glenn nk

I have found that some spots are very stubborn, and require several passes with the (moistened) swab. This is assuming that you are using a sensor cleaner of some sort. (aside: this is why I personally doubt the overall effectiveness of the 400D's sensor cleaner system - everyone sooner or later will have spots that will not shake or blow off.)

Another option is to try isopropyl alcohol (isopropanol), high grade (which is 99 percent pure), or methanol (methyl alcohol), also high grade. Both have been used by others - BUT, do not soak the swab - only moisten it or you will have liquid streaks on the sensor (which can be removed if it happens, so don't panic).

I have personally used isopropanol, and the camera shop where I live uses methanol (they also said that isoprop was OK). Isoprop is what is used to clean the heads on tape recorders - it won't dissolve any parts of your camera, but as noted, only moisten the swab.

Try it out, and report back on any success or lack of it - always interested to know how someone does with this problem.

This problem came up recently in another guise on another thread on photonet. I believe the key here is that Neil is using "focus and recompose".

The information on page 80 of the 30D manual offers some help, but little explanation; whereas the following link may clarify things:

http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm

It's really all about trigonometry (triangles).

Jim Britt:

I don't know why the Canon EOS Utility doesn't work for you; it works for me, and as noted above I do not use the card reader.

There are no glitches in the software.

This software works very well in spite of comments to the contrary. Canon designed the electronics and the computational power in the camera - I suspect they have the ability to write software to download pics too. In fact, if anyone should know how to download pics from a Canon camera, it would be Canon.

If you've installed EOS Utility, then I would try uninstalling the software, rebooting the computer, and re-installing the software.

Other than that and the item I mentioned above, I can't think of anything else.

Glenn

I use the USB cable not the card reader - my personal choice, and I have reasons I won't get into.

The USB cable works just fine - except for once when somehow the Communication setting in the menu was set for LAN(WFT-E1) instead of Print/PC.

No camera was detected until I changed it to Print/PC.

I re-focus after any change in focal length with my 24 - 105L, otherwise it would not be in perfect focus. Same with my 17/55.

Incidentally, I find that using the * button to focus and the shutter button to meter works better; so do many others.

I set it under Custom Function 4 on a 30D - and use option (1).

Nilangsu:

Good luck - here's wishing you come home with a winner.

30D quiet?

I wouldn't use it at a funeral for sure.

I wouldn't use it when the bride and groom were saying their vows.

It doesn't scare my subjects - but they are mostly flowers, botanicals, sunsets, scenery, etc.

Previous real camera was a Canon A-1; even when the shutter developed the classical zzzeeeekk noise of these cameras, it was quieter than my 30D.

I just purchased a new lens on the past weekend. I didn't do any elaborate testing using a chart or some other method.

The store had two copies, I took my camera and tripod into the store, set the camera up perpendicular to a wall with bookshelves full of books, and printing supplies, and shot at three focal lengths and four apertures with both lenses.

Took the pics home (I live a ten minute walk from the camera store), compared the results on my computer, and went back and bought the one I liked best. Prior to shooting, I recorded the serial number of each lens.

Certainly this is not a rigourous test, however I was choosing between two Canons (17 - 55 - which is renowned for its sharpness), so I wasn't overly concerned about poor copies; I just wanted to get the best of the two. Incidentally, I could barely tell them apart, and one factor in my choice was that one of them felt smoother when zooming, which may be an indicator of manufacturing quality.

Note that shooting at something with a grid pattern (brick wall, shelving, squares on a chart) serves two purposes:

1) the obvious is that it is a check for distortion (pincushion and barrel).

2) the less obvious is that one can visually check that the optical axis of the lens is perpendicular to the target. Parallel lines of the object will appear parallel in the viewfinder if this is true. This is important to test the acuity at the edges of the lens. If the camera isn't shooting perpendicular to the target, the edges will be at different distances and thus at different focus. Simply pan/tilt the camera on the tripod until the horizontal and vertical lines appear parallel in the viewfinder.

Point 3. of Bob Atkin's comments is absolutely correct.

I have the Tamron SP AF Tele-Converter, which is a 2X converter.

It works with my 24 - 105L which is an EF lens.

It will not work with my 17 - 55 EFS lens - as stated, the rear element mount projects farther back than it does from the 24/105. It simply will not mount to the outer end of the converter.

This is also borne by the rear lens caps; the Canon ones are about 16 mm deep, the Tamron one is just under 12 mm deep.

