mike_clinard1

I’ll include two more Ansel Adams books…

Ansel Adams by Kate F. Jennings (hardback version)

Yosemite Ansel Adams by Andrea G. Stillman  (Softback version)

Nice clean Series 1 Vivitar 35-85 f2.8 lens with hood in Canon FD mount. No issues, clean, crisp glass and mount. Great for your old FD A series camera or to use with adapter for your mirrorless video camera. $95 shipped USA only, payment via USPS money order.
 

Make me an offer…

Shots look good, very sharp, which is an attribute to the Canon L lens. The only non-L lens I have is the 85mm 1.8. It too, is very sharp.

Can’t figure out how to edit listing…. 
 

Lower price…$125 shipped.

I found a reference from Canon where they recommend the PX28 silver oxide battery due to less battery drain and also differences in exposure metering. I don’t really understand the technical side of it, but I ordered PX28 silver oxide batteries for my A-1 and AV-1 cameras.

WTS my copy of “Ansel Adams at 100” book. It’s the first edition in very good to excellent condition with print and info sheet, both unopened. No tears, folds or damage. Includes original box. $175 shipped. USPS money order only.

Thanks Ken for the quick reply.

I had a number of A series Canon cameras back in the late 70’s and eventually moved to digital. Been thinking about getting back into film and picking up an A-1 camera. My question concerns the battery, specifically the PX28, which originally was a silver oxide battery. Now they are lithium. I seem to remember back then the lithium batteries caused the internal metering to be off. Canon recommended using only silver oxide batteries.  I don’t see this recommended any more on the latest A-series camera blogs.I did find this on the KEH website.

Special Note: The AT-1 is the one camera in the A series line that MUST have a silver-oxide battery; no lithium or alkaline substitutes should be used.

I have always had good success with KEH equipment and, like you, have found their ratings to be very conservative.

100-400mm 1:4.5 - 5.6 L IS USM EF Mount

Canon Lens and Mount Covers

Canon Tripod Mount Ring B(W)

Tiffen 77mm UV Filter

Canon Hood ET-83C

Canon Lens Bag

Original box and papers

$1425 Shipped and insured

I used the 24-85 when I first got my 10D and really enjoyed it's flexibility and convenience. For the money, it's hard to beat.

I did move up to the 17-40 in order to get a wider lens. The 24-85 is now back on my EOS-3 where it fits right in with my 70-200 F4.

I really don't think you will go wrong with either of your choices. See if you can try them first at you local dealer or from someone you know who has either one.

I recently picked up a Lowepro Photo Trekker and have been working on

trying to fit my equipment in the most efficient manner. It's like

solving a Rubic's cube, except stickier (velcro)! I have tried so

many configurations, that I finally put it down and walked away.

So... I seek your advise, especially those with photos of your best

layout design. I'm trying to fit the following in this bag.

Canon 10D w/17-40L (hood reversed)

Canon EOS-3 w/24-85 (hood reversed)

Canon 100-400L (hood reversed)

Canon 70-200 F4.0L (hood reversed)

Canon 550EZ

Batteries (2)

25mm Extender

Any suggestion??

Cathy,

Like you, I have tried many different types of bags and so far, I have ended up with two that I use the most.

I purchased a Tamrac 767 rolling case last year and really like it. However, it is a little large for most carry-on standards. I measure it to be 24x11x14. Delta list their requirements as 22x14x9.

It's a great case, well built, with plenty of room, but it's a little much for shooting around town or out in the wild. It now is used to store my equipment in the house.

My most used bag is the LowePro Mini Trekker. I carry 2 Canon bodies, a 70-200 f4, 17-40 f4, 24-85, 550ex flash, battery and charger, film and media cards. It's packed, but it's all there when I need it.

You may want to look at something a little smaller than the 767. LowePro now makes a rolling Mini Trekker... Good Luck!!

I'll second the vote on the 24-85 and the 70-200/F4L. Both use 67mm filters and compliment each other very well. This is my EOS-3 combo.

I do have the 17-40L, but it typically stays on my 10D. It is somewhat heavier than the 24-85 and cost twice as much.

I believe you will be happy with the 24-85 and 70-200 combo.

