david_e._starr1

<p>Strange question, but I've been trying to find a lens that used to be on my wish list, but it's been years since I thought about it, and I can't seem to find any evidence that it exists anymore. So I'm hoping someone here to find me some info about it on the internet?<br>

These are the details I think I remember:<br>

I think it was a Voigtlander<br />I think it was made somewhat recently, possibly even for specifically Canon EF mount, among others<br />It was manual focus<br />It was white<br />It was a telephoto prime, I want to say 135mm, but maybe not exactly<br />It's rare and has possibly been out of production for a while<br />I think I remember it having incredible bokeh (sorry, I hate that word)</p>

<p>For some reason, I can't seem to find any lenses that are striking me as the lens that I was fascinated with a few years ago. So hopefully someone here knows what lens I'm talking about.<br>

Thanks!</p>

 

<p>Ohh. It appears as though that I am confusing M42 and M-Mount. All the reading I'd done of them on the net so far seemed to refer to them interchangably. But I guess I am mistaken.<br>

I guess I'll just pick up an R4M with my 15mm. :-P</p>

<p>Thanks for being polite about my ignorance!</p>

<p>So, I've played with a Mamiya 1000DTL before, and really enjoyed it, and learning that it sports the M mount is a wonderful thing, but is it just that wonderful? Or are there some M-lenses it will not accept? It is an SLR, after all, and not a rangefinder, so I'd imagine there's got to be SOME lenses that just won't fit to the camera without wrecking the mirror and such.<br>

One lens I want to try shoot with it in particular is the Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5.<br /><a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt_15m.htm">http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt_15m.htm</a><br />Otherwise, the Voigt 35mm f/1.4 in M-mount would be lovely, as well.<br>

Are my suspicions correct, or is this some sort of miracle camera that just loves all M42 lenses?<br>

Thanks!</p>

All good advice, thank you all. But there's still something I don't understand.

 

I've tested it with the 40D, and it doesn't seem to have the problem mentioned earlier, but the 5D might. The whole thing where, if you take a 10s exposure, it'll take 10s to process, and if you take a 5min exposure, it'll take 5min to process, that stuff. The 40D doesn't have that delay, but I guess the 5D does?

 

And if so, if I were to take a couple dozen shorter long exposures and compiled them, wouldn't the trails be more like dashed lines? If half the time, the camera would be processing, theoritcally the star trails would consist of a trail that is... say, an inch long, with a gap that is another inch long, followed by another inch-long trail, so on and so forth.

 

Or am I mistaken?

@G Dan Mitchell:

 

Is that with out without the battery grip?

 

And if I shot RAW and left the NR up to my computer, that would remove the 45-minute wait after the shot, right?

So, I plan to be taking some very long exposures once I get my 5D. Some pitch black nature long exposures, ISO

50, maybe even an ND filter. So I'm thinking my exposure times might be upwards of even 45 minutes to an hour, for

some phenominal star trails.

 

Now, my question is regarding the battery life doing such a thing. Would the single battery have enough juice to keep

the camera on that long? Or would I need the battery grip (which I'm getting regardless), and would that even keep

the camera on long enough?

 

Also, the lens I'd use would not be stabilized.

So, it appears as though my AE-1 has finally developed a light leak. There's no uniformity of any kind to the

occasional splotches of light ruining my shots, so my thinking is that if the film door is jostled a bit, some of the

foam inside isn't springy enough to remain light-tight.

 

So, is there an easy way to fix a light leak like this myself?

