doug_nelson3

<p>I looked at reviews of the FA 24, and found the IQ (of the sample reviewed) unacceptable. The DA 21 lives on my K-r. I put up with the edges and corners that never begin to catch up because of the incredibly compact, convenient carry. I use an Oympus OM 24mm f 2.8 with a Leitax adapter, single-coated version, SHARP (and cheap) for when I MUST have overall sharpness, but we're talkin' manual focus or hyperfocal setting. In real-world use, I find sharp edges and corners really don't much matter.</p>

<p>The 35 f2 is reviewed at photozone.de on the Canon full-frame page. The lens actually acquits itself rather well, outperforming or equalling 35mm performance of that focal length on most zooms. My most used lens has been, for years, a 35. I would consider the 50 as well, or the 50mm macro, distortion-free and VERY sharp (and cheap). Depending on your shooting style, you might want the 50mm f 1.4 for blurring out your background, although the 50 mac can do this also, though not at f 1.4. When I go with only two lenses, however, it's the 35 (or 28) and an 85 f1.8. It's my 50 that gets left behind.</p>

<p>I have the family S95 here in my briefcase, let's see... There is a little play in the control ring, and, yes, that's probably what the little rattle is. I can't get any noise out of the LCD, though. After several false starts with cheapies, I settled on the S95 as the 'latest and greatest" S100 was being introduced. We love the S95; the IQ is astounding for a P&S. Shoot a lot with it this weekend and sure it's OK.</p>

<p>Thanks to all for your help. The 100 f4 screwmount with the easily available extension tube might actually be cheap, do the job, and be usable on both Pentax and Canon. The clincher is the longer and smoother focus function that would make manual focus easier. Yet, the super-sharp Sigma 70 and Tamron 90 macros beckon as serving both short tele and macro functions. I am not seeing enough in the 100 f 2.8 Pentax macros to justify the $600+ price tag.</p>

<p>I have tentatively settled on the Tamron 90mm Di for it's reasonable cost, 1:1 capability and for my Canon full-frame via an adapter. The ONLY drawback seems to be size/weight. I also see decent deals on the 50mm Pentax macros and see a great buy on a 50mm f2.8 F version. As I have a 50mm macro for my Canon, I dislike the need for extension tubes to get 1:1 and I'd have to get impractically close for a lot of macro subjects. What's left are the 100mm Pentax macro versions, as they seem good to 1:1, but can't be used on the Canon due to the APS-C coverage. Any thoughts from my Pentax friends? Of course, I have more macro choices if I leave macro for the Canon only.</p>

<p>I don't use Epson's Sharpen feature. Sharpen as a last step in your imaging software, some variation of Unsharp Mask or other sharpening algorithm. I don't trust one-button sharpening.<br />I don't like Epson's dust removal; I find it is destructive to the image. I use Digital Ice in the Speed setting. You might have to go after big dust specs with the clone tool. <br />Use Gamma 2.2 if you are on a Windows machine. Isn't 1.8 for MAC's? Be sure you're getting a high bit image to work with in Lightroom, so that what you do is less destructive to the Image. THEN, convert to 8-bit.<br />Try 1200 PPI and see if it looks any better to you.</p>

<p>Thanks to all for your help. The seller has agreed to take it back, even though there was a 'no returns" in the ad. It looks as if he sells a lot more stuff than photo gear and that he never removed the rear cap.</p>

<p>PJ, Yes, I saw that. I set it on manual just to get a shot of a continuous tone to see if the oil slick shows up. It just surprised me when it started slamming back and forth. If that's normal behavior when shooting at clear sky . . . Focus seems normal when taking normal pics, and the lens seems every bit as sharp as it is said to be. The internal oil slick seems a matter of oily aperture blades that got oil on the glass. I've yet to see it in any shots, but it is awfully close to the plane of focus.</p>