As for the other comments, I would concur; it is definitely not in the same league as either lens, and the AF which is stellar with both lens, really starts to hunt when the converter is used with the 24/105.

If I had to do it over again, I might buy the 1.4X, but surely not the 2X. I had dreams of getting an effective 1.6 x 105 mm x 2.0 = 336 mm. What I got was something I will hardly ever use (if ever).

To Joshua Szulecki and Steve Dunn:

Ahhh, someone else sees the light. I've been talking this air pump thing for a few months, and it seemed that no one else caught on. Or they politely ignored me because they thought I was nuts.

Any lens that changes volume (most zooms do, but the 10 - 22 does not) will pump air in and out. The question is what path the air takes; if it goes through the lens, the lens will get dirty; if the lens is sealed, the air will have to go through the body and the mirror, focussing screen, and sensor are prime targets.

If air enters the inner spaces of the camera, dust will be sucked in with dust. It would be hard to imagine that all the same dust would be blown out when the air is pushed out, although it would be nice. Unfortunately, dust obeys one of the corollaries of Murphy's Law.

My 24 - 105 is sealed - the air likely comes in through the body - I have to sensor clean quite often. My 17 - 55 is not, but I just got it two days ago, and I'll be watching it carefully.

The current wisdom is DO NOT TOUCH THE MIRROR. It's reflective coating is on the surface you see, and is fragile.

Either have it done by a competent technician or live with it.

The sensor is quite a different beast - it can be safely cleaned. See other thread on 30D sensor.

If I had $20 for every time I cleaned my sensor, I could buy another L lens - well almost.

Paying to have it cleaned and keep it cleaned will soon run down your resources - to say nothing about the amount of time you won't have your camera. Or if you are fortunate enough to have a service centre within an hour's drive from where you live, you will still spend some considerable time driving back and forth.

It's been covered in detail at least five times on Photography On The Net and several times here, plus countless times on Dpreview. Heck, I've given out the detailed instructions a few times myself.

Someone mentioned the adrenalin thing the first time you do it, but it's nothing really. The truth is, I just finished cleaning mine about eight minutes ago - then I signed on to Photo.net and saw this thread.

Adrenalin - not any more.

Briefly I do this on my 30D:

1. make sure battery is charged.

2. in custom functions, set Mirror Lockup to Enable.

3. switch to M mode and set shutter to Bulb.

4. remove lens.

5. press shutter twice, first time locks up mirror, second opens shutter. HOLD SHUTTER BUTTON DOWN - DO NOT RELEASE UNTIL STEP 7. IS COMPLETE.

6. using rocket blower, thoroughly blow sensor and mirror box to get loose dust and any grit out.

7. release shutter button.

8. set aperture to f/22 in Av mode.

9. set mirror lockup to DISABLE.

10. pop up the flash.

11. shoot at a plain light coloured wall or a clear blue sky (no flash required for sky).

12. download picture to computer.

13. view in Zoombrowser or DPP.

14. see spots all over the place.

15. get worked up.

16. take lens off.

17. set mirror lockup to ENABLE.

18. set to M mode (shutter is still in Bulb setting).

19. press shutter button twice - mirror will lock up and shutter will stay open.

20. wet clean - the directions that come with the materials are such that if you can find the shutter and/or can remove and replace a lens, you can clean the sensor.

21. make sure sensor is dry before releasing shutter button. Use good light - it's very shiny and easy to tell if it's dry.

22. re-test and repeat as necessary.

23. when clean, relax and shoot pictures of more interesting things than a wall.

It is kind of sad - the reputation of the 18/55 kit lens, because Canon makes a 17/55 f/2.8 IS USM which is a killer lens for sharpness.

Unfortunately it is the same price as the 24/105L lens. At least it was this afternoon when I checked (price for both at my dealer is $1450 CAD).

Never mind the apples to oranges comparison, this is more like comparing apples to potatoes. The flesh of each has similar colour, but . . . .

The 24/105 works very well for me as a general walk around lens on a 30D. I only need a bit more width which I will soon rectify with a 17 - 55 EFS (tested it this afternoon). The 24/105 lens was selected for what I shoot - closeup stills of flowers, landscapes, some street stuff, and a bit of family pics, (but this is not portrait work).

I would seldom be able to utilize a 85 mm prime unless it was a true macro.

It really comes down to what the user needs, and I can't answer that.