I've seen a lot of point-and-shoot sensors experience some wear over time. Increasing amounts of noise began appearing on my images, sometimes pixels would die and produce either black or red splotches on my pictures.<br><br>I haven't had a DSLR sensor fail like this, though. From my experience (as a camera salesman), if it occurs in a DSLR, it occurs straight out of the box. And if it should happen to you, take it back to where you bought it, exchange it for another one, and you're good to go.<br>A) DSLR sensors are not easier to manufacture than P&S sensors, but they ARE easier to manufacture precisely. So DSLR sensors are a good deal more robust.<br>B) Ever burn ants with a microscope? Sensors are basically the ants, and the lens is the microscope. Since, for live preview on P&S cameras to work, the shutter has to stay open and continuously expose the sensor to hot light for extended amounts of time, this decreases the lifespan DRASTICALLY. The lens bakes the sensor under pinpointed light. However, on DSLRs, the sensor spends a VAST majority of its life protected from light by the shutter (unless you have a newer one with live preview, and rely on it to take your shot). The truth is exposing your sensor to harsh light for extended periods of time does damage it. And over time, you'll begin seeing the effects of it. But on a DSLR, the sensor very rarely is exposed to the same kind of conditions as that in a P&S.<br><br>As far as the lifespan of shutters go, they, for the most part, have become very reliable. 40D's shutter is rated for 100,000 actuations, the D300's is rated for 150,000, the D3's is rated for 300,000. After that many pictures, odds are it's time to upgrade anyway.

<br><br>Taking pictures while more are being written to the card doesn't impact anything. Because the images don't go straight to the card. Once the picture is taken, it's then stored on the camera's on-board buffer, and then written to the card. So while you're burst shooting, the buffer is filling up, while it's copying the previous pictures to the memory card. That's why cameras are rated for rates like 6fps for 70 images or so. You can shoot at 6fps, but once you get to that 70th picture, the buffer is full, and needs time to copy pictures to the card before it can continue.

<br><br>And the memory card's age or wear won't change the quality of the written image. They don't really "wear" in the general sense; they either work, or they stop working. No real transition. But if you get a good, reliable brand, format the card regularly as opposed to deleting individual images, and don't put it in any extreme climates, you'll get at least years out of a single card.<br><br><br>But the good ol' days of the tank-like film SLRs are over. Cameras today have more in common with computers than they do with their film counterparts. But that's a good thing to keep it mind. If you dropped your computer from a couple feet, it's toast. Your camera may be a little more robust, but not much. DSLRs these days do require a good deal of babying.

Yeah, I've got a couple used camera shops in the area, so I'm gonna go to those and see what they want. I was just looking for a ballpark with KEH.

 

But this is all very useful information. Thank you!

I'm new to the FD system, and... there's so many acronyms for so many different

things, I don't know what's what, and I don't know what's better than what... so, I'm

just gonna ask you guys.

 

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?

groupsku=CA060000055000&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=searchproducts&i

tem=10&ActivateTOC2=false&ID=&BC=CA&BCC=1&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=

&GCC=&KW=

 

Why is this, the 28mm f2.8 SC BL worth $40, but...

 

 

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?

groupsku=CA06010400375N&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=searchproducts&

item=10&ActivateTOC2=false&ID=&BC=CA&BCC=1&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC

=&GCC=&KW=

 

Why is this 28mm f2.8 with no acronyms worth $90?

 

 

Same condition, but twice the price?

@Gary White<br>Yeah, that is true, but luckily vignetting and CAs are pretty much the two easiest optical flaws to Photoshop out. For a budget, temporary lens, the 70-300 IS wouldn't be so bad.<br><br><br>@Lindsay Dobson<br> About how many shots do you find yourself getting per charge?

Also, I recently heard a complaint about the 5D that I never heard before.

 

Battery life? I heard I'd probably only average about 200-300 shots per charge?

 

That sounds very, very low to me...

Can anyone tell me anything about the battery life of their 5Ds?

 

If it is that bad, I may just skip the telephoto lens and buy the battery grip instead.