<p>Just received a "Mint" DA70 on the auction site. It has an oil slick visible from the rear, on one of the inner elements. Nothing like this visible from the front, outside barrel looks mint. So when I put it on my K-r to take shots of solid-colored surfaces to see if stains show up, it won't focus on the sky; it just slams back and forth like a macro that can't find focus. Anyone see anything like this seen on a DA lens? Am in negotiation with this seller.</p>

<p>If cost is a factor, the Canon S95 can be had for $300 or LESS, to make room for the "latest and greatest". After trying el cheapo point 'n shoots, I did what I should have done in the first place, bought the S95.</p>

<p>Martin<br>

Adobe still offers the DNG converter free. Download and open it and it will ask for the folder in which you have your Canon RAW's. Tell it to Convert, and go have a cup of coffee. The resulting DNG's will open easily and you don't have to upgrade your PS. I am still using CS2. I do, however, plan to buy Adobe Lightroom 3 when the new latest and greatest come out and LR3 becomes cheaper.</p>

<p>My Leica minimal kit is the 35 Summicron R (55 filter) and a Leicaflex SL. The CL and lenses went because the body was just too fragile and unreliable. My Leicaflex is worth so little that I may as well keep it. I use the 35 'cron on a Canon 5D2 with an adapter, also. On a recent vacation, the 35 did 85% of my digital shots.</p>

<p>Fotodiox has just such an adapter. It is not, as far as I know, dependent on screw spacing. It's cost you about $20 US to find out, and you can probably return it if it doesn't work for you.</p>

<p>The tiny Olympus Stylus Epic had a fixed autofocus 35mm f 2.8 lens that was extremely sharp and had little visible barrel distortion. It blew away the manual/or zone focus Olympus XA series in optical quality. It got rave reviews from the photo mags in its day. They are still available once in a while.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/best19_21.html">http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/best19_21.html</a> specifically addresses 21's.</p>

<p>You said "cost effective". You rattled my cage. If you really like the 21mm focal length, a prime might be what you want. If, like me, you rarely need 21 or wider, you're better off having that focal length in a zoom. But if 21 is what you want, check out <a href="http://www.16-9.net/">www.16-9.net</a>. Some links are broken, but I remember the Olympus OM 21mm f 3.5 and 21 f2 being highly regarded, the f 3.5 being cheaper and just as sharp, if not better. I like the <a href="http://www.leitax.com/">www.leitax.com</a> adapter, but the Fotodiox will work just as well.</p>

<p>See <a href="http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_db.html">http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_db.html</a> and<br /><a href="http://www.leitax.com/Zeiss-Contax-lenses-for-Canon-cameras.html">http://www.leitax.com/Zeiss-Contax-lenses-for-Canon-cameras.html</a><br />Contax lenses are highly regarded. However, these sites point out some mirror clearance issues on some lenses on some bodies. You can save a lot of hassle, however, by buying Zeiss lenses in their modern iteration, in the EOS mount. They are expensive.<br /><a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/28mm_3.html">http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/28mm_3.html</a> also talks about Contax lenses being used with adapters, although the little Tessar isn't mentioned. As good as many EOS lenses are - 50mm f 1.4, 85mm f 1.8, 100mm f 2.8 macro USM to mention a few, I don't see any sense in fooling with adapted manual focus lenses, EXCEPT for 21's, 24's and 28's.</p>

<p>I've had my 5DMkII a few months. I must press the joystick repeatedly to get the Quick Screen to come up. A drop of mist or sweat would fry it. It IS a big deal; I sweat like a crack addict in warm weather. Weather sealing it would be no big deal. I expect better from a $2,500 -3,000 camera.<br>

The button for quick setting the focus points is way too sensitive and poorly placed. At least a third of the time I don't get any post-shot view, because I've hit it accidentally. I use a hand grip, instead of a shoulder strap, which is part of my problem.<br>

