copy seems much better.

In defence of the 1VHS, it's got very fast auto-focus and shutter response, is sand and salt-spray resistant and built like the proverbial outhouse. Also becoming cheaper by the day!

I agree, though,I'd love to be able to see my shots before paying for the printing!

The 35 1.4L I own is noticeably sharper at 2.8 (no comparison at f2!) than my 24-70, but I can't see a difference at 5.6 or 8, where you'd probably operate. The convenience of being able to zoom/recompose from a fixed spot (often I can't move e.g. weddings) outweighs any slight sharpness advantage. The prime is delightfully light, of course. I use my 85 1.2 wide open, but not the 35. (EOS 1V body)

I've got the same problem as you, James. EOS 1V and a Nikon V ED scanner are significantly cheaper for me than even going to a 5D; it annoys me that the 1DS Mk2 is five times as expensive as the 1V, if I want to keep the same layout and build quality on a camera.

Manfrotto 680 or 680B. Reasonably light, but will support the weight of the 100-400 nicely, and 4 sections mean it's compact. Obviously takes your existing head, too.

Go to manfrotto.com for pics. Have fun!

Colour rendition + contrast + fast focus + close-ish focussing = 24-70 f2.8, although mine wasn't too sharp 70mm @2.8.

Stunning contrast and sharpness, fast focus and very close minimum focus distance = 35 1.4L (56mm on a 30D?)and it's quite light to heft around.

The 1.2 (Mk2) is a glorious beast and gives artistic control (although it has to be done very carefully) not possible at smaller apertures. It has to be experienced to be believed. I find the focus speed perfectly acceptable for portraits and weddings.(Used on EOS 1V HS)

The L series are really tough (should be P for pro, rather than L for luxury). Ten years ago I dropped my 70-200 2 metres on to a carpetted floor, and it still works beautifully/flawlessly.

I use a Pelican case for really tough or dirty jobs, and a Crumpler backpack when mobility is important (hot, but comfortable even with a heavy load). For light weight, I take my 1V (minus booster) and 35 1.4L or 135 2L.

Neil, it's 0.95m for the Canon.

I'm sick of reviews, which is why I want to hear from someone who uses both lenses.

I have the glorious 135L, but want to hear from anyone who owns the 85 1.2 Mk2

as well, if I would gain anything by buying the 85. I shoot weddings in poorly

lit churches (1/30-1/60 sec hand-held), so the 85 would obviously work in

those conditions, but I'm put off by its poor minimum-focus distance, as I

love to do headshots too. Anyone help?

EF 35 1.4L @ f2. Check out www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/35mm/index.htm

I've still got my 70-200 (non IS); the 24-70 has been sold, as my copy was decidely soft at 70mm f2.8, whereas the longer zoom is wonderful, pushing my 135 f2.0 for colour and contrast.

Hi Andrew,

I owned a 24-70 for a while, and although it was beautifully made, the results at 2.8 were indifferent and it was heavy for extended carrying eg at a wedding. I now use a 35 1.4L, which at f2.0 is already healthily stopped down, razor sharp,light but with classic 'L' solid feel and unobtrusive. Price is similar to 24-70, too.

Jeff

On 'bulb', my 1VHS shutter won't stay open if the back is open

(purely to check for dust and hairs), even though the shutter is

still being depressed, but on another identical body, it does stay

open. Is there a problem (with either one)?