@Michael Brossart<br>Yeah, I know the 70-300 IS wouldn't be the best lens to do the job. But for the $450 the lens would cost me, it seemingly the perfect lens to temporarily do the job until I can afford a better one. The resolution on the lens is surprisingly high. The color may not be the world's best, but on a 5D, it's already got an advantage over most, and there's always Photoshop to tweak the colors just a little bit more.<br><br>The way I see it: It's incredibly sharp and incredibly inexpensive. What else matters?<br><br><br>@Aaron Davis<br>I was considering the 40D, as I stated earlier, but... something was so unappealing. First off, I really just dislike the 28-135 IS lens. It's too soft and slow. But the sad part is there's no real substitute that's any better. The 24-105L on a cropped sensor is really kind of pointless. The 17-85 is WAY too distorted at the wide end for me to be happy with. And... just most of the L glass is underwhelmed when put on the 40D. And when comparing the color between the two, the 40D's color was vibrant and punchy, but the color on the 5D was just sublime. So much more subtle and rich. The color, the IQ, and definitely the full frame sensor has got me convinced I want the 5D instead.<br><br>Plus, because of the cropped sensor, I'd need to get an ultra-wide lens just to get a moderately wide angle. Ultra-wides are always so much softer, slower, and lower in contrast. Not to mention more expensive. There's just really so few lenses that mate well with a 40D that would leave me satisfied.<br><br>I figure I'll start out with the 5D. The thing that draws me most to the 40D is the 6fps, and the 5D Mark II is rumored to have it, as well, but I'm not yet sure that I'll need it. 3fps just may be enough for me. And really, the speed is my only complaint about the camera. It may be older technology, but it's been proven to be excellent technology that still trumps most DSLRs. I'd rather wait a few months with the Mark II on the market to see if it is as good or better. If it is, I'll sell or trade in the 5D for the upgrade. And if 3fps turns out to not be enough for me, I'll just upgrade as soon as the Mark II hits the market. My problem is that I'll probably have a lot of other people doing the same thing to compete with.<br><br><br>@Bruce Sturm<br>

Yeah, I've been wanting the 70-200 2.8 non-IS for a long, long time now. I don't know what all the fanfare is about the stabilized version. It's so much softer than its non-stabilized brethren.

lol Well, you could put the lens on there. I don't know if the camera would reject it in manual mode. But uh... it'd certainly break the camera. Which is indeed sad.

Well, I can get the 5D and 24-105 for $2500, or I can get the 5D and 24-70 for $2800 (god bless employee discounts). So... it's only a $300 difference instead of a retail $800 difference.

 

And yeah, I do know that you don't have to aim at people to make them the subject. A couple steps back at 24mm would be more than wide enough.

 

And I was thinking about dabbling in paid wedding photography after getting my setup here, too. One gig would probably earn me back all the money I spend on this.

 

And yeah, it is a little depressing to see someone with a 5D using something like an 18-55. Like wagon wheels on a Porsche. But... I kinda have been toying with the idea of buying a 50mm 1.8, just for some shots with massive vignetting. Occasionally that horrible combination can produce interesting shots. Hence the Lomo appeal.

1) Right, but it'd be nice to have at least some capability on another lens if I don't have time to change.

 

2) I'd like to stay at the lowest ISO possible, even though the noise is very reasonable on the 5D.

 

3) Heh. You're right. I won't be satisfied with the 70-300, but for the price I can get it at, the price to performance ratio is through the roof.

 

4) It's just the depth of field at f4 is so underwhelming. For a portrait/walkaround lens, I would love to get shallow depths of field without having to muck around with my focusing distance. The 24-70 at 2.8 will do that for me.

But the 16-35 isn't a very good walkaround. It has a very wide field of view, but its range stops very early. If I were to do the 16-35 and the 50 and the 70-300, I'd find myself changing lenses very often, which is a cumbersome activity in and of itself, let alone having to carry all three lenses everywhere. With the 24-70, I would probably end up keeping that on most of the time, and end up switching to the 50 once I go inside for a long period of time. And the telephoto is purely for outdoor, far-away nature. So on shoots when I use that, it's all I'd use.

Well, as I said earlier, the 24-105 isn't fast enough for me. I feel the lens is pretty overrated. I think it's one of those things like the 28-135 IS where the lens just wouldn't sell by itself, so they need to package it with a camera.

