aa2000

...had...

My Canon 28-105mm/f3.5-4.5 was the sharpest lens I ever have. Almost

I cut my fingers on the sharp broken glass edges after I drop it...

Regarding the filter thread size, you can easely attach a step-up

ring (52mm to 58mm) and keep it forever mounted on the lens. You

also need to buy a new, 58mm lens cap. The step-up ring and the cap

are together much less than a new size filter sistem. I'm using this

configuration, and even with TWO filters stacked over the step-up

ring, I don't get wignetting on my slides.

 

<br>

<br>

I would like the f1.4 version, but beside the high price tag, its

barrel distorsion really bothers me (hey, it's a 50mm, which I

expect to be distorsion-free). The f1.8 version shows less

distorsion.

I never understand such issues... Balancing? Distroy the lens mount of the body? Well, I'm using Rebel 2000 with 70-200/2.8L (yes, the much more heavier version) without any problem for more than 3 years. I never had "balancing" issues (I use my camera to take photos, not to compare weights or something). I always hang my camera with this lens monted, on my shoulder, and walking for hours - and the plastic lens mont is still in its place, intact. I even mounted this combo on tripod by puting the camera on the tripod head plate, and nothing hapened. Though, I used a Velbon tripod with Arca Swiss head and RRS plates (yes, I have a RRS plate adapted for my Rebel :)) Heck, I even droped once Rebel+70-200/2.8 and everithing was fine...

I owned this lens for several years. Now I sold it because I found it didn't fit MY needs.

 

There are two aspects:

 

1) wignetting, due optacal obstructions of the stacked filetrs

 

2) light fall off

 

For 1), if you are shooting negatives, then you can stack even 2 filters. You'll get black corners on the nagative, but the printing machines will cut off this area anyway, so in most cases (depending on the printing machine) you'll not see anything. With slides, there is a totally different story. I got dark corners even with only one filter on the lens. If you'll use a slim filter, the problem is solved, tough.

 

The light fall off (2): you'll ALWAYS get fall-off for almost all apertures, but most visible under f8. This is much more evident on slides and uniform areas (eg. sky). Anyway, the light fall off isn't worse than for the 28-80mm consumer lens, let say.

 

To me, this seems to be a good consumer lens, but not suitable for shooting slides or for making big enlargements (quite low resolution, esp. at 105mm end). Also, I noticed severe chromatic aberations at corners. They are easely visible when scanning the negatives at 5400 dpi, but they shouldn't be an issue for small prints.

My 5400 make very sharp scans if I put it in AF mode. You can know when the focus is right if you'll see the grain of the film at 5400 dpi or even less. My scans shows the grain very sharp, so I have no dobt that this unit is able to focus very precise.

If there is anyone just upgrading from EOS 1v to EOS 300D, please let me know if you want to sell that antique piece of rusted metal (of couse, at price of an old rusted piece of metal). :)

I received my unit last Friday, and since outside it was raining all week-end long, I had some of time ti play with my new scanner. Here are few quick notes, written in hury (lots of things to do at office today):

 

- The dynamic range (the real one) seems to be very good; the scans looks perfect to me, regardless they were made from bw negs, color negs, or slides. No noise, and lot of details in the shadows.

 

- I had no chance to play with Nikon 4000 ED, but I have lots of slides scaned by a local lab. The scans made on Minolta 5400 looks at least the same, if not better. Considering that the lab let the Nikon on its default settings, I can get actually better scans from my new Minolta, since I carefully dealing with each frame to scan.

 

- Previously I had an HP-S20 film scanner (2400dpi). Compared to this, Minolta takes way much time to scan one frame, even without ICE.

 

- 60 seconds for color negatives/slides, 5400 dpi, 8b, no ICE, no Grain Dissolver

 

- Approx 30 seconds for BW negatives, 5400 dpi, 8b, no ICE, no Grain Dissolver.

 

- ~15 minutes (!) for color negatives, 5400 dpi, 8b, ICE on, Grain Dissolver on. Not yet tested ICE and Grain Dessolver on slides.

 

- You'll need USB 2.0 or FireWire adapter. An USB 1.1 adapter will backpressure the unit while scanning color films, doubling time.

 

- More will come; you can ask me about the scanner and I'll try to test/investigate and respose.

- Sorry for my english.

Again, you should look very carefuly at your films (base side, preferrably BW negatives). It's very possible to find very fine, horizontal, long scratches. They are visible in strong light reflecting on the film base (not emulsion side). Usually they are not visble on prints/scans, but sometime high-resolution scans (4000dpi) can show them.

 

These scratches are not coming from the lab; I process some of my films at home and I never scratch them because I use manual tanks with reels, no rolls transport.

Hehehe... finally someone that encontered the same problem like me. This issue drove me crazzy for several days, some time ago.

