mark_pierlot

<p>Another way to look at it is the way I do: ignore the hype and try to improve your craft. There's always a "better" camera coming out. If you get caught on the upgrade treadmill, you'll spend more time, energy and money on the gear, and less on photography.</p> <p>For the record, I use a 5DII/7D combination, and see little need to upgrade at this point. Do I think they're the best cameras in the world? No, of course not. Do I wish they were better in some respects? Yes, of course, especially in their low ISO dynamic range. But this doesn't mean I'm going to shell out thousands of dollars just to marginally improve upon them.</p> <p>Another consideration is lenses. And Canon, as we all know, makes superb lenses. If you were to replace your <em>twelve</em> EF lenses with their Nikkor counterparts, not only would you be out many thousands of dollars, you'd also have an inferior set of lenses.</p>

<p>The point of Paul's response is that it's not worth bothering trying to fix your AE-1. Being by far the most proliferate consumer SLR ever made, they're a dime a dozen. </p> <p>Just get another one that doesn't have a problem. You've got millions to choose from...</p>

<p>Thanks for your insightful advice, gentlemen, and for your patience in trying to answer a question that only I can.</p> <p>I should have expected that the advice would run the gamut from "keep them both" through "hold onto one of them" to "sell them both," instead of hoping for an unequivocal way out of my "dilemma."</p> <p>I think what I'm going to do is hang onto the primes through the spring and summer, and try to use them in tandem with my 24-70 to see if they offer any tangible advantage over the zoom. If I do end up letting one of them go, it'll probably be the 24/1.4. I've hung onto it primarily because I like the 35mm perspective, which is about what it offers on my 7D (I also have a 5DII), but whether f/1.4 offers any advantage over f/2.8 at 24mm is an open question.</p>

<p>I have a couple of fast EF primes, a 24/1.4 L II and 35/1.4 L, that have been basically languishing on the shelf since I acquired a 24-70/2.8 L II. As much as I hate to part with the primes, they just aren't getting enough use to justify keeping them. However, I don't want to regret selling them if it turns out that they would have been useful to me after all.</p> <p>So my question is, do any of you have uses for fast wide angle primes that a slightly slower standard zoom cannot provide? (I do also have a Sigma 50/1.4 ART for cases when I need more speed, but of course it doesn't have 24mm or 35mm. And I tend to use flash when I'm shooting family photos indoors.) I have really appreciated the images that the primes have facilitated, but I need some convincing to keep them.</p>

<p>A used 5DII would also do very well for landscape and architecture, and would leave you money left over for a decent EF lens.</p>

<p>I've always been very happy with the performance of my FD 50/1.2 L, and have heard that the EF is inferior. But it would be very difficult (not to mention expensive) to do any direct comparison between them, given that they are used on entirely different platforms.</p> <p>The FD lens commands quite a high price on the used market, while the EF, compared with its retail price, does not. So even if you could adapt the FD lens, it would be an expensive undertaking. Perhaps you should take a look at Sigma 50/1.4 ART. It's obviously a little slower than the EF L, but much sharper.</p>

<p>If I were you, Kristine, I'd look for a used 5DII. Since it's (almost) three generations removed from the current model, and has significantly better image quality than the original 5D, it currently delivers the best "bang for the buck" of any EOS full frame body, at least IMHO.</p> <p>I have had the 5DII since it was released, and haven't begun to exhaust it's potential. Since I don't often shoot in low available light, and shoot only static or slow moving subjects, the virtues of the 5DIII and 6D over those of the 5DII are insignificant to me. I'll only "upgrade" if/when Canon improves the low ISO dynamic range performance of their sensors, like Nikon and Sony have done.</p>

<p>That's quite the run-on sentence, Ben. Have you been reading James Joyce?</p>

<p>I don't find IS to be terribly useful with shorter lenses, although I find it to be indispensable in the 100mm+ range. And I absolutely love my EF 24-70/2.8 L II. Nevertheless, I'm sure that the Tammy is a decent lens. </p>

<p>I wouldn't want to be without a longer telephoto zoom for a backpacking trip, given that I shoot a lot of landscape detail. (I also use a 7D for this application.) And the lens I would recommend without hesitation is the 70-200/4 L IS. It's relatively light and compact, and delivers stellar image quality.</p> <p>Although I've never used the 55-250, I assume that its IQ doesn't come close to that of the 70-200.</p>