On the flare issue (which was a problem with early releases):

From the digital-picture.com:

Flare is very well controlled with one exception. In very early models of this lens, a very bright point light source positioned precisely in the corner of a full frame viewfinder with the lens set to 24 mm and not stopped down much will result in an often beautiful but generally not wanted unusual rays of flare. The rays get smaller as the lens is stopped down. The rays fade away as is increased until completely disappearing at 35 mm or so. Canon has posted a service notice acknowledging the flare problem and will repair any affected lenses at no charge. Beware of this issue if buying a used lens as it may or may not have been repaired. End of quote.

Thanks to Robin Sibson for the information on the alternate hood.

I agree with the users of the hand method - it works well and is always, well - handy.

Some very good and thoughtful comments here; I'll offer my personal take:

I had been using Pentax from 1962, when I discovered the Canon A-1 in September 1980. It blew me away with it's rugged build, classy black finish, and host of features (no AF yet).

I used the A-1 until September 2006, when I updated a bit to the 30D.

Although AF is handy and I confess I use it a lot, it isn't a necessity by any means as I don't often shoot moving targets. Consequently it doesn't attain landmark status with me and thus the advent of AF cameras doesn't seem as important.

I may be wrong, but my impression is that the A-1 and the AE-1 cameras were when Canon really took over. I noticed a lot of A-1/AE-1 shooters wherever I went, and not nearly as many Nikons and Pentaxes.

Further to Bob King's comments:

I recall an expression I read years ago on the bottom of a small box of wooden matches. It is by John Ruskin, 1818 - 1900; English essayist, poet, and social commentator:

"There is nothing that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man's lawful prey"

I have often used this philosophy as a guide when selecting items that I wish to last for a long time - particularly photography equipment.

There are reasons that some lenses cost more, and in a competitive market such as lenses, I don't believe it can be solely attributed to the desire for profit.

Incidentally, this (Canon) lens will be my next one.

My mistake, they do use green rings - on the DO lenses.

Could not find the referenced lens anywhere on the canon.uk site though. Seems odd.

Interestingly, the spelling and grammar on the real UK site are impeccable as opposed to the referenced site.

That's really a cool looking lens with its green ring. This might be "Canon's" new look. But wait, isn't green somebody else's ring colour?

Hmmmm . . . . ?

M. Barbu:

Thanks for the link - guess I'll be sticking with DPP.

Ben:

I'm personally struggling with the Canon 10 - 22 and the Canon 17 - 55. I had pretty well made my mind up on the 10 -22 to augment my 24 - 105, and then discovered the 17 - 55; I've read most of the user reviews (as opposed to magazine reviews) on the Fred Miranda site, and it's hard to find anyone that faults this lens - except for the dust problem which not everyone has confirmed.

It would appear that you've done the same research as have I.

If I owned it and made comments, that would only be one opinion; the Fred Miranda site often has well over 100 comments from "real live users" on one lens alone.

So, I can't offer you any advice from hands on experience, however my inclination is to listen to the comments from dozens of actual owners, rather than the opinion of a single user.

Another site is www.Photozone.de

Sorry, I haven't figured out how to get a link to work on this site.

Rick:

You are getting the hang of things very quickly - congratulations.

To date, the only Canon that has dust cleaning is the 400D.

But I would suspect that others will be coming out soon.

These Japanese camera companies (I've been using them since 1962) really do their research, and I'm sure they've found that the system is beneficial. It isn't my personal choice, as I'd rather have fewer gizmos than more gizmos to break down. That's funny isn't it, because I'm an IS fan!

I have this lens; in fact it is my only lens to date. The only thing I'm missing is some shorter focal lengths on my 30D. In time I will add a wide angle zoom.

IS works extremely well as I shoot primarily stills. If you shoot action something faster might help.

However, I often hear this f/4 lens compared to f/2.8 lenses as though f/2.8 was vastly superior. As far as I know, this is only one stop. When I shot film, one stop was the standard bracket on important shots.

If you shoot action, and need one more stop, upping the ISO is a solution, particularly with our Canons which perform relatively well at higher ISO values.

This lens is one of Canon's best weather-sealed L series lenses. A fellow on another forum showed us New Year's Eve pictures with this lens on a sealed body - in bubbles. The battery compartment was dripping wet, the CF card was soaking wet, but the innards of the lens and camera were fine. With a few hours drying out, and with a new CF card, the cam kept shooting. This lens is sealed.

Mine has been in the rain (I protected the camera body as it's not sealed). The biggest problem in the rain was raindrops blowing onto the filter!

However if you do a lot of action, then the f/2.8 solution may be better, but for versatility and IQ, this is one tough cookie to beat.