garymoncur
-
Posts
109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by garymoncur
-
-
<p>That doesn't look like camera shake to me,if it is then you must have really poor control of your camera/lens (unlikely :-) kidding) because at 1/500th sec you should be able to get a pretty sharp image even hand held. Too many abberations in the shots and halos/glow on straight lines. It almost looks in the first shot like an internal element has shifted. If it was mine I would be taking it back.</p>
-
<p>Ditto with Mark. Get a faster card. Class 10 is preferable.</p>
-
<p>Just make sure its not the new mkII version of the 18-55is, it is getting slated and seems to be a step backwards for Canon.<br>
The MK I<br>
<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/180-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-ii-test-report--review?start=2"><br /></a>and the new MKII (Ouch!)<br>
-
-
-
<p>Worryingly a search using all parameters of that name and model throws up Zilch and thats a definite caution. You know where to put it dont you ? :-(</p>
-
<p>The Hoka (not Hako ? please re-check) appears to be a re-badged Yongnuo sold in India and therefor trigger voltage should (if its fairly new at least) be OK. Check out the Yongnuo range and visually and via spec sheets confirm if possible which model yours is. Best bet when you get your camera working is to ditch it, from the limited info I found it seems to be a very cheaply made knock off of an already budget product</p>
-
<p>Try here (but skip the first bit about sensors, dont know why they put that at the top of the list it would put most people off) the rest is very useful info.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm">http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm</a></p>
-
<p>This would appear to be it and it is indeed AF and eos fit (one reviewer used it on his 350D (XT to you guys I think)) Only downside is that its a trombone style Zoomer so lens creep on something this age could be a problem.<br>
BTW the first link below takes a long time to load the page be patient<br>
http://photosig.photographyreview.com/mfr/vivitar/35mm-zoom/PRD_388559_3128crx.aspx</p>
<p>Also found this, same lens on a Pentax PK mount but scan down and you will find some shots taken with the lens.</p>
-
<p>I'm with Puppy Face on this one, I have never had the mode dial accidently shift on any of my eos bodies, ever! I did however have this button lock on my eos film bodies all those years ago and I absolutely hated them. Kept trying to change modes quickly and had to remember and push down the stupid button. Trust me its not a speedy one handed operation. Opinions will vary but I was glad to see the back of it.</p>
-
<p>Can you borrow a camera from someone else and use the 24-105 on a different body using these settings that throw up the artifact ? How about a local camera club ?</p>
-
<p>lol, I like it JDM.</p>
-
<p>Wow! no hard hat required Robert that wasn't as bad as I thought in fact all responses were relevant and helpful. I guess they can be humbled into silence sometimes. :-)</p>
-
<p>Now you've done it ! You had to ask that question didnt you. I can hear the puffing of the L lens brigades chests already as there fingers poise over the keyboards getting ready to spout lyrical. lol</p>
-
<p>I have both and the 70-300IS is better for IQ and build, period. The only advantage the 55-250 has is weight.</p>
-
<p>Slightly off topic but I just want to point out for clarity only that, as was mentioned by Colin the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC does indeed have an EF Bayonet but the lens itself conforms to the Canon EF-s version of the EF Bayonet for APS-c sensor cameras only. I know that is what you have but just in case there was any confusion to other readers.<br /> However Colin is also correct in saying it is a superb lens and unfortunately its out of your $300 range (there isnt a lot in the wide range thats better than what you have TBH) but it might be worth hanging off and adding some bucks to your fund. I'm sure the classisfied forum will cough up a good Siggy 10-20 at a good price with a little patience.</p>
<p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Addendum:<br>
Just looked at the classifieds and found this posted yesterday</p>
<p>$385 ! shouldn't take long to add that kinda money to your fund.<br>
Always check out the sites classified sections, lots of well looked after kit from careful owners and I trust the sellers better than some Ebay ads.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Accepted, thank you.<br>
Group Hug ? Anyone ? :-)</p>
-
<p>You may not get to pick and choose the answers you get and I am sorry that only one answer from Craig seemed to be the one that kept you happy</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Thanks Craig! That was what I was looking for </p>
</blockquote>
<p>However people went to the trouble of trying to be helpful and I personally went to some lengths to find any info that may have been helpful in providing you with an answer including an indepth review of the lens. If you had cared to follow the flickr link I posted you would also have found exactly the information Craig graciously supplied you with along with other interesting opinions specific to your question.<br>
Its the diversity of answers, opinions and personal experience from posters that make the forums such a help to many people. You, of course have the ability to take or leave from these posts what you will but those who took the time to read and reply to your post whether you thought it was helpful or not will be sorry they bothered.<br>
I usually ignore snippy posters but this time I felt compelled to reply.<br>
As far as I am concerned, NOW this thread can be closed.</p>
-
<p>You realise in a couple of years (maybe sooner judging by this shot) he will be doing critiques on your work. Ouch!</p>
-
<p>I concur with JDM, I have a 55-250 and I use on my rebel XSi and I use a 70-300is USM on my 50D and the 55-250 throws up some astonishing results for its price point. Tripod mounted and stopped down its hard to tell them apart.<br>
Addendum: Ok our posts crossed there Alexandru, I hear what your saying, that you want to improve optical quality and based on the comparisons you pointed out in that review you are not comparing like for like. That comparison is against more expensive lenses so as JDM says a lens from 1987 is not likely to satisfy even less aggressive pixel peeping. All I can suggest is try before you buy if thats possible. Good Luck.</p>
-
<p>Yes I know that , the first link in the first post is the one about the f4 non USM. The general opinion of the f4 lens reading through forums is that it is not very good optically and I would imagine that it would maybe not hold up well against the 55-250. I offered the f3.5-4.5 links for your information only as an alternative used purchase.<br>
A quick google will get you the info you need, however if you want me to trawl the net for you instead of doing it yourself then look here. :-) just kidding.<br>
Because its such a old lens comparisons are few and far between I'm afraid.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Found it and a review. Puppy Faces comments are further down along with other owners. Seems the f4 push pull zoom non USM was bit of a lemon.</p>
<p><a href="../equipment/canon/70-210.adp">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-210.adp</a></p>
-
<p>Pretty comprehensive review here.<br>
Seems a lot of people on the forums tend to think the older discontinued 3.5-4.5 version is way better optically and is USM as well. See here.<br>
How it stacks against the 55-250 optically might harder to determine but I will keep looking.</p>
<p>I seem to remember Puppy Face had or contributed to a thread about this lens (the f3.5-4.5) so if he reads this he may be able to help.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>I have a Cokin `P` circular PL which vignetted on my Sigma 10-20 at the 10mm end (same filter size as the canon) I didnt want to butcher my Cokin filter holder so I bought a cheapo `P` filter holder from ebay (almost giving them away) and with a small hacksaw and some fine sandpaper I cut off the plastic slots that are used for the square filters and this made the holder very slim, fitted my polariser and voila no vignetting. I dont know if it will vignette on the Canon but the thread size is the same so maybe someone out there could confirm if this is the case. A big advantage is that once adapted you just buy different filter adaptor rings for all your other lenses thread sizes.</p>
<p>Of course if you get the Cokin Z Pro series filters its not a problem but they are expensive and way too big for an SLR IMO.</p>
Canon DSLR model naming strategy
in Canon EOS Mount
Posted