<p>At one time I had all of the FD bodies (apart from the more obscure A-series variants such as the AV-1), but now I am left with (multiple copies of each of) just four: F-1/F-1n, F-1N, FTb-N, and EF. I had a couple of T90's, and loved their functionality, but found that I just reached for my EOS 1-V if I wanted to shoot film with a more "modern" camera.</p> <p>Since you already have an F-1N, I would recommend that you get an F-1 or F-1n. They are beautifully built all-mechanical (apart from the meter) bodies. The EF is also a beautiful body, which, in addition to the features Dave has mentioned, has a vertical-travel, metal-bladed shutter. However,the EF is not as customizable as the F-1: it doesn't have interchangeable viewfinders or focusing screens, nor does it support a motor drive.</p>

<p>Since I never shoot wider than 24mm on full frame, and have a 24-70 (as well as 24, 35, and 50mm primes), I personally have no need for the 16-35. But that's just <em>me.</em></p> <p>24-70 and 16-35 quite different focal length ranges. Perhaps you could borrow your friend's 16-35, and see how much shooting you do below 24mm.</p>

<p>Paul's got it. See a link to the AE-1 manual <a href="http://web.mit.edu/adorai/Public/Canon_AE-1_Manual.pdf">here</a>.</p>

<blockquote> <p>AFAIK the East Germans made a Pentacon Six to M42 adapter. can you adapt M42 to EF? - If not you might be out of luck.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Yes, you can. In fact, I used to have a P6-mount Jena Sonnar 180/2.8, which I mounted onto my EF bodies by stacking a P6>M42 adapter onto an M42>EF adapter. The latter adapters are readily available, but the former are not. I got mine online from an eBay vendor in Eastern Europe.<br> <br> Unfortunately, I sold the P6>M42 adapter along with the lens; otherwise, I'd have offered it to you (if you do, indeed, have a P6-mount lens).<br> </p>

<p>So many of the images posted here on photo.net are so staggeringly good that it can be disheartening for those of us who just aren't that skilled. I've been shooting semi-regularly for years, and virtually none of my stuff even approaches the technical or aesthetic quality of the work of, say, Louis Meluso or Rick Drawbridge, to name but two of the talented photographers here.</p> <p>But I keep shooting (and learning) nonetheless, because I love engaging in the art of photography.</p>

<p>$140 seems really cheap for an FD 55/1.2 chrome nose, even if it does have a loose focusing ring. I'm going to give you contrary advice to Dave's, and say that the lens is worth having serviced, particularly since you're evidently so happy with its performance.</p>

<p>Good decision. It's a great lens.</p>

<p>Neither lens is worth the time it takes to worry about the worth of, nor worth the time it would take trying to sell.</p>

<p>Yes, you should send it to a qualified FD repair person.</p>

<p>Per-Christian, it's a great lens and you got it for a great price, so if I were you, I'd definitely send it to a professional for servicing rather than return it or attempt to do the servicing yourself. It shouldn't cost that much to have it serviced. My technician has cleaned oily blades for me for as little as $30.</p>

<p>I'd trade higher dynamic range for pixels any day. I have no issues with the resolutions of my 21 MP Canon 5DII or 18 MP 7D; it's their relatively low DR values (compared with film) that bother me. </p>

<p>Greater low ISO dynamic range would be great in <em>any </em>EOS DSLR. I personally would find that to be much more useful than better high ISO performance. I never shoot above 3200 ISO, but often find myself photographing my kids in the harsh midday sun, when DR demands are the greatest.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Nowhere in Photozone's review do I see where they say its "demontratably sharper" than the EF 14/2.8L II...</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> True, but this is beside my point. You have to read their review of the EF 14/2.8, and compare it to that of the Samyang, to see that the latter is obviously sharper across the frame. So my words stand, notwithstanding your difficulty in understanding them.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I couldn't find a direct compare with the Tamron, but the Samyang is on The-Digital-Picture (pnet will not allow me to post a direct link for some strange reason) and I couldn't live with the difference. Doing astro, you'll want to be wide open and the softness of the Samyang will show. For daylight use you'll stop down to f/8 and the differences still show.</p> <p>I'd rather go with a used Canon, in this particular case, than new Samyang.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> That's odd, because photozone's review has the Samyang coming out demonstrably sharper than the EF 14/2.8 L. Perhaps The-Digital-Picture was testing the earlier, inferior version of the Samyang 14/2.8.<br /> <br /> Photozone's review does note the lens's pronounced mustache-style barrel distortion, which is an issue for architectural photography but not so much for landscapes.</p>

<p>I'm relieved that Lex is okay, but somewhat bummed that yet another photo.net "hero" seems to have left us.</p> <p>JDM von Weinberg's departure was bad enough, but if Lex is gone, that's really sad...</p>