johnson_d.

You were on the right track with the link you posted. The answer is that there are people working on it.

 

http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,111.0.html

What's your total budget and what do you plan on doing with it? If it were me, I'd probably chose a 40D + good non-zoom lenses over anything less + good zooms.

You could've wet cleaned your sensor in less time than it takes to read this thread. It's worth learning to do yourself, if not to save money then at least to save the time and hassle of giving your camera to someone else to do it for you. Don't give in to the FUD mongers.

Well then, if you don't have the money to upgrade then you shouldn't upgrade.

Corner sharpness from the 17-40mm is know to be a little weak. Perhaps this is what you are noticing? The "bad" corners are essentially cropped out when you use your 350D so it's not surprising that this lens would look worse when you use your uncropped 5D. If you post some samples we may be able to provide more specific advice.

I guess there is some value in a summary of what has already been stated, even it if is overly verbose.

How about just keeping the Rebel and buying something like Canon's 10-22mm. Since you are on a budget, is the expense of a 5D system really going to provide that much additional benefit given your stated purpose?

Mack obviously isn't going to offer them to lose money. My answer is no for the simple reason they make no financial sense. If you're looking to feel better, that's different.

I think this foreshadows an upward trend in the value of pork belly futures and an overall softening of global consumer confidence. Then again, what do I know?

Cheeky comments aside, battery restrictions are a fairly straight forward risk reduction given the probability of Lithium batteries spontaneously catching fire. I can see how it's tempting to use it as an example of US government incompetence though.

6.2379%

Here's everything you need to know about flying with batteries in the US.

 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash/ash_programs/hazmat/aircarrier_info/media/airline_passengers_and_batteries.pdf

 

Basically, if you carry spares with you on board you will have no problem. I've never once ran into any difficulty.

I'd wait until I knew what I wanted before parting with my hard earned money. Therefore, I vote for neither.

All I see is that you are rotated about 0.6 degrees from "brick horizontal" and a little bit if barrel distortion. Your image plane also may not be perfectly perpendicular to the wall. The lens looks fine to me.

Holy cow, this is a great example of "paralysis by analysis". Just make a decision and run with it. In the end, it won't make as much difference as the amount of thought you're giving it implies. Or, another way to put it is that if the answer isn't obvious to you then it probably doesn't make much difference anyway.

From the list of all beefs I have with Canon, not linking the meter to the AF point is the largest patty.

A 430EX sounds perfect. It's a good flash that'll meet the vast majority of your needs. As for distance data, I wouldn't worry about it. There are quite a few Canon lenses that don't supply this information either and I've never really noticed any difference in flash performance when using them.

I would factor the cost of fixing the mount and cleaning into the price. Call Canon and find out roughly what that would run and add it to the asking price. On top of that I'd subtract $50 to $100 for the inconvenience. So, maybe $500 or so for the lens?

It doesn't look like the head swivels. That would be a deal breaker for me.

I just checked my last 3 Canon camera photo numbering and each one started at frame 1 when new. I personally wouldn't be happy if they started at anything but 1 but probably not enough so to do anything about it, especially if it was bought through mail order. It's most likely that someone at B&H putzed around with it for who knows what reason. I seriously doubt that any camera would leave a Canon factory with anything but a zero count.

Hawaii - Dust free land of miracles.

$50 here or there hardly seems worth worrying about if you could use the lens.

>>Corporate greed does that...and they don't pay taxes either.<<

 

No kidding, $1.3 trillion/year (US) definitely qualifies as not paying taxes.

Exciting news:

 

CANON U.S.A. PLANTS THE SEED FOR THE CANON FOREST PROGRAM

Canon U.S.A, Inc., a leader in digital imaging, and the American Park Network today announced The Canon Forest Program, a nationwide promotional campaign. Beginning in May and running through August, for every 10 new and existing Canon Generation Green products registered, Canon will plant a tree and offer consumers the opportunity to take part in several volunteer programs that will help to revitalize urban parks, gardens and public lands.

No, it's a goner. I'll give you $100 for it ;).

 

Seriously though, how could it possibly be not worth repairing? I can say with near 100% certainty that a repair will not cost more than a new lens or not likely even half that. Send it to Canon.