jim_hennessy

<p>I have one that I'm trying on a 5DII. So far, I find it works well for landscape and architecture. It's almost too soft in the corners when not stopped down. There is some CA, but not too much. I've only corrected one photo for that so far.<br>

Here are four shots taken with this lens: <a href="http://jimhennessyphoto.com/Recent/">http://jimhennessyphoto.com/Recent/</a></p>

Hi Dennis,

I have a 1290 also. I have also seen that problem. More so with B&W printing. I find

that different paper has a huge effect. I now use Epson only because of this problem.

This weekend, I plan to try and play with the height adjustment. I read a thread where

it was said that this can increase or decrease the dispersion of the ink.

If you find out what works, please let me know.

Thanks

Thanks Bill. That did it. Kind of like a crtl-alt-del.

Jim

I have an EOS 1n. Most of my shooting is on a tripod with the timer

set at 2 sec. Last weekend, I wanted to shoot off the tripod. I

changed the timer by pushing "Drive" then turning the control knob

until it past 10 sec, then an empty square. When I took a shot, it

waited 10 seconds before shooting. The front LED was not flashing as

it would in timer mode. But I had a 10 second delay.

Has anyone out there experienced this?

It will go back to 2 sec with no problem, but 0 sec = 10 seconds.

Jim

I used to own an AIS version of this lens. Excellent lens. When I started to look for a

DSLR body--D100 or S2Pro--I was told that AIS lenses wouldn't meter. You may want

to look into this if you intend to go digital at some point.

I'm thinking, because there are key common parts shared between the two

cameras, that production is an issue. The 10D is different enough for both cameras to

be in the Canon DSLR line. Look at how many film SLR's there are. Now if there really

is a producton bottleneck that is longterm--they may have to choose. I would bet

that it is a temporary problem. And.. I'm hoping that eventually there will be several

Canon DSLR's to choose from.

Yakim,

I already had an old 135mm lens that was given to me. When I bought the adapter

for it, and found how well it worked, it got me thinking about some of the Leica

wides. It sounds like there are a fair amount of lenses that will fit.

Thanks to everyone for the replies and links!

Jim

Hi Tom,

These are R lenses.

I bought an Leica to Canon lens adapter through B&H to use an old Leica 135mm lens

that I had. I know that many wide angle lenses will protrude inwards and may

interfere with the mirror when it flips up. I was wondering if anyone has seen a list of

what Leica lenses will fit without this problem on a Canon EOS 1.

Dave.... lens adapter with Zeiss lenses?????? Please explain. Who makes

this adapter?

Got my slides back. The 17-40 is not bad. My lens--I say that because there is

usually an unknown amount of variance between like lenses--seems to be

more consistant than others I've read about.

At 20mm it seems to be at it's best. With little difference between f/8 and f/16.

At 35mm it is a bit softer. But less than exepected. Still, not much difference

between f/8 through f/16.

This zoom is comparable to many primes. But not a match with the best. I've

used a Tamron 17 3.5. It beats that lens, no problem at 17mm.

I just got mine and will be looking at tests slides this afternoon. I used to have

FD equipment, then Nikon, Leica, back to Nikon... For the first time since my

FD gear, I feel that Canon is making lenses that I want. The 17-40L and 70-

200L are the lenses that made me jump back to Canon. I shoot mostly on a

tripod, so I don't care about speed. A standard 50mm may be good to include

when you do need the speed, and the 17-40 is supposed to be softer around

40mm.

Isn't the 12-24 a G lens? Designed for Digital. For Nikon digital...meaning

small chip? One of the advantages of designing a lens with a small image

circle is supposed to be higher resolution. Could've been more difficult than

simply scaling down a full frame design.

Jody,

I've owned both lenses. The earlier AF lenses had some play (more

clearence) in the front barrel to allow for the autofocus to work smoothly. I took

my AF version back because I couldn't get good results with it. I hear they are

much better now. A friend of mine has a later AF and the sharpness, contrast...

is about the same as my AIS was. They are supposed to be the SAME design.

If you are buying new you may want to consider the AF because of

compatability. The MF version I had was new at B&H. A great lens. I ended

up selling it to get the 28 2.8 AIS. The latest version is very sharp.

I have been scanning more film (this hasn't been a problem with

slides) lately using a Nikon ED4000 and have noticed that I often

have one side (lengthwise) out of focus. This happens more when I use

the manual holder. But I've also noticed it with the film feeder--

especially if the frame is the first or last in the strip.

Is it possible to pre-focus on more than one area so the sanner can

compensate for a non parallel film plane?

I've wanted to try Gigabitfilm, but have not found a source. Has

anyone tried it? Do you have to use Gigabitfilm developer?

For Acros, I've tried Rodinal, Xtol, and finally settled on Paterson FX50. I was

looking for fine grain and sharpness. I havn't tried Neopan 400 yet.

Do you plan to use the 17-35 and have a 20 also? Or are you going to return

the 17-35 and keep the 20mm?

I have a 20mm 3.5 that I picked up cheap at an auction site. I was looking for

an 18mm 3.5 (I used to have one of those), and thought the 20mm would be a

good interim lens. I am happy with the 20mm enough that I am not looking for

an 18. I shoot mainly landscape, for near far shots the 20mm 3.5 works well.

The 3.5 works very well at close distances less so at far distances.