 

Yes, Rebel scratches the film! These are not deep, just almost visible in strong light. After a long investigation, I found that the pressure roll near film spool, the one mounted on the camera back, is the one that scratches the film. I don't know if this defect appears as a result of roll usage in time, or the age doesn't matters.

 

I have used three EOS cameras till now (3000, Rebel, and Elan7), and all of them have such a roll. That means all cameras scaratches the film? Seems so, as I observed the 'defect' on all of three.

 

Guess what? I eliminated that roll from my Rebel, and cuted off it's mounts, so now nothing will touch the film. No more scratches, but the camera have sometime problems in hanging the film leader when a new roll of film is inserted. If I slightly bent the film leader end, then it's fine, and even more, I always get 37 frames from a film.

Most labs doesn't use the right developer for a certain film. They process all BW films with the same developer, which is totally wrong.

 

Before start to process my BW films at home, I got dreadful results on FP4+. Now I know why: the lab processed the film in Neopress HC, which is a very contrasty and grainy developer, or at least with FP4+.

 

Now I'm processing FP4 at home in Ilfosol-S and the results are outstanding, way much better than the ones from the lab.

"The loss is more theirs than mine."

 

I don't think so, because you share ZERO photos in your portfolio.

Well, I know what you feel. Some days ago I shoot a wedding and the f1.8 of this 50mm saved me many times, because the focus was quick and precise in almost total darkness. I had a 28-105mm zoom with me, but it hunted for focus endless when the light was poor, despite USM motor and AF assist light from my flash unit. All that matters in those conditions is the luminosity of the lens, and not the type of AF motor... 50mm/f1.8 + 550 EX + Eye AF + very low light = pure joy to use. :)

The light fall off is 'normal' at wide apertures (approx. f2-f1.4 range) for such a fast, 50mm lens. Relax, all models show it, regardless of brand. Sure, ones can argue that Leica lenses for example are perfect down to the f1.2 or whatever, but I wouldn't pay attn. to them...

I'd go for Canon 20mm, since f1.8 sounds more expensive to me, and you never use f1.8 for lanscape because of limited DOF and lower resolution/contrast.

 

Are you sure you want a 20mm for landscape? I found 24mm to be much better suited for that, but it may be just a personal preference...

OK, I didn't mean to upset you... Sorry for misuderstanding.

 

Good luck,

The sharpness is not the only factor to be considered. I sold my 28-105 mainly because it shown severe flare and light fall-off at all apertures. If you decide for 28-105, don't buy the ver. I, because it have less blades in its diaphragnm. Don't know about the rest of two lenses here, though...

Hmmm... Why did you spent money on an 1v if you don't know basic

features of EOS cameras? :) No offense, just curious.

What I found:

<br><br>

<a

href="http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/">www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110</a>

<br><br>

 

New Tri-X400: HC-110 dil.E : 6.5min (20DC) or 5 min (24DC)

My HC-110 bottle looks exactly the same, and the developer works

fine. Don't worry, go ahead and process your films.

Andy, thanks! Are you sure about this?

 

Since these films are in my fridge from more than 1 month waiting

for processing times, I think I'll give a try and let you all know

about the results.

Lex,

<br><br>

At least for HC-110, the times are different: 7 mins for the old

version, and 3:45 mins for the new one. The difference is quite big

and I'm affraid that I'll burn the film so badly that I can't use

it. I found Tri-X (old) to be very sensitive to over-development -

it goes quickly to black.

Hello,

<br><br>

 

I have four developers available: Kodak HC-110, Ilford Ilfosol-S,

Tetenal Ultrafin, and Ilford Perceptol.

 

<br><br>

Now, having two rolls of new Tri-X 400 film, I found that the tables

show times for it for HC-110 only. But suprise: time=3:45 at 20

Celsius - dil. B.!?? (Bravo, Kodak!) I know that times less than 5

minutes are not recommended for developing due the risk of uneven

processing.

<br><br>

 

The rest of the three developers seems to have times for old version

of Tri-X only, TX (I suppose "TX" is the old version, since on

HC-110 bottle "TX" is the old, and "TX-new" the other one).

Digitaltruth.com didn't help.

 

<br><br>

Does anybody here know the times for the Tri-X in Ilfosol-S (though

this developer is lousy with the old Tri-X), Ultrafin, or Perceptol?

Or maybe a more diluted solution for HC-110 (not B)?

 

<br><br>

Thanks,

The 50mm (for low light indoors) and 28-105mm (for outdoors) is enough. Make sure that you never zoom under 35mm - perspective issues. I doubt the bride or groom would like a portrait taken at 28mm...

 

Have fun,

I don't know about the "IS" and EF-2x "II", but 400/5.6 performs MUCH better than 70-200/2.8 (non-IS) and EF-2x (non-II). The difference is huge. The zoom + 2x shows color aberations, the contrast is not so high, and the image is pretty soft at 200mm x2 and wide open (f5.6).