 

And as I also said earlier, the Canon 50mm 1.4 is only a couple hundred bucks, so the USM is worth it to me. When I'm taking some more creative or important shots, I'll use the Summicron, but for just candid available-light use, the snappy autofocus definitely worth the $250 I have to pay for it.

 

Most of my work is just social candids. That's about 70% of the pictures I take. That's where the Canon 50 comes in. The other 30% (the ones that make it out to the public), are where I took my time to compose the shot instead of just capturing a moment. That's where the Summicron will come in handy.

I think the 24mm on the 24-70 is really all I need as far as wide goes. The 24-105 and 17-40 is just too slow for me. I do a LOT of available light shooting. But my telephoto is mostly going to be used for daytime outdoor shots, so slow isn't a big worry. Plenty of sunlight to go around when I'd use it.

 

But I got carried away with thinking about the 70-200 f4 IS. Because that is really close to the price of the 100-400, which I decided I couldn't afford yet. So... I think I'm back to the 70-300 IS non-DO for now.

 

This first setup is turning out to really just be the beginning of an upgrade path. I'll eventually sell my 5D for the Mark II, and I'll eventually sell the 70-300 for the 100-400. Maybe sell a film camera for the 70-200 2.8 non-IS.

 

And last night I realized I completely forgot about the money I have to spend on a macro lens, too. I'm just going to use the one I planned on using with my 40D, the Sigma 150mm 2.8. Now THAT's a versatile lens! Telephoto action portrait macro!

:-) I get some handy discounts.

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/201-canon-ef-70-300mm-f45-56-usm-is-lab-test-report--review?start=1

 

I read that review on the DO IS, and bearing in mind the resolution charts, it seems like its advantage is really only its size. And I drive everywhere I go. So this doesn't have to travel on a plane. The 70-300 non-DO or the 70-200 f4 will easily fit in my back seat. Hell, the new 800mm would. lol

@BK: Yeah, that's pretty much how I decided on the lenses I have so far. I know exactly how I'll use them. The 50mm 1.4 is a must, the 24-70 is slowly becoming a must, and... the telephoto lens is still up in the air.

 

@Peter: Yeah, after briefly reading reviews, it's clear the IS version is worlds better (despite the non-IS 2.8 being sharper than the stabilized 2.8). I just now need to figure out if 200mm is enough telephoto for me. I luckily work at a Wolf Camera, and have access to this lens. I might be able to borrow it for a day.

Yeah, all the reviews I read of it were tested on a cropped-frame sensor, so of course vignetting wasn't too much of a worry for those.

 

But see, that's exactly the kind of advice I was looking for! I forgot about the 70-200 f4 IS. That lens would put my total purchase at just above $4,000, which means I've only added a grand, despite the much higher quality gear.

 

I'm going to ponder if the stabilization is worth it to me. Because I can get the non-stabilized for the same price as the 70-300.

 

That's fantastic! Thanks for mentioning that lens!

lol Yeah, that's for much, much further down the line, once I have money again to spend on glass. Any telephoto lens I get is going to be a temporary one, so I may as well not go nuts. And the reviews say the price per performance of the 70-300 IS is top notch.

 

Bearing in mind the mass of it... it is kind of intimidating to think about carrying it around. So I may not even get rid of the 70-300, just to have a lighter telephoto for less serious adventures. But that depends on how much I like the 70-300. If it's underwhelming, it can go on eBay when its time comes.

Ah, a 70-300 user! Do you use it on a full frame, or on a cropped camera? If full frame, have you had any bad experiences with vignetting anywhere in its range?

 

Also, I figure 24mm is the widest I'd need. And if I do absolutely feel the need for a wider lens, I can just rent a 16-35 for a day. :-P

Oh, definitely non-DO. The small performance increase isn't worth double the price tag to me. Considering the lens will eventually be replaced with a 100-400, the DO just isn't worth the money to me.