Thanks for the responses. I tried the tape and paint method, but the quickest seems to be Max's, ie..." ...extend one leg to the height and ....". This is my current method.

I suppose I'm just getting lazy in my old age and thought it may be quicker to optimize the tripod's maximum height to my normal standing height. It would be smart to cut the smaller legs, if I elect to "customize" it. I never use it at it's maximum extended height, because it is so awkward (for me) to use that way.

I have a Manfrotto 3021 tripod with a Kaiser medium pro-ball head and

I am 5'10" tall. When my camera (10D) is mounted I cannot see the LCD

display or the controls on it without loosening the head and tilting

it towards me.

I would like to be able to extend the legs to their max, with the

center column all the way down and it be at my optimum height. Is it

possible to shorten the legs 4" to 6" without damaging it.

Frank...

We learn more through our mistakes than from our successes.

I can't even figure out how to mount my camera to the universal plate without turning either the camera or the entire head. When you turn the plate it unscrews from the stud.

Call me dumb...if you want, but this is not like any head I've ever used.

Is there anyone who is familiar with this head. (I have email Kaiser via their web site)

Thanks... Mike

I recently purchased the Kaiser medium pro ballhead with the

universal plate and want to adapt it to an Arca style plate. It looks

like I'll have to attach either RRS or Kirk plates directly on top of

the universal plate, which I prefer not to do, as it is adding more

mass on top.

The problem is the stud on the ball is not threaded, but instead has

a slotted cavity that holds a reversible stud that in turn is held in

place by the universal plate. I have to turn the entire head to screw

the camera (EOS-3) onto the plate.

This seems very awkward. Both Kirk and RRS suggest screwing their

plate, with Loctite, onto the universal plate. They admit it's not

the best solution, but that's all they can offer.

Have any of you had similar problems upgrading this head. Maybe I

should just return it and buy the Kirk. It seems like this is too

much sugar for a dime.

I am about to start a 24 shot project shooting a roll slide film and

want to use "My World Up Close" as a theme. I do not get to see the

processed film until after completion, as it is turned in unprocessed.

My problem is how good of close-ups can I make with my existing

equipment or what are my best lens options using;

EOS 3 body, 17-40 f4L, 70-200 f4L, 100-400 L, 25mm extender tube,

tripod, & shutter release cable.

I realize none of these are macro lens, but I want to use what I have

and only have one shot at this project. I am open to purchasing a set

of close-up diopter filters (67mm or 77mm), but which lens will give

me the best macro?

Thanks in advance for your ideas.

I am considering the purchase of a Bogen 488RC4 ball head, which

comes with the 3271 plate. I have an EOS-3 and a 10D along with

several lens of which the largest range from the 70-200 F4L to the

100-400L.

To get the most efficient use of this head, I assume I need to get

extra plates for these two lens. Can anyone tell me if this plate

works OK with the base of the lens collar on these lens? They look a

lot larger than the base.

Peter,

Welcome to the "Gotta Have It" world. I have been through this and probably will go through it again, but during last venture, I believe I made myself happy AND saved some money.

I consolidated and now have two carry lens for my 10D. My primary is the 24-85, which I love, and when needed I use my 70-200 F4L (both use 67mm filters). If in an extreme need, I pick up my auxillary bag, which has my 20mm 2.8 and my 100-400L.

It all depends on what I am shooting that day. I tried the 28-70L and the 70-200 2.8L and decided they were too heavy and awkward for my needs. I find that I tend to carry my equipment more since I have shifted to these two lens (24-85 & 70-200 F4L).

I am happy with my decision and have a little extra money in my pocket!!

I need to verify if the databack on my Elan IIe is working without

running a roll of film thru it. I haven't used it recently and want

to sell it. The date will show, but to the best of my memory, when I

tried to test it with a roll of film, I never got an imprint.

I have never had a lens that uses the push-pull zoom and would like

to hear from users of this lens, especially those who own the twist

type zooms and the push-pull. Is it confusing switching from one type

to another? I also read about the push-pull sucking in dust. I can't

imagine Canon making an "L" lens that would draw in dust.

My question really concerns the 100-400L since I am considering one

and will have to order it sight unseen.