Ditto on the viewfinder level.</p>

<p>I'm afraid we'll have to realize that digital cameras are no more worthy of sentiment than old software. We have to replace the computer behind the lens when it dies. Maybe the lenses are worth some feelings . . . You younger folks are as attached to your digital SLR's as I was to my Canon F-1 and Leicaflex SL that I saved for in my youth. I let them go because I can't bother any more with film. I loved these oldies, but I don't see it as my responsibility to document the times when things were made to last a long time.<br />Part of the reason I opted for the Pentax K-r, instead of a K-5 is the lower price for an SLR that has a better screen and better low light performance than my K20D (given to my son). I couldn't see double the money for an SLR with only a few years of service life. Anyway, I wish all of you a long time with your choice of Pentax DSLR, and I congratulate you, Steve T., for your generosity toward a fellow forum member.</p>

<p>When I factor in weak performance at the wide and narrow end many zooms (except the EF 70-200 L variants!), and if you expect decent resolution and performance at full frame, may I suggest the Olympus 24mm f 2.8 (w/ an adapter), the EF 35mm f2, and the EF 50mm f 1.4. These average out to about $300 each, would be nearly as light altogether as the 24-70 L, and would outperform most zooms at each focal length. The 70mm focal length is clearly better covered by the 70 end of your tele zoom. However, fiddling with lens changes may or may not be worth it for you, depending on what you shoot.</p>

<p>SInce the NX100's shoe seems centered on the lens axis, an old rangefinder viewer could go in the shoe. For the FD 35, use a viewer for the 50, for the 24, use a viewer for the 35. At places like Cameraquest, these viewer aren't cheap, but old Soviet era ones exist on auctions for a lot less money. I don't like composing through a screen. I agree with the wag elsewhere who compared it to holding a baby with a dirty diaper. I want to hold the camera to my eye. </p>

<p>My new K-r has GPS settings in the 3rd menu page, but no way to turn it on or off. I don't want it; don't need it. I don't want GPS eating battery power. Pentax support dodged the question.</p>

<p>I would think that the FD 24mm f2 would be a natural for this set-up, yielding a 36 crop, a fairly useful focal length, and very low barrel distortion. Wouldn't the Samsung NX-10 give you a viewfinder?</p>

<p>Olympus OM wides work beautifully on the 5D2. I don't understand all the interest in focusing a wide angle, especially a 21. I use a 24 f 2.8 and simply set hyperfocal distances. These little lenses have hair-trigger focus rings. I have to tape my 24 in place at f8 hyperfocal. I see no point in shelling out for a focus confirmation chip on a 21 or 24. If you must focus a 21 or 24, shell out for the blunderbuss 24 L or one of these drainpipe L zooms. The reason I go though this bother is that the Oly wides are extremely compact and light. They also show minimal barrel distortion. For the few times I need a 24, the Oly weighs little and takes up little space in the bag. I leave the hood on and cover the whole thing with a 3-inch "hood hat".</p>

<p>Mike,<br>

It could be that what we are seeing here calls for a scientific trial on our part, where we control the variables (same lens, scene, light conditions, metering setting, and ISO, using a tripod) and see if our results are consistent (per Dan's advice above).<br>

IF our results, after opening a RAW in post processing, show highlights that can be dealt with and clean shadow areas (a reason for buying the 5D2), it could be that our 5D2's are OK, that they are acting like some digital SLR's. When using my 5D2, I keep a running dialogue in my head for dealing with the scene. I shoot once and look for blinking highlights and/or the highlight train wreck to the right. I then adjust Exposure Compensation to the minus side. I have gotten used to leaving Compensation at a minus 2/3 for grab shots. If the scene presents difficulty, I resort to Partial Metering, placing the partial area half in shadow and half in highlight (the split-the-difference technique), OR place it on evenly lit grass or medium-looking stone and try that. Sounds a bit involved, but What The H, maybe the mental activity will ward off Altzheimer's.</p>