mark_pierlot

Thanks, guys! I've successfully downloaded the latest version of DPP, and thereby solved the problem.

It's a great idea to exchange the 1.2 for a 1.4, but may I suggest the new Sigma Art? It's sharper than the EF 50/1.4, particularly at wider apertures, and much sharper than the 1.2. And Sigma makes a fairly inexpensive USB Dock that enables you to update firmware and make AF micro adjustments, among other things. I've been very happy with my Sigma. It won't save you as much as the EF 50/1.4 would over the 1.2, but it's a better lens than either.

My daughter has an SL1, which I confess I do borrow from time to time, and, like Dave, have always found its viewfinder to be "bright and informative." I realize that the Rebels use pentamirrors instead of true pentaprisms in their viewfinders, but I wouldn't expect this to make much of a difference autofocusing in good light. Manually focusing in poor light might be another story...

Like you, I had a stable of primes and a few zooms. Upon my realization that I used all of the zooms and just a few of the primes, I sold most of the primes, keeping only those that I used. You should definitely sell the 300/4 L, since you have the phenomenal 100-400 L II. As for the other lenses, I'm with those posters who have said that you should determine which focal lengths (and lenses) you use the most, and keep the lenses that have those focal lengths. Regardless of what you do, however, you should keep the 40/2.8. It'll fetch you next to nothing if you sell is, and is such a sweet little lens.

I'm having a problem viewing, editing, and processing images with DPP that have been taken with my daughter's SL1. I'm able to download the images with ImageBrowser, and view them there, but they do not display at all in DPP. Since I have no issues with images taken with my 5DII and 7D, and had no issues with the SL1 images running DPP in Windows 8, I suspect that the problem is a lack compatibility between DPP and Windows 10 with "newer" bodies. Does anyone know of a solution?

I haven't, but I know people who have. The best things about Ed Mika's conversions are that they are DIY and fully reversible. In other words, they are relatively inexpensive, and don't require the destruction of the original lens.

I'm with (the other) Mark. Return it and get your money back. It's not the "legendary" FD 35/2 with the thoriated element, anyway. That superbly sharp lens only goes up to f/16.

I had a 20-35/3.5 L, and found it to be a superb lens. It's very sharp and has great contrast, even wide open. The only reason I sold mine is that I primarily use my EOS kit these days, and have been gradually paring down my extensive collection of FD lenses. If I were you, Bill, I wouldn't hesitate to acquire one.

Redundant post. Please delete.

"Just what is up with paragraph breaks in the new forums? What does it take to do paragraph breaks?" Michael, for paragraph breaks, try pushing your "Enter" key twice (or thrice). And if you go into the "More Options" area, you have just that - more options.

"Using my very own "how much does a 1st class letter cost to mail" index, that Canon A-1 new today would be roughly $1800." That's incredible (in the sense of "hard to believe"), JDM, given that you can pick up a pristine F-1, F-1n or F-1N today for around $200. And it makes me curious about what a new F-1 would cost in today's currency.

<blockquote> <p>Why doesn't anyone seem to worry about what is "best for high light?" I have more problems in bright situations than in low light ones.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> This is exactly my issue, which I think has been addressed to some extent with the improved low ISO DR of the latest Canon sensors. Nonetheless, I'm having a hard time swallowing the exorbitant price of the 5DIV.</p>

<p>Unfortunately for you, the sharpest EF mount 50mm prime short of the uber-expensive Zeiss is the Sigma 50/1.4 Art.</p> <p>I have two Sigma primes, the aforementioned 50mm and the 70/2.8 macro, and have nothing but the highest praise for both of them.</p>

<p>The Samyang 14/2.8 is a great lens - well built and super sharp. It actually outperforms the mighty EF 14/2.8 L, and costs a small fraction of the price.</p> <p>I sold mine to a friend who does ultra-wide work (while I seldom shoot wider than 24mm), and he loves it.</p>

<p>Before I discovered a camera repair guru here locally (in Vancouver, BC), I had John Titterington CLA one of my Canon FD bodies, and he did an excellent job.</p> <p>The SRT-101 was my father's first SLR. He bought it in the late 60's, and used it heavily into the 80's. But, alas, it's now long gone, having corroded internally due to all the salt air he used to shoot in. But a few years ago I found a nice clean one, had it CLA'ed, and gave it to him as a gift. Needless to say, he was very happy. It's definitely a classic camera.</p>

<p>I concur with the others that you'd be much better off paying a little more for a 5DII (which I use) or a 6D. I've seen the former for sale for as little as $500.</p>

<p>Sorry, but the phrase should have read "a<em>n </em>adequately sharp if not spectacular lens."</p>

<p>Thanks for all the advice, gentlemen. It seems that the consensus is that the 135/4 is a adequately sharp if not spectacular lens. It would be good to have at least one 67 lens that focuses closely, even if it's not a true macro. Should I have a hankering to shoot at higher magnification, I have other lenses in my digital and 35mm film kits that go to 1:1.</p>

<p>I have an opportunity to pick up a very clean Pentax 67 135/4 for an excellent price and I have a few of questions about the lens.</p> <p>First, I've heard that it's the only "macro" lens that was made for the Pentax 67 system. Is this correct?</p> <p>Second, I've heard that it's not a true macro (i.e., that it doesn't go to 1:1 magnification without extension). Is this correct?</p> <p>Lastly, I've heard that it's IQ is not up to the standard of most other 67 lenses. So how good is the lens optically, and how well does it perform for general (i.e., non-closeup) shooting?</p> <p>Thanks in advance!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Rick, in your hands, any gear would take fabulous pictures.</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice, David. I'd love to get a MkIV, but can't quite swallow the cost right now. I just upgraded my stereo's speakers and power amplifier a few months ago, so the camera body upgrade is going to have to wait.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Congrats on the 5D MkIV. That's an incredible body.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks for the congratulations, David, except that I don't have a 5DIV. This is how I concluded my original post:</p> <blockquote> <p>I'd be using the lens on my 5DII and 1V bodies.</p> </blockquote> <p>I do, however, have an EF 24-70/2.8 L II, which probably renders getting either of the 35mm primes pointless.</p>

<p>I'm wondering whether anyone has been able to directly compare the image quality of these lenses. All that I've heard and read says they're virtually at par, and it would be silly for me to spend twice the money on the EF if that is indeed the case.</p> <p>I know that their builds are quite different. The Canon is weather sealed, while the Sigma isn't, and the Sigma has a metal barrel as opposed to the Canon's polycarbonate. Both lenses reportedly focus equally well.</p> <p>I'd be using the lens on my 5DII and 1V bodies.</p>

<p>Since it was one of the last FD zooms made, its build quality is poor, but optically it's up there with the 35-105, 20-35 L, and 80-200 L.</p>

<p>I also recommend this move. I replaced my 24/1.4 L II, 35/1.4 L, and 24-70/2.8 L with the 24-70 II, and haven't regretted it for a second. I actually think the IQ of the newer zoom is better than that of either of the primes, and I haven't missed their slightly greater speed. (I have a Sigma 50/1.4 Art for cases when I do need the extra stop.)</p> <p>Go